GOD's love of his Spouse and Jesus' love of his mother, Mary, and our Spiritual Mother who we venerate through the Holy Rosary to her Son

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Glenn Just a suggestion--- i carry a rosary in my pocket and a crucifix around my neck at all times to remind me who I belong to.. The Holy Mother of GOD is absolutely gorgeous. She is a wonderful mother and she has helped me many times. LOVE IS GRAND.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 19, 2002

Answers

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

I belong to the triune GOD and that is a fact. Jesus is my savior and his mother is my spiritual mother.

-- F Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

It is also a requirement to have your rosary as part of my being a Knight of Columbus.

-- F Bishop (bbbbbb@hhhh.net), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel, you should watch what you say about the Catholic Religion on this forum. That is, make sure that you season your words with a dash of love and a pinch of grace, but never sacrifice the flour of truth! (I am not saying that I do not find myself in disagreeance with the opposit of your stance, of course. ;) But, yes, I am a non-Catholic, Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christian. Though I make many mistakes daily, I find that the Lord's grace has never been insufficient for my needs. I would like to thank the founder of this forum and of this thread for inciting this most beneficial conversation, as well as the Monitor for maintaining it (Though I understand that you, Joel, have had your share of disagreeances with Him or Her). Nevertheless, I am happy to have found a place on the World Wide Web where ideas from both Catholics and Protestants can be expressed and evaluated in an un-biased manner and fashion. Thanks again to all.

-- Frank DiMarco (PipingN@aol.com), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are the Triune GOD. One God. Mary is the Mother of GOD and our mother as Jesus said to John at the Cross and she is mother to all of us. She is not a GOD in any fashion.

-- F Bishop (Fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Franklin is correct. In no way, and under no circumstances is Mary a part of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated. In the Catholic Nicene Creed, is says that the Son was "begotten, not made," and was present before Creation. Jesus is God. Mary is not. Simple as that.

Mary was born and was selected by God to be Jesus's mother on Earth.

"With these statements, the Constitution Lumen gentium wishes to give proper emphasis to the fact that the Blessed Virgin was intimately associated with Christ's redemptive work, becoming the Saviour's 'generous associate', 'in a singular way'.

With the actions of any mother, from the most ordinary to the most demanding, Mary freely co-operated in the work of humanity's salvation in profound and constant harmony with her divine Son."

Joel, nothing in the above statement (from http://www.marymediatrix- resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/cor98_april2.htm) either contradicts Scripture or implies that Mary was in any way God or a god. She was, however, the Mother of God, and a participant in Christ's redemptive plan, to the very end.

Is it any wonder that we, as Catholics, believe that Mary was closer to Jesus Christ than any other human being? So we pray to Mary--we ask her to pray for us. Why would we do that? Why not pray directly to God? It's really quite simple:

Let's take a very simple Bible verse: "For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there.' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Mt 17:20)

I think Jesus Christ makes it perfectly clear that some people have greater faith than others. Faith, in some way that only God knows, is quantifiable. So let me ask you the world's simplest question: Which single human being had/has more faith than any other person on the whole planet in all of history?

Mary.

So, we pray to Mary because, frankly, her faith is greater than ours, and she is closer to Christ than we will ever be (none of us will ever be Jesus's mother). Her prayers really do matter

The Israelites in exodus believed in God. But when they had petitions, such as for food and water, and (to their own demise) meat, and centuries later, for a king, who did they go to? Directly to God? Un unh. It was to Moses, or Aaron, or Samuel. And these men interceded for the people. They spoke to God, gathering the people's petitions into one request.

When Moses struck the rock and water poured out, was it Moses who actually did it? No--Moses was just a man, and a sinner to boot. God did it. When the snake statue cured the Jew's snake bites, was that Moses's magic? Hardly--'twas his intercession to God, and God's own love and mercy that brought relief to his Chosen People.

Joel, are you starting to see the gist here? Mary was way more faithful than Moses; she bore the Word of God in her very womb. Naturally we pray to her, because her faith, which is gargantuan to our own (much less than a "mustard seed," I'm afraid), is a powerful force for good.

I ask you, if Moses, the sinner, could part rivers and bring columns of fire down to earth, why is it so hard to believe that Mary, the Mother of God, pure of sin, can do things so simple as cure the sick, or appear to us, ever proclaiming the victory of Christ?

Because it is not Mary nor Moses who did these things at all, but God, to whom Mary is closer than anyone on Earth or in Heaven.

It's so simple. God bless you on your quest for truth.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 19, 2002.



Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel, Catholics believe that a person does not have to be a god in order to assist believers here on earth. Catholic doctrine places certain "saints" in heaven, and according to the decree of the Universal Religion, Catholics are encouraged to petition these deceased persons as patrons and assistants. (The argument is made that since they are in heaven, they are not indeed deceased.) It should also be noted that there is no guarantee (outside of the Catholic hierarchy) that these souls are indeed in Heaven with the Lord, and so prayer to them is seen as risky, even unholy behaviour to most Protestants, who consider it prayer to the dead.

-- Frank DiMarco (PipingN@aol.com), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

My friend Jeff, it is important to remember that although tradition is important, the Holy Bible must be consulted as a way to test every spirit to see if the message is of God, who never contradicts himself and changes not, throughout eternity. The Bible does indeed state, in Jesus' own words, that John the Baptist is the greatest of all humans who have lived (however even the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he was!). Therefore, unless you can find applicable Biblical passages which point out the supremacy of Mary's faith, it would be advisable to abstain from such claims, as they can be naught but detrimental to your aim of proclaiming and justifying your Catholic faith. Just something to take into consideration for the future is what I am sharing with you my friend. Thank you all for your time, and hang in there, Joel. :)

-- Frank DiMarco (PipingN@aol.com), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Two corrections:

First, the first sentence should read "Fred is correct." (Though I certainly have nothing against Franklin, who is a gentleman and a scholar.)

Second, I said that neither Moses nor Mary performed the miracles, but it was God. This is sort of true, but needs qualifying:

When people of great faith intercede (important word!) on our behalf to God, and perform miracles in His name, it is in fact God's power working through them, but they are also initiators of God's action.

In a sense, I'm comparing Moses's bringing water forth from the stone to Mary's appearence as Our Lady of Guadalupe. Except that Mary's faith is so much greater than Moses's because she was the sinless Mother of Christ who cooperated in our very salvation.

I veered off-topic, too. Joel, your question was, why can we call Mary our Spiritual Mother is she is not God?

That is a good question. Let's look at it this way: your mother said "yes," and thus you were born. You would not have been born otherwise.

Similarly, Mary said, "Let it be done to me according to your will," and thus we were saved. Mary was instrumental to the incarnation, God's Word made flesh. Her loving cooperation was instrumental to our salvation. Since the very fate of our immortal souls relies on the love of Mary, not only in her earthly existence but through the Age of our Lord, we can indeed call her our Spiritual Mother without implying that she is, in any way, God.

Catholics and non-Catholics tend to speak different languages. Catholics observe the symbolic quality of the words "father" and "mother." We use these words knowing fully that they, in themselves, do not signify divinity.

God is The Father, that is sure enough; but he is also our God, our Savior in Jesus Christ, the Creator, the Eternal... and nobody else is any of these things.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 19, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Jeff. --The Joel is getting pretty deep in here. You ought to bring a shovel when you communicate with this young man. He thinks he's a man of heroic faith, but has consistently denied the very words of Jesus Christ in other threads before this one. <>Joel:

I quote you--'' I feel that it is important not to venerate anyone or anything other than the Lord God Almighty who is everyone's savior.'' Do as you please, then. What you ''feel'' is good for a cup of coffee, with another buck-fifty at Starbuck's. Keep it.

Quote:''so, only Jesus is worthy of our worship,''

Nobody worships any other human being, Joel. Sorry to disappoint you, Little man.

Your Pal Frank DiMarco said: ''Therefore, unless you can find applicable Biblical passages which point out the supremacy of Mary's faith, it would be advisable to abstain from such claims, as they can be naught but detrimental to your aim.''

Is that a fact, FD?

How do you know? Better yet, where did you see that written in the Bible? Did Joel show you any passage in the Bible which states that ONLY what is written it its pages is worthy of our belief? Please let us see which passage you see this in. Right now!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Good questions from both of you.

What miracles did Mary do during her life on Earth?

The Virgin Birth, the Visitation (when Mary visited Margaret and baby John the Baptist lept in Elizabeth's womb), not sinning, and raising God to name a few.

And are there any scriptural verses encouraging us to pray to anyone other than the Lord?

Prayer, in and of itself, is communication. Our worship and adoration belongs to God alone; to worship Mary is a sin and a heresy (I've said that before in another thread). Just as Catholics often ask each other to "pray for me," we ask Mary to pray for us. There's really very little difference between the two actions, except that Mary is in Heaven with Christ (how could she possibly be in Hell?) If Mary is alive and well in Heaven, why would it be risky to pray to her (ie: ask for her prayers)?

Consequently, the only verses pertaining to this are the ones that state that Jesus is the one mediator between God and mankind.

Here's a bit from the Catechism:

955: "So it is that the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who sleep [note: not deceased--the soul is immortal] in the peace of Christ..."

"The intercession of the saints. 'Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness... They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as the proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.'"

Catholics do indeed believe wholly that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between humankind and God. But the last line in the above passage is important. Christ came, and he pointed out to his disciples their weakness in faith. Consequently, Scripture also teaches, the Apostles were often at a lost to understand Jesus because of their lack of faith.

"So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."

The "Church" is not just a building full of old Italian guys in the Vatican. It is the whole community of the faithful on earth and in Heaven.

I don't believe that Mary is mentioned as an advocate to Christ or as an exception to this rule, but perhaps I am mistaken.

What kind of mom wouldn't be an advocate to her son? I mean, come on-- does Jesus have to come out and say, "My mother loves me!" for you to believe it?

As well, what does the Bible say about the redemtive work of Mary? I know it speaks volumes about the saving work of the Lord Jesus, but is there anything mentioned in the Good Book concerning Mary's role in your salvation?

Jesus Christ's entire saving work came, not only through his death and resurrection, but from his very incarnation and birth. Mary did the following things:

What more do you want?

And now Franklin,

My friend Jeff, it is important to remember that although tradition is important, the Holy Bible must be consulted as a way to test every spirit to see if the message is of God, who never contradicts himself and changes not, throughout eternity. The Bible does indeed state, in Jesus' own words, that John the Baptist is the greatest of all humans who have lived (however even the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he was!).

Thank you, for that well-phrased and polite question. I was aware of Christ's message to his apostles that John the Baptist was the greatest. But let us take the passage in context:

"Jesus Praises John the Baptist

(7)As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? (8) What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal oalaces. (9) What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. (10) This is the one about whom it is written, 'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' (11) Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (12) From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. (13) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is come."

Franklin:

Jesus Christ is giving a eulegy. You should take note of certain things: 1. John the Baptist is the relevant topic here. The people want to hear about John, not Mary. (John was something of a celebrity) 2. It would have been woefully inappropriate, not to mention boastful and arrogant, for Jesus Christ to boast of his own mother Mary at this time and place. 3. Jesus's followers were not yet aware that he was the Son of God--and he wasn't going to tell them! Remember, Jesus knew the people weren't yet ready to accept him as the Son of God (They would have hailed him as a king, something the devil had already tried to get him to do). Praising his own mother in place of John the Baptist would have made no sense unless the people knew about Jesus's divinity, which Jesus himself explicity made clear he did not want known yet. 4. "Greatest" means many things. John the Baptizer was the greatest of the Old Covenant prophets, a great leader, a great teacher, indeed, greatest in grandeur in bringing people to holiness and repentance. But who, I ask you, a man of common sense, could possibly be closer to Jesus Christ than his own mother?

Are you honestly suggesting that John the Baptist was closer to Christ than was Mary, his mother, who was with him every step of the way until death and beyond? Is not "closeness to Christ" the very thing we were discussing in the first place?

*whew* I'm very tired, and people are waiting for me, so I need to go. I thank you both for the questions. I will be back later.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 19, 2002.



Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Correction: In my answer to Joel's first question, "Margaret" should read "Elizabeth."

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 19, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

JOEL:
You dredged up, copied and pasted the above posts out of past threads, just to sustain your arguments, didn't you? Are you starved for attention? Is the sausage anxious to lower itself into the meat-grinder once more? You came to the right place, Boy Wonder.



-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel:
I think you ought to realize that writing ''Our Eternally Crucified Lord'' is a blasphemy, and you've committed this. His Passion and Death on the cross are, in fact, infinitely worthy of glorification, and instead you are joking about it. How can you call yourself a Christian, if nothing is sacred to you, not even Our Saviour's sacrifice on the cross?

You are truly to be pitied.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Thank you Eugene. I stand corrected. However, not to make excuses, but I was attempting to point out the redundancy and absurdity of continually portraying the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on a cross. I did not mean "eternally crucified" in the sense that he is now dead for all time. I was trying to bring to light the seeming futility of worshipping a Lord who is constantly depicted either as a helpless infant or broken and dead on a splintery cross. Yes, thank the God, the Word did become flesh, and he did suffer and die for you and for me, but as He said, "It is finished." Jesus is on the cross no longer! He is alive and reigning with the Father in Heaven. For a more accurate description of Jesus's present glory than I can hope to give you, please see Revelation or Daniel or Ezekiel. Jesus is indeed Risen. He is Risen indeed!

-- Joel (BlueshoundGE@yahoo.com), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

It is now late, and I am going to retire for the evening. But before I do, let me assure you all that I am not advocating the idea that God spoke to mankind for 3000 years and then simply ceased. I strongly believe the the Lord is still moving and shaking in our present day, as I have seen not only in present day world event, but also in my own heart. However, I do strongly believe that anything which arises and is found to be contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, let the bearer of another gospel be eternally cursed. Paul said that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why I believe that Mary cannot be an additional intercessory for us to our Father in Heaven. Jesus alone is God's chosen mediator. As on Earth, Jesus did not once require his followers to approach him through his mother, so now we may boldly approach the throne of God, and never cease to bring petitions and prayers of all kinds before the Father, who delights in giving his children gifts (please pardon my inconsistency regarding the capitalization of H in "him" and "he", etc). The Bible boldly declares that there is no secondary intercessory or co-redemtrix by which we must be saved. Eugene, I sincerely hope that I am not coming off to you as sounding judgemental or antagonistic. Please feel free to notify me if you feel I have crossed the line between evangelism and attack. Thanks to all who have contributed to this forum, however shadily originated. ;) Good night all, and may the Lord bless you each. Thanks again.

-- Franklin DiMarco (PipingN@aol.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Nite Frank

-- Joel (BlueshoundGE@yahoo.com), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Poor, Clueless Joel,
''The seeming futility of worshipping Jesus Christ?'' --You see His crucifixion as the anti-climax to YOUR acts of worship? Your worship is more important to you than Jesus crucified?

Where is the Bible passage you learned this wisdom from?

*It is finished* could mean ''Now nothing more is necessary.'' Nothing for Joel to say or do or follow. But it really means, ''My work of salvation is consummated.'' The Catholic Church is the first to proclaim this truth; as you fail to understand, Joel.

''I was attempting to point out the redundancy and absurdity of continually portraying the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on a cross.''

Continually ''portraying''??? Is Jesus redundant and absurd, when at His last supper He says: ''Do this in memory of Me?'' Meaning, ''Remember the sacrifice of my Body and Blood'' --?

You make it sound as if no Catholic can possibly imagine Our Saviour in the glory of His Father; and reigning over heaven and earth. Only to YOU did this ever occur?

We celebrate His glory at all the intervals of His holy existence; from the Holy Trinity before all time-- to His incarnation as a True man, to His Holy Childhood, and glorious Ministry; and on to His suffering, death and glorious resurrection. We celebrate His ascension into heaven; in the Creed of the apostles we proclaim His eternal place at the right hand of His eternal Father; and His second coming in glory to judge the living and the dead! We have feast days throughout the liturgical year; in one proclaiming Him Christ the King. King of every created person, place and creature; King and Judge of all Creation.

I suppose you consider all these marvelous things about Jesus Christ ''absurd and redundant''. AND, YES /// We have our love and adoration for Him as a continual and never-ending MEMORY on the altar; the work of our salvation which took place on the holy Cross. We aren't giving worship to a dead Christ, but worshipping the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. On the ''splintery cross'' you find so revolting! The Lord hanging on a Cross is Jesus christ, the Son of God; offered up for the sin of the world. Not to YOUR taste? Well, eat your heart out, Joel.
Get a better Lord if you know one.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel:
Before I forget, let me straighten you out about these two things:

You say-- ''He is Love, what more can I assume than that Jesus Christ is able (and willing!) to hear my prayers (directed by the Holy Spirit) and intercede to the Father on my behalf.''

We all pray to Jesus, Joel, not only non-Catholics. Did you imagine that because I have an option of praying to saints for their assistance-- no MORE prayers are being prayed ? Or that no Catholic ever prays to Jesus; to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit? If the Mother of God can put in a word for me WITH JESUS, HER SON-- This is leaving Jesus OUT of it??? Are you utterly stupid? He might not grant me the time of day; for my sins and unworthiness. For His holy mother, He might say, ''Let's DO IT''; don't you figure? And by the way-- Mary gets RESULTS, Joel! I am a living witness to that!

Here's your words:
''There is such an incomprehensible gap between the Lord and humankind, that it simply doesn't seem plausible that a woman (herself calling God her savior) could be seen as the Mother of God. The earthly mother of Jesus, absolutely!'' --(But not the Mother of God, Joel?)

You don't believe Our Holy Lord and Saviour is God??? Are you saying Jesus is NOT God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the same in substance with the Father Almighty and Holy Spirit-- is not God ???

I see. You can't accept Our Saviour is God. You deny His divinity.

His holy mother Mary is the mother of the Person of Jesus. The PERSON. You cannot deny His divinity nor His humanity; all together, undivided, He is a Person --and GOD!

Mary the Virgin Mother is the Mother of Jesus Christ-- and that, Joel, means she is the Mother of God. You can't deny it without denying Jesus is God. Not in your whole lifetime.
Will you positively state Jesus is not God?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel,

OK, I'm done with the other thing. Back to the coal mines.

First thing I want to say is that my "position" on Mary is not "mine." I learned it, because it is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The first paragraph of your last response seemed to have an inconsistency. On the one hand, you said:

And then you said,

...and claiming God's promise that he is Love, what more can I assume than that Jesus Christ is able (and willing!) to hear my prayers (directed by the Holy Spirit) and intercede to the Father on my behalf.

First off, we need to get some common language between us with regard to the Trinity. People use the water/ice/vapor analogy, or the three- leaf clover analogy (both of which are inadequate, but have some value). It is fair to say that God has three persons that are distinct but not seperate. Thus the Holy Spirit is God, and the Son is God, and both are one with each other, but it is less "correct" to say that the Son is the Holy Spirit. Similarly, water is H2O, and vapor is H20, but water is not vapor. In the clover, leaf 1 is the clover, and leaf 2 is the clover, but leaf 1 is not leaf 2.

My whole point in this is to say that the Son is distinct from the Father (Yahweh) though they are both one in God. If the Son was indistinct from the Father, then calling Jesus the Mediator between God and Man would make no sense. Jesus is our Mediator; he can do this because he was and remains human, being fully human and fully devine. On the other hand, it also makes little sense to apply the word "intercede" to what Christ does. "Intercede" implies that the intercessor is lacking in power and thus is making a request for our well-being. Christ has no need to "intercede,"-- indeed, he is the one who is being interceded.

So, on the one hand, you yourself said that there is an incomprehensible gap between the Lord and humankind. But then you say that you can establish a fully complete connection with Jesus without a moderator. In answer, I'll repeat what I said before: not even the apostles could do that.

You said, quite truly, that Christ is able and willing to hear our prayers. But the problem is not on Jesus's end--it's on ours. We express this by saying we lack faith, or that there is something in us that distorts our nature, making us less than what God created us to be. There is an unwelcome part of us that is a barrier to our faith: sin. If we had faith--not just of a mustard seed, but of potatoes and gravy! Then we could have casual conversations with Jesus in our living rooms, in the most literal sense of the words. But since the Bible teaches us, in example and word, that those with great faith and who are close to God can and do help us in our struggles against sin, that we do in fact rely on them.

Remember, "So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped."

As Catholics, we believe that we are weakened by our sin, and that we need the association with those of greater faith--sort of like Mary (different Mary) was for Martha when Jesus visited their home--in order to come closer to Jesus Christ. I don't think non-Catholics share that view. If we need no Church or saints, and we can connect directly with Christ, then that means that sin is no barrier to Christ? Is sin irrelevant? Does the Bible say that sin is irrelevant?

"it simply doesn't seem plausible that a woman (herself calling God her savior) could be seen as the Mother of God."

First point: Mary was indeed saved by God. She had to have been; if she had any propensity towards sin, she would have been unfit to raise Jesus. We believe that it was necessary that Mary be born without sin so that she could be fit to be the Mother of Christ. We call this the doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

Second point: A woman who touched Jesus's clothes had her hemorrage cured. Think about, for a second, the kind of things that would have happened to Mary having the very same person inside her womb, and then nursing from her breasts! My point is that Mary was not some "ordinary woman." She was chosen by God, sanctified (please note: "sanctified," not "deified") by God, and she was and is, in God's eyes, perfect.

However, intercessor between me and the Almighty? No, that is My Lord's role. What do you think about this?

First, let me say, we must pray to Jesus Christ. That is of utmost importance. But, what "I think," is that this isn't enough, because our own sinfullness makes it not enough. Our faith is tiny, but the beautiful thing is that we are not islands unto ourselves, but a part of a grand, innumerable community, the "Communion of Saints," the whole Church, full of people like us as well as holier than us. Because we believe in the power of faith as written in the Bible, we know that we need the assistance, prayers, and intercessions of those with greater faith than ours.

Franklin:

However, I do strongly believe that anything which arises and is found to be contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, let the bearer of another gospel be eternally cursed.

We are agreed. Have you ever seen this site: http://catholicoutlook.com/ rpv.html? I'm curious to read your response to some of the "changes" made to the Bible in this parody.

Also, with regards to my (rather spontaneous) casting of Jesus's eulegy of John the Baptist--do you have objections to any of the points I raised?

Paul said that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why I believe that Mary cannot be an additional intercessory for us to our Father in Heaven. Jesus alone is God's chosen mediator. As on Earth, Jesus did not once require his followers to approach him through his mother, so now we may boldly approach the throne of God, and never cease to bring petitions and prayers of all kinds before the Father, who delights in giving his children gifts

Indeed, never cease praying to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But a Catholic would say that to do so exclusive, without honoring the Mother of Jesus or any saint, impoverishes Christianity of its communion with the holy and the saved.

The Bible boldly declares that there is no secondary intercessory or co-redemtrix by which we must be saved.

Wait wait. I need a quote for that. Something as explicit as possible.

Thanks all, good night, sleep well, God bless.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Jmj

For information about the Knights of Columbus, try this page.

Franklin, you made one of the most serious errors that some of our "separated brethren" make when they come to converse at a Catholic forum -- namely, thinking that they really know what Catholics believe, when they actually don't know. I'll quote a chunk of one of your posts and then show you what I mean. I'll number the sentences, so that I can refer back to them easily.
"1. ... I do strongly believe that anything which arises and is found to be contradictory to the teaching of the Bible, let the bearer of another gospel be eternally cursed. 2. Paul said that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 3. This is why I believe that Mary cannot be an additional intercessory for us to our Father in Heaven. Jesus alone is God's chosen mediator. 4. As on Earth, Jesus did not once require his followers to approach him through his mother, so now we may boldly approach the throne of God ..."

We Catholics agree with your #1/#2, though I think that you are implying that we do not -- i.e., that we would accept "a new gospel." We would not.
In #3, you wrongly assume that we consider Mary an intercessor with the Father. In reality, we know that Jesus is the only direct mediator with the Father and Mary is (just like any of us Christians) an intercessor with Jesus. [You may never have realized that, in a subordinate way (as members of the Body of Christ), we are mediators with the Father -- which allows us to pray, "Our Father ... give us this day our daily bread ...". Yes, we can speak directly to the Father, Jesus taught us, and he did not tell us to end that prayer with the words, "through Christ our Lord."]
In #4, you wrongly assume that Catholicism requires people to approach Jesus through Mary. There is no such requirement. In reality, almost all of the greatest Catholic collection of prayers -- the prayers of the Mass, which is celebrated about 400,000 times per day -- are not offered through Mary's intercession. Many good Catholics offer most of their private prayers directly to Jesus. A person can be a Catholic without praying the Rosary or any other Marian prayer, though few choose to do this.

So, Franklin, I would request that, from now on, you ask us what we believe, rather than tell us (wrongly) what we believe and then criticize us unjustly. Thanks.

John
PS: Oh, by the way, Franklin, are you another incarnation (alias) of Joel? If not, did you just "meet" him here on 02/19, or had you known him before (e.g., in the same fundamentalist congregation)?

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Bravo and good night, Noble Jeffrey!!!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it,
Joel Baby!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

John,

Thank you for the clarification; your post is definitely a necessary springboard for any further discussion.

I think Franklin is different; he certainly exhibits a different personality. I dunno; only the mod can tell.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Jmj

Hi, Jeffrey.
I want to compliment you on your patience and many excellent answers (above)! I often learn things from you.
I did find one statement that seems to have two flaws that I should call to your attention.
You wrote: "We believe that it was necessary that Mary be born without sin so that she could be fit to be the Mother of Christ. We call this the doctrine of Immaculate Conception."
Actually, the fact that Mary was conceived without sin is what we call the Immaculate Conception (not that she was "born without sin"). And I have always heard that the Church does not teach that the Immaculate Conception was strictly "necessary," but that it was "most fitting." There is a very good reason for this teaching:
Suppose someone took a stand in favor of "necessary," arguing that Jesus could not have been conceived without original sin in the womb of Mary, if she herself had been conceived with original sin. The problem is that this proponent would then have to argue that Mary could not have been conceived without original sin unless St. Ann, her mother, had also been conceived without sin, etc., etc., ad infinitum back to St. Eve.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

John,

Excellent. Thank you for the clarification. I was indede aware the the Immaculate Conception referred to the, uh, conception. But to say that someone was born without sin is certainly not to deny that they were also conceived without it. The two statements are compatible; but I should have been more explicit in my language.

I had always been confused about the nature of the teaching of Immaculate Conception. One one hand, it is Ex Cathedra--it must be believed. On the other hand, it is not necessary, but only "fitting" that it should have been such. But you explain it very well, and I thank you again.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene why can't you show some decency at all?? Is it just impossible?? Jeff was doing a grand job til youcame in here and started to again tear up everyone again. You have no shame at all infact you are being just the one driving all faith down the toilet with you pure sarcacm. There is absolutely no compassion nor love in you but contempt for your fellow man...Sorry Jeff and Joel.. This rubbish is just too much and this man is also too much for all of us christians to bear. He is so full of contempt that I am beginning if there are any prayers worthy of his salvation.

-- FB (nnnn@nnn.net), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

--Love is GRAND, isn't it, FB? You have a corner on the market. Could we buy some of your LOVE?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

It is not marketable Love is learned and earned through the GRACE of our GOD and you are obviously in deep trouble and lack it totally.

-- FRED (iiiii@iiii.net), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Thought you had left the scene, Fred?

Could you-- Finally?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

You first!!!!!!

-- fb (jfj@jfgj.net), February 20, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Thanks, Jeffrey, for mentioning this:
"But to say that someone was born without sin is certainly not to deny that they were also conceived without it. The two statements are compatible; but I should have been more explicit in my language."

I disagree with you about this -- and that is why I recommended the more precise language.
You see, it is taught through Sacred Tradition that St. John the Baptist was conceived in original sin, but born without original sin. He is said to have been cleansed in St. Elizabeth's womb on the day of the Visitation, when the Holy Spirit came upon his mother. That is why the Church celebrates a feast on his earthly birthday (not on his birthday into Heaven, as is done for many other saints). Only three earthly birthdays have feasts -- those of Jesus, Mary, and St. John the Baptist.

So Our Lady was conceived without sin, while John was born without sin.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel--
I felt right away there was a phony air about Franklin and it was John who right away asked if it was Joel with an alias. So

''Many times, I feel that I can express myself better through the use of a nom de plume. Sorry for any confusion''

What confusion? By the way: What good is the alias if you wish to express yourself better? It's still the expression of a lost sheep in the wilderness. Is Jesus Christ GOD, Joel???

Is Jesus the Son of God and Mary's Son? Is Mary not the Mother of God?

You forgot to answer the questions!

How about it, DiMarco? Whose Mama is Mary? Is it Our Lord's Mama? --

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

How interesting! You have no answer.
Why am I not surprised, Joel?

''Besides,''

Besides, You have intentionally insulted and demeaned the mother of Our Divine Saviour. Not once, but many times! You may be sleepy, Joel. But before you sleep tonight, ask His forgiveness for smearing His holy mother! Yes, Jesus' mother-- the same Jesus you claim is everything to you.

Would He accept slurs against the mother who bore Him and nursed Him, and held Him in her arms when He descended from the cross? --Are you sure?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel:
Could you explain to us why you, with an entire Bible's worth of texts, have never for a moment shaken the faith of a single Catholic? You make the Bible seem downright impotent.

Yet, I love and believe all the truth in the Bible. I accept fully the Word of God. I just don't use it like Monopoly money here in this board, for the pleasure of appearing ''saved''.

My faith is in Christ Our Saviour; do I have to send you chapter and verse over the Web to prove it? Oh ye of little faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Looks like you'll just have to wait, Joel. I got tired working at the answers for your friend Kevin. You see, most of what I present here is original. I haven't got tracts to copy from, or fancy software for big jobs. You understand, don't you?

Ciao, and keep the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel,

On another thread you yourself quoted the role of Tradition, but now you can't seem to remember it. You see Joel, the Bible makes up only part of our instructions and knowledge passed down from Jesus and the Apostles. The other part is Sacred Tradition, passed down orally from elder to youth since the time of Christ. This is AS valid for all members of Christ's church as is the Bible. (reread this a few times) You unfortunatly do NOT have access to this as you have turned your back on Christ's church to found your own. The reason that you must always look only to the Bible is in truth that's all you have to work with.

So in answer to your question to Eugene, giving Mary our respect and reverence is Tradition passed down from Christ and the Apostles, so we do it. Someday perhaps you'll be able to share in the fullness of Christ's church, but I think for now you must be content to sit outside in the cold, reading the Bible through the light of the window. One day perhaps you'll be able to shed your pride and come in to the warmth of the Church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Frank:,
I think he's getting ready to fall-- `>:}D

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 21, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

I was kidding on that last post. So before you respond, let me say this. Is it your goal to cause me to fall? Certainly you could probably do that. However, you should not be so eager to see those whom you despise to fall. Who knows when you might be next.

-- Joel (BlueshoundgE@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel and others

I may not agree on some issues with all my Catholic friends but you people that are not Catholic are ignoring much. For one thing Martin luther infact never intended to split the Church and at his death confessed that he had no intent to divide the church and prayed that the divisions occuring at the time would in fact die out. He only wanted the reforms he requested to be done which indeed happened over time.

I said before the early Catholic Christians were the ones that presevered the very Bible that you read today and the same goes for the Jewish Scrolls that we read in the old testament.

The traditions in the Church were established by Christ and the first Apostles and others after them to keep the Church from falling into wrong hands and to keep things consistant about the teachings of the Lord and his Father and the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that caused many of the traditions and sacraments we see to the present day intact through the Pope and his Bishops.

Without the Catholic Church the things you believe in would in fact would be entirely different to this day as we have seen happen within the Old Testament tradition.

So Joel, it is you that needs to adapt to the real Church of Christ and respect her and her teachings, traditions, faith and sacraments. Without them you have only one leg to stand on instead of two.

-- FB (jjdjd@fhfh.net), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

I am confused again about something you said! Tonight you are praising Martin Luthur, well speaking good about him.

Last night you said the complete opposite about Martin Luthur to Chris when you were comparing the forum to the many Heretics and followers of Martin Luthur. Did you find out something different today about him?

David S

-- David S (Stop Fred@aol.com), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

David,

Can you please stop persecuting Fred. His post here made a lot of sense. If your words "you were comparing the forum to the many Heretics and followers of Martin Luthur" are correct, then Fred was talking about the Protestants of today and not Martin Luther himself.

-- - (-@-.-), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

I don't pay attention to anonymous posters. There a dime a dozen.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), February 21, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel:
What's that?
--''Even before the Reformation, there were Bible-believing followers of Christ, devoted to evangelism and fellowship in God's name. Huss, (sp?), and others that? --''

What are you talking about? Hus and the like were not ''followers of Christ.'' They were out and out heretics! Gutenburg, the inventer of the printing press was a good Catholic. The first Bible ever set to type was a Catholic one set by Gutenberg. Who is teaching you this TRIPE? And, for your information-- the ''Reformation'' was a sacreligious crime. (My opinion, not the Church's /) Your ancestors would have hung their heads in shame at a boy like you in their family!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel:
What's that?
--''Even before the Reformation, there were Bible-believing followers of Christ, devoted to evangelism and fellowship in God's name. Huss, (sp?), and others that? --''

What are you talking about? Hus and the like were not ''followers of Christ.'' They were out and out heretics! Gutenburg, the inventer of the printing press was a good Catholic. The first Bible ever set to type was a Catholic one set by Gutenberg. Who is teaching you this TRIPE? And, for your information-- the ''Reformation'' was a sacreligious crime. (My opinion, not the Church's /) Your ancestors would have hung their heads in shame at a boy like you in their family!

Furthermore, you had warnings before about referring to our Holy Father as Wojtyla and you've continued. Let's have some respect for the person of Pope John Paul II-- even if you are an anti-Catholic. I will start referring to YOU in abusive terms if you keep this foolishness up, and it will only be because you asked for it! Our forum has NO obligations to you, Joel.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel

If you took the time to understand the Germanic people youu will see that they have for centuries been the scorn of the Catholic Church and even just before WWII in 1936, Pope Pius XI tried to get the German people to stop the persecution of the Jews and the Catholics too. It was the Germans that started the Reformation with the use of Martin Luther when the Lutheran Church we know today was started. And the formation of the baptist churches were a spinoff of the Lutherans. The rest is history. All MartinLuther wanted was to clean up some rubbish within the Catholic Church that was harming her sacraments and liturgy and other issues. To create another religion was never his real aim. But it indeed happened. He was also a devotee to the Rosary and the Virgin Mary. No I did not say she was a deity either.

-- Fb (jfjfj@nvnv.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Actually, Fred, the Baptists and Quakers were a spinoff of the Anabaptists, who were far more extreme than Lutherans. In fact, Lutherans and Catholics alike warred against the Anabaptists, whose extremely reductionist/fundamentalist take on Scripture was so dangerous to community life and to Christianity as a whole.

Today Anabaptists are much more common and culturally accepted, but they go by the name "non-sectarian Christian" now.

But it's an important distinction to make: Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, Presbyterians, and a few other forms of Christianity are recognized by ecumenical groups as "mainstream." That is to say, they are in serious dialogue with the Catholic Church towards combatting the scandal of divided Christianity.

Baptists, 7th Day Adv's, Quakers and other folk like Joel here exhibit a significantly more anti-Catholic sentiment. They aren't interested in unity or seeking common ground. They'd much rather try and make the Pope's name equal 666. (I can't speak for all of them, of course, but I am working from a historical perspective.)

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel,

Why do you insist on following a man made tradition? When you insist on following Sola Scriptura, you are following a doctrine (of man) that began at least 1500 years after Jesus died for our sins. Prior to that, all Christians believed in the Bible and Sacred Tradition, just as we are told to in the Bible. So when you insist on Bible verses as proof for your beliefs, you are actually going against God's word (for instance 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours).

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Jeffrey

What you have said of the Anabaptists and the rest of the history of the churches is exactly as I have known and learned. I was just trying to be generalistic and tried to be general on that lineage of the offsprings of Catholism and thier offsprings. I do thank you for helping me clearing up that issue for I realize I slipped in not referring to the Anabaptist as the root of the rest as time evolved. I have in past study in my former parish found it amazing how divided the rest of the Christian world is in itself outside the Mainstream Catholic Church and it's immediate offshoots such as the Lutheran Angelican and others. It is crazy when for example the Methodists to this day are still trying to figure out whether out the deity of Christ. Is he GOD or NOT. The Baptists have so many theologies and have so many divisions among themselves that a common ground has never been established in their ranks on many issues. On the issue of sola scriptura, that is such a joke.it denies the role of the Apostles and their roles in setting up the Church as Christ commanded and the traditions and sacraments that Christ clearly created to guide us on our faith journey. I am always thankful of the consistancy of the Homilies I have heard over the years from our Priests and that shows the general consistency that the Catholic Church has been known for. With the others you never know what you will hear and it is not the same from pastor to pastor as we hear from Catholics. Our liturgy is always consistant and to make it perfectly clear, my wife and I just came back from Cancun and attended the Ash Wednesday services and Mass there and were in fact very comfortable while there under the roof of a partially built Church there and I absolutely enjoyed the Mass though it was done in Mexican it still had the flavor that I have become accustomed with in our great Church.

Again to you Jeff I will keep you in my Prayers as you continue in your studies. FRED

-- Fred B (gfgfg@ghg.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

You've spoken well, Fred;
You mention here the well-known and prestigious Baptists. Jimmy Carter, our former President made headlines some time ago rejecting his Baptist congregation after living a Baptist his entire life. He could no longer tolerate what goes on in it.

The good Dr. Billy Graham, a Baptist minister and ''crusader'' since I was a tot, as you once mentioned has only recently mellowed into what we know is a true Christian. I couldn't believe it, but about a month ago, on this same list (Lusenet) a forum calling itself the Christian Church had members ''warning'' each other: ''Look out for Billy Graham. He's no longer orthodox,'' --!

I wonder if Kevin agrees or disagrees with them?

As you said, Fred; we are Catholics united in the Spirit. Not only here in this life, but in the Communion of Saints. That is the Church as Christ founded her! You can assist at any Mass or service in any part of the world, and feel right at home, both with the celebration, the words of our priests and bishops, and the faithful laity. Whatever dissension there may be (superficial) is left at the door, and has no part in our worship of God. No one is given prefernce for his race or color. No one is held in less respect than the Pope himself. Can Kevin or Joel say the same about their reformed bevy of lost sheep? In a pig's eye ! (An unintentional mixed metaphor, Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene

I can say this of Jimmy Carter, he showed me that being a good Christian is more than what the Bible says when he saw the plight of the Russians and the Soviet Bloc in the year osf the Crop failures and his ordered to sent our food surpluses to them. He did it for the people not for their govenment. later the Farmers wanted to lift the planting bans and sent the crop extras to the Soviet Bloc and the Congress rejected that option. I wonder to this day if Jimmy's actions may in some way caused a warming of our relations and the start of teh phenomenon called"GLASTNOST" by Gorbeshov.

The Carters have shown "GOOD WORK" to this day in their fervent ability to carry out the beatitudes to this day. Too bad they were not Catholic, I think they would have become great leaders of our great church. May GOD BLESS, FRED.

-- Fred Bishop (hghgh@mm.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

All very true, Fred. Jimmy Carter is a fine man; and his life as a Baptist was productive enough in Christian charity.

It makes me a humble Catholic to realise that in some protestant denominations there is devotion and true love for God. I recall the words of Jesus about the repentant woman, she who some say was Mary Magdalene washing his holy feet with her tears, and with all her love drying them with her long hair.

He said, ''Because she has loved much, much will be forgiven her.'' Love does indeed cover a multitude of sins. This is very apropos of the non-Catholic who loves Our Lord with all his heart; no matter his errors about Christ's Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Eugene,

I had no intention of ever making another post on any other thread however, since you seem to want me to answer you question, then I will oblige you.

You asked: "I wonder if Kevin agrees or disagrees with them?"

Billy Graham is a false teacher and does not preach what is necessary to be saved. He advocates a "faith only" salvation which is contrary to what the Bible says is necessary to be saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Mary Magdalene -- Oh yes, and I get a boot out of how Christ chastized the man who invited Christ to his house and yet did not wash his feet as he entered as was Jewih custom of the day and Mary did it with the tears from her eyes and humbleness of her heart and love of the Lord.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

You again missed the real point Gene and I made.We are not looking at his teachings the way you do. Billy seldom used the Sola Scriptura as his only source. Today he speaks more clearly of faith and trust in GOD without the damnation that he formally used. Also he has become more forgiving and respectful to the Catholic faith and has become more of a Christian as a result. I may never like all of the things he stands for, but in later life one does in fact become more humble and wiser and it shows in him today. condemnation of others reaps the reward of condemnation in reverse and Billy Graham has become aware of that in recent years. His son disturbs me a lot more than his dad today with some of his rhetoric that his dad did and I hope he calms down soon. It is well known that Billy has been trying to get his son to cool his heels and has not been totally successful to date. I do believe this --TIME HEELS ALL SOULS -- maybe that is what we need to do and wait. Billy did indeed gave a good warm speech last sept at the Cathedral on the events of 9-11. for that he did gain more respect from me. He eluded that age has made him a more humble man and expressed prayers for all the people in that tradedy of all faiths. His kindness is a welcome sight for me to see. I am not saying that I agree with everything he says, just that he has finally come home with us all.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin,
Keep in mind I haven't said Dr. Graham is much closer to being a good Catholic. I said he's turned out very different from the old Billy.

Quote--''Billy Graham is a false teacher and does not preach what is necessary --''

I see. But you do? Let me think. You singled out a comment about Billy Graham which I made this AM. In the very same post I followed like this:

''. . . we are Catholics united in the Spirit. Not only here in this life, but in the Communion of Saints. That is the Church as Christ founded her! You can assist at any Mass or service in any part of the world, and feel right at home, both with the celebration, the words of our priests and bishops, and the faithful laity. Whatever dissension there may be (superficial) is left at the door, and has no part in our worship of God. No one is given prefernce for his race or color. No one is held in less respect than the Pope himself. Can Kevin or Joel say the same about their reformed bevy of lost sheep?''

You gave no reply to that part of my message. May I make one for you?
Reply:''We ARE united. It only looks as if we got *sifted* like wheat. We know better than to stay in the Catholic Church.''

Sifted. In Luke 22, :31-2-- Jesus said to Peter-- ''Simon, Simon; behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may SIFT you (all) as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN''.

Sifted is the same as the Reformation was sifted--into 28,000-odd churches. And why? It's because Peter hasn't strengthened this brethren; Satan has sifted away a number of Christ's sheep. If they had stayed in Peter's care (in the Catholic Church) they would they wouldn't have fallen apart like wheat germ. You ought to read your Bible, Kevin.
Come home to the Church of your own blessed ancestors.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene

May I comment you on that you are perfectly correct and I can say in my words as before that in the Holy Eucharist we will always see the unity of the church through the very Body and Blood of Christ every time that we sttend Mass. The eucharist has opened many doors for me to see God wholly and he is. The Bible alone cannot do it it takes all of the sacraments, bible, faith in God, the traditions that Christ gave us even on the cross. The bible alone cannot do it all, that is a fact that the sola scriptura people will never see. As I have previously stated just think of how the eucharist binds us together as if we were one common loaf with Christ and in Christ. It is the eucharist that makes the Church come to life and that is what those that refuse the Holy Catholic Church don't have. You can say that you will know the Bible word for word, but without the sacraments and the body of Christ and his saving Blood in us daily or weekly a person has absolutely nothing but a bunch of words and they all interpret them differently without hope of unity. Sola Scriptura is a joke and goes nowhere.

So my protestant friends Listen to the true Church of GOD and be saved for without the sacraments and traditions as God gave us you are empty handed and will be rejected at the gate. Sorry but that is the truth and that is all.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

You might just want to add, Joel:

It is with audacity you 2nd-guess Jesus Christ;
Who said to us, ''My flesh is food indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and as I live because of the Father, so--
He who eats me, he also shall live because of me.'' (Jesus Christ-- here prophesied the Holy Eucharist to come. In the Catholic Church He was founding for us.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Joel, I've read that before myself. You'll get no argument from me. Test and see if your blessed ancestors might have been Catholics who also knew those verses. Might surprise you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

You put the folks in your family tree on the same blessed level as Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and cult followers?

But you presume to be saved? That's invincible ignorance. Yup; you've got it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Eugene,

Do you now espouse to be able to speak for me now also? It most certainly seems that way, especially by your statement “May I make one for you?” It isn’t any wonder why people are turned off from this forum from the sarcastic remarks that you make, for example: “I see. But you do?” Not once in my statement did I ever imply any such thing now did I? Oh, and I didn’t realize that I had to make a reply to the other part of the message. This was not intentional. But since you asked, here it is:

The church of Christ says, If you obey the will of God, then you are part of our family. We don’t draw lines of fellowship over race, ethnic background, social or economic status, who you are related to, what you may have done in the past, or how you were raised. The only lines of fellowship we ever draw are drawn if you decide to stop following God. There is ONLY ONE BODY. (Eph. 4:4). That one body is the church. (Eph. 4:12).

On judgment day, the faithful Christian will hear the words, “…'Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'” (Matt 25:21) However those who do not obey the truth, and rely on their salvation based on the teachings of man and not God, they are in for a big surprise when Jesus says to them, “…I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt. 7:23)

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin, Joel and all other protestants or what ever you call yourselves,

Obedience alone does not make a person saved alone.Remember the lad that Christ told that just because he obeyed the commandments alone that he will see salvation. You need the sacraments and all of the good works that are required for salvation. Faith without works is dead and you know it. Sola Scriptura is deadly and the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ has proven that for 2,000 years and you ignore it. You can shout all you want but Christ will see you with an empty bag full of wind and will sent you back to purgatory for all eternity for not following what the Apostles have told you to do as a result of the teachings of the Lord. You can say all you want and poud the verses all day if you want. But you have nothing to give back. Listen to us and see the truth all of you or die.

Gene

You are right these fools are just too dumb to get the point and see the real Church God which Christ created through the Apostles with Peter leading the Pack. I guess we will have to keep praying for them to see the real light of salvation. Words alone do not save a person. Actions do in fact count and add up to it all. These blockheads can throw verses around all day. But, without the traditions handed down by Christ through his Apostles they have absolutely nothing. You cannot wake up the dead.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred says: “Obedience alone does not make a person saved alone.”

God says: “And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,” (Heb 5:9)

Fred says: “Listen to us and see the truth all of you or die.”

God says: “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4)

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

Yet Christ commanded that we observe the Last supper rite, which is the Eucharistic celebration. You have not the Body and Blood in you and are incomplete. This ritual has been handed down to us from the Apostles all the way to the present day. Christ clearly that whoever eats his body and drinks his blood will have life forever. I do this every sunday at Mass with the rest of my brothers and sisters . You don't and you are empty with out the Saviors saving body and blood. What is it you cannot understand . I have clearly for years.

-- F Bishop (Fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

You said: “You have not the Body and Blood in you and are incomplete.”

This is where you are incorrect. I observe the Lord’s supper every Lord’s day when the saints gather together to worship God as commanded in the NT. In fact, we are commanded to observe the Lord’s supper (Matt: 26:20-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23; Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18-34).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

Where in the Catholic Church?? You never said youu were a Catholic. What in the world are you? You sure you are talking of the eucharistic Celebration when Transubstantiation occurs and the bread and wine indeeds becomes the real body and blood of our LORD?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

You said: "Where in the Catholic Church?? You never said youu were a Catholic. What in the world are you?"

No, I am not a Catholic. I am a Christian and a Christian only.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

I am right. You are incomplete because you do not honor the Eucharistic Feast the Christ commanded that Catholics have been doing for the last 2,000 years. And you are lacking all of her Sascraments. You are like a bread basket without the bread. How do you ever espect to gain heaven without the very Sacraments that Christ ordered all to obey to achieve salvation. Beg at the GATE? Man does not live by the word alone. Trust me, you are losing the reward that Christ gave us to folow to gain salvation.. Only through the sacraments that the Church has honored through the Christ will you be saved. Scripture is not adequate. Never has been. You are an envelope without the stamp, address and letter. Sorry, but that is the truth.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

The “Eucharistic Feast” as you call it, is not mentioned in the Bible. If by this you mean the Lord’s supper, then that is commanded. I eat the bread and drink the cup to proclaim the Lord’s death till he returns just as it is written in the Bible. (1 Cor. 11:28)

You said: “Man does not live by the word alone.”

God says: "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matt 4:4)

Who are we to believe Fred? You or God? I choose to obey God.

Once again, since we will be judged by the word of God, (John 12:48). Please show me in the NT where this statement is that you made? “Only through the sacraments that the Church has honored through the Christ will you be saved. Scripture is not adequate. Never has been.”

The Catholic Bible, just as any other Bible, claims to be the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25) and to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13; Acts 2:1-4). Paul says that he shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The book of Jude says that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Thus, the revelation of the will of Christ was completed before all of the apostles died. It was duly confirmed and is absolutely infallible. God's word is truth (John 17:17). Though the Catholic Bible says of itself that it is perfect and complete, Catholic doctrine says that it is incomplete and fragmentary.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 22, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

A Joelism: *whew* Thank the Lord I'm not saved by my ancestors, as the Japanese Shinto religion believes. Rather, I am saved through my faith in Jesus!''

Me too, Joel! What kind of dope would expect his ancestors to save him, after they were saved in the Catholic Church (through the centuries past) by Jesus Christ?

It COULD happen, I guess. But not to any Catholics. They believe God sent His divine Son to be their Saviour. Know what? He saved them all!

And am I absolutely, positively in-no-way disputably SURE? Yes! The Catholic Church's clear interpretation of scripture and Sacred Tradition-- says that Jesus Christ has saved all men who pick up their crosses and follow Him! Which is exactly the proven way in which all of your--AND MY blessed ancestors were saved, and the reason we expect to be with them in heaven after this life. The Pope also teaches us this.

Not your ancestors, says John Paul II-- (they can't save anybody) ONLY Christ. ''Your blessed Catholic ancestors,'' says John Paul II, ''died proclaiming Jesus Christ their Lord & Saviour-- (many of them, especially in Rome); so, we acknowledge them as saints and martys for Christ!''

You can't make this up, Joel; and I just know, some bones of an ancestor of yours have been buried, in the Roman catacombs, maybe since the days of Nero. It isn't written in the Bible, Joel. But I really think it's a good possibility.

Remember; I said your BLESSED ancestors. You may have a few which went into the abyss, God forbid. Let's not go there. They could not save you either, Joel.
But Jesus can save you. The Church and the Bible say that; it's definite!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

Again you have said it wrong.IT IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE CHRIST THAT SAVES US THROUGH THE EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Not bread and wine as you just said. What may I ask Church are you attending? Can it trace ots root directly back to the Apostles and to Christ himself? The Roman Catholics can easily through our priests of the present day down to Peter and the Apostles and to Christ. No other Church can prove its roots any further than back to Martin Luther and the Reformation. Yours has to be a great deal less than that. The Reformation Church is the Lutheran Church. And the rest of the direct offsprings of the Catholics are the ones during the Schism about 1,000 years ago. Knowing just this, you have little hope. All of the Traditions and practices of the Roman Catholic Church were ordered by Christ and his Apostles and the First Pope, Peter. You cannot show me this with the Bible alone.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

You said: “IT IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE CHRIST THAT SAVES US THROUGH THE EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Not bread and wine as you just said.”

I didn’t say that it was bread and wine that saves us, what I said was: “I eat the bread and drink the cup to proclaim the Lord’s death till he returns just as it is written in the Bible. (1 Cor. 11:28)”

I agree that the “blood of Christ” saves us, but it is not by the “Eucharistic Celebration of the Catholic Church”. As I stated on another thread, the ONLY thing that puts us INTO CHRIST is through Baptism. That is where we contact Christ’s saving blood and not before hand. (Please see Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3) Christ shed his blood in his death and we are “CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST” in Baptism. (Gal. 2:20) Since we are “baptized into Christ,” we have NO access to any spiritual blessing that is “located in Christ” without scriptural baptism. Scriptural baptism is when a penitent believer is baptized upon his confession in faith in Christ for remission of sins and into the one body. Period!

Are you “in Christ?” Read Acts chapter two and see what was taught and what these folks did on Pentecost to become a member of Christ’s church, the church of Christ. This was hundreds of years before such a thing as Roman Catholicism was heard of and many more hundreds of years before such a thing as Protestantism was on the world scene. If we go back beyond those things to the Bible, believe and do as they did, we will be what they were. If not, then why not?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin

Let me warn you. This is a Ctholic forum for Catholics and not for the theology of yours to disprove us and if you cannot stop this anti- Catholic rhetoric of yours i would suggest you to leave this forum as you are just o busy with yourself to accept the truth as presented to you. Your stupidity is no longer welcome here. SO LEAVE before you are banned. Twisting the word of GOD is not what we are here for. And you refuse to accept the truth.

-- F Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

To my Catholic Forumites

This thread was not Created by me and I really am tired of the stupid title that it has as it is clearly not of my making, choosing, nor is it the proper respect that is of mine to our Holy Mother and her Son Jesus Christ the Second figurehead of the Trinity. I have wished that it was never created in the first place as I have never wanted to start one until I can be comfortable with the forum and the manner it is created. I will and I mean this truthfully never start a Thread without the blessings of you people and the Moderator. So if you can help me to change the title to a more appropriate one that is more suited to My and all of our beliefs it would be greatly appreaciated. In further respect, i have decided as of this moment not to get involved with the hypocrasies of the non-catholics as I really do no have the time nor the sedire to put up with the stupid rhetoric that they espouse.

To Gene I hope that you saw my apology and forgiveness to you that I posted to you in the second CP thread. i would also appreciate your help here too.

To Jeff

I am thankful to GOD for giving me the opportunity to listen to you for you have helped me out tremendously and I look forward to reading your posts everyday. Please stay with us and help me.

Brother Rich

Please talk to us.. We need you too. It is our future Catholic leaders that have helped me the most in the past and I am always greatful to you all daily.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Dear Kevin
The following is what has to happen when a man applies scriptures after his own human wisdom:

''I agree that the “blood of Christ” saves us, but it is not by the “Eucharistic Celebration of the Catholic Church”.

You continue to self-serve your own interpretation by quoting the necessity and (I agree) grace of another sacrament, Baptism.

The Eucharist is not baptism. Baptism is re-birth. The Holy Eucharist is the great Sacrament of Jesus Christ's real and Holy Presence amidst His people until the end of the world. Just as in the OT Yahwheh ''pitched His tent'' amidst the people of Israel, Enmmanuel, Jesus Christ is in our holy Tabernacle. I can quote scripture to show you the sources of this holy doctrine. But let me cut to the chase. If you demand the passages, I'll come back to them.

Mr. Bishop is right, but didn't explain it right. We're saved by the Eucharist. But we're saved as a people with Jesus amidst us in His tent (tabernacle), because the Body and Blood of Christ; His True Presence, are Calvary's eternal VALUE, His sacrifice memorialised. With the consecration of bread and wine-- and the Body and Blood which these BECOME in Holy Mass, CALVARY is truly present with us, in a sacramental way. Since Calvary ultimately means the BLOOD which saves us, then the Holy Eucharist is salvific. It's by His Blood we are saved.

Jesus Christ's holy words, ''I am the living bread that has come down (onto the altar!) from heaven; If anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world,'' (John 6, :51-52) are related to the Holy Eucharist as His Body. We see the Blood as salvation; and Body as eternal life for His people.

We know this is true, since Jesus assured His Church, by way of His apostles, ''I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you,'' (John 14, :18). The Catholic makes this act of faith at the Eucharistic communion: :''We remember--We celebrate--We believe !'' This is unwavering faith in Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Eugene, Does the "Eucharist" place the Catholic in the body of Christ? If not, then what does?

Fred, If you don't want me to answer you, then don't ask me a question, it is that simple.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene

Thanks a bunch Fred

-- FB (hfhfh@jfjf.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the
Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning
it is now,
and ever shall be, World without end.
Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2002.

Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin:
ONly now saw your question:Eugene, Does the "Eucharist" place the Catholic in the body of Christ?Reply: --We are in the Body of Christ as we are received in His Church: by Holy Baptism. Those who claim they are ''born again'' over some experience of spiritual uplifting-- are really born again by their baptism with water; in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are ''buried'' in death; arising to ''newness of life'', in Jesus Christ. All in the sacrament of Baptism.

To receive in communion the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, partaking in the Holy Eucharist, is an act of obedience and faith. It was He who said, ''Take this and eat it; this is my Body. Take and drink of this; this is my Blood.'' The Eucharist is His divine presence in our Church and in each member. We are made one Body in Jesus, becoming members in His own Mystical Body.

When you leave a little door open for yourself, '' If not, then what does? --I know you had more to say. But save it.

I answered your questions; now you better cover your tracks, Kevin. You can't continue this constant baiting. I want to treat you charitably.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,

You were falsely "credited" with authorship of this thread by Joel, what would you like to call it, or would you like it deleted?

Moderator

-- Moderator (Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Eugene,

Thank you for your response. I had nothing more to say contrary to what you might believe. I asked only a simple question and I was not attempting to "bait you" at all.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene

Well said, Thanks for the help, Kevin is a bit too much for all of his with his verse baiting and lack of knowledge. Again Thanks Be to God for Truth.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Kevin,
I'm sorry for snapping at you. Let me say that all your challenges have been respectful; I don't dislike you or find you insolent. What you've come to believe about God is clearly the teachings of people you love and respect.

They are not in communion with the Church we know was founded by Christ, however. I'm gratified to hear you say you don't follow a faith which rejects works for ''faith alone.'' Also that you observe a commemorative Lord's Supper. Above all, that your faith has not rejected all the sacraments; because you acknowledge the commandment of Jesus that all must be baptised to be saved.

Yet, there you are. What kind of real unity can there exist-- with only the Bible for a rule --if so many other ''Bible Christians'' diminish the importance of baptism; saying-- only Jesus can save you! Baptism can't save you!'' and claim this is proveable from Holy Scripture? Not to mention countless other controversies which prove no single sect or assembly has a real lock on scriptural truth? It's like a new Tower of Babel.

In one breath you say,

''The Church of Christ says, obey the will of God, then you are part of our family. We don’t draw lines of fellowship over race, ethnic background, social or economic status, who you are related to, what you may have done in the past, or how you were raised. The only lines of fellowship we ever draw are drawn if you decide to stop following God. There is ONLY ONE BODY. (Eph. 4:4). And that one body is

What? --Not unity; because your next breath you're disagreeing with a Baptist minister, Billy Graham, on the conditions for our salvation. He in turn disagrees with a Christian of some other place or persuasion, and Shakers disagree with him and Mary Baker Eddy says all is up to Christ the Scientist! It's out of control.

Yet, the Catholic Church never falls out of the mainstream. She never changes her mind, or dies from persecutions or schisms or scandals.

She is based and raised on Rock. Unshakable, Kevin. It's not a coincidence or luck or money or magic.

It's Jesus Christ who promised the Apostles. ''I am with you until the end of the world.'' The same apostles who spread the Gospel and gave us the Catholic (universal) Faith.

I caution you not to let the apparent fact that ''catholic'' is not scripturally recorded. Te word has an external application, to denote *WHAT CHURCH THERE IS; and NO OTHER LIKE HER-- universal*. Don't blame Saint Paul for not writing this word in his letters. He wrote the Church, or the Faith, or the One Body or His Body, or just plain WE.

It means the same thing: OUR Church. It was all the while this same universal and eternal one, the Catholic Church on earth.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene

At Mass I was confused at something that happened. The Priest had us recite the Nicene Crede. I thought that it was not to be recited during Lent and recited again during the Easter Vigil. I have seen some things in the Midwest happen recently that have me a bit confused . Such as the removal of the Holy Water at the entrance which I never saw removed until Holy Week. Upon investigation I found out that the water is removed upon the discretion of the Priest. Also the covering of the Crucifix is being done now. In N.H. it was not covered until Holy Week during the Trial and Death of Christ with Good Friday being the high point of Lent. Could you please help me clear up this confusion. I would appreaciate it. Thanks.

Blessed be GOD, Jesus Christ, in his Holy Eucharist-----FRED

-- Fred bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 24, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred,
Many things like these usually confuse me too. I advise you to remember the interal requirements and don't mind too much what is external. Recall I asked you a while back; why did Knights of Columbus NOT remove their plumed hats in the holy sanctuary, with the Blessed Sacrament exposed? At the time I saw this, I didn't like it. But, it was an external, or superficial failing, from what I could gather. The protocol for Mass and benedictions nowadays is a little RADICAL, if you ask me.

But-- God judges us in our LOVE, not in what we're wearing; so I said to myself: ''Pay attention to the Blessed Sacrament, and not to the Knights; remember what you're here for. Him-- not them, or yourself.''--You see, Fred. I often correct my OWN bad behavior.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 24, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Hi, Fred.

I believe the covering of the Crucifix and statues is a very ancient practise. It's a symbolic gesture reminding us during Lent that prior to His death on the Cross, there weren't any Saints in Heaven because the gates of Heaven were still closed. This practise was universally observed prior to the Second Vatican Council and remains a option.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), February 24, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Gene on the wearing of the plumes while on the Sactuary is not understood by me either. It may be a misunderstood thing. It would in fact be true as you say that the Knights should put them at their sides during the exposure of the Eucharist. To be honest i believe i have seen them remove the plumes before, but frankly it is a vaque memory. I will be searching for the answer or the rule to that one in the near future. You have my curiosity going too.

On the covering of the Crucifix, we just took a long trip in the internet and found that there seems to be very lax rules on the Lenten requirement on the baptimal Water in the entrances and the Covering of the Crucifix. We have athe Cross wit a drape at our parish in place of the water for now til Easter Vigil. GOD BLESS

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 24, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Fred, I forgot to mention in previous post. I believe the removal of water from fountain is a option as well.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), February 24, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

Jmj

Fred and David S, I have a few comments about things you have mentioned above.

The Nicene Creed MUST be professed on every Sunday of the year and on every Solemnity (highest rank of feast, such as Assumption, St. Joseph, etc.). The Creed is never optional, except when we renew our Baptismal vows, which serve as a profession of faith.

On the Knights of Columbus ... Not only do some of their members stand at attention, wearing plumed hats, but even give a salute with swords during the consecration. The Church does not disapprove of certain formal, ceremonial actions carried out by the KofC and other real and honorary gatherings of nobility. Here is something I found on the Internet:
"The Fourth Degree is the patriotic degree of the Knights of Columbus. These men you see dressed in the regalia of their Order: black tuxedo, plumed chapeau, cape, baldric, and sword, are highly visible at special events such as Midnight Mass and Confirmation. They stand as Honor Guards beside the caskets of deceased Knights and take part in the Opening ceremonies of the Special Olympics. The inner lining of their capes signifies the higher offices to which they have been elected."

There is an interesting Vatican document (from 1988, I think) telling about the regulations and customs that can or must be followed during Lent, Holy Week, and Eastertime. (Full text is here.) In the document, there is a section called "Particular Details Concerning The Days Of Lent." Here are two paragraphs that let us know about the covering of crosses and statues:
25. On the fourth Sunday of Lent, "Laetare," and on solemnities and feasts, musical instruments may be played and the altar decorated with flowers. Rose-colored vestments may be worn on this Sunday.
26. The practice of covering the crosses and images in the church may be observed if the episcopal conference should so decide. The crosses are to be covered until the end of the celebration of the Lord's passion on Good Friday. Images are to remain covered until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

The footnote to #26 points to the Roman Missal's rubric for Saturday of the Fourth Week of Lent. Therefore, we are supposed to have the joyous celebration of "Laetare" Sunday, and only on the Saturday after that can crosses and statues be veiled. Really, the veiling should be done only if the bishops' conference has voted to approve of the practice -- which they have NOT done in the U.S.!

Within the past few years, I have repeatedly come across opinions of orthodox priests stating that the holy water should NEVER be removed from the fonts except on Holy Saturday, when it will be replaced by some of the newly blessed water. According to these priests, people should be able to bless themselves with the great sacramental -- holy water -- every day of the year. Getting rid of the water or (worse) replacing it with sand is supposedly an unofficial and unapproved custom.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.


Response to Love for the "Goddess," glorification of the Holy Passion of our "Eternally Crucified Lord"

John

Thank You very much for the information on the Lenten ecorations and the removal of water. It now proves to me that I was not losing my mind when the Pastor took all of the things away. The discribed methods for the Lenten season that you described is exactly what I have seen back home in N.H. for years. Apparently Bishop Wilton Gregory in the Belleville Illinois Diocese has other ideals. May GOD Bless. FRED

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 25, 2002.


Mr Moderator

Thanks for changing the title of this Thread.. Blessed be the Holy Mother of GOD..AMEN

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 04, 2002.


Fred,

Thanks, for some strange reason when you change the title it doesn't change the "headers" it puts on posts within the thread, but it's better than nothing.

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), March 04, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ