http://disc.server.com/Indices/209132.html

I was banned from there a year ago for posting Scripture.

I found myself able to get on again and I posted a few more Scripture verses and wham--banned again!!

The truth scares them.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004

Answers

*bump*

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Faith, what Scriptures did you post and in what context did you post them? I went to that site and found some things that you said insulting other people, so I'm not really that surprised that you got banned. You seem to have done more there than post a few Scriptures.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

Where did I insult anyone??

Please provide such a post.

jake probably deleted any Scripture I posted, Emily.

I might add that jake did post an old thread from last year--where I had been banned--and I was a little angry and might have said something somewhat nasty--but truthful., out of anger. But he had already banned me. That was not the reason he banned me.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), June 28, 2004.

Here we go, Emily...

This was asked:

Juxta Crucem St. Paul and Tradition Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:12pm

But St. Paul in Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter II says:

"14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

Can you explain this verse if it does not indicate Apostolic Tradition?

Additionally, St. Paul did not have a bible. So, by word certainly indicates that it is not written anywhere but passed on by "man made tradition", which you reject. Have I understood correctly?

***********

I replied:

Faith I can..., Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:29pm

Paul had taught the believers in Thessalonica many things by word of mouth--and these doctrines were to be followed. Agreed.

But the essential content of these teachings is what is recorded in the Scriptures. And if there were other matters that Paul taught them which are not in the sacred Scriptures.., we can only assume that he did not think that they were necessary to be preserved for the whole church.

Paul would never have entrusted the truth he wanted the whole church to know to oral tradition.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly by an apostle telling them that the Day of the Lord had already come. This is found in 2 Thess 2:1-2:

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come."

Paul warned them to accept only letters written in his own handwriting:

"I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters." This is how I write. 2 Thess 3:16

...and to receive infallible truth only from his lips....

*********************

Faith I always believed that the Bible Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:50pm

comes from God.., written by inspired men., but really from God.

And don't forget--the Old Testament was used by the Jews long before the Catholic Church sat down at Jamnia to canonize it.

Paul and Peter also refer to each others writings as Scripture long before a Catholic council ever sat down to declare what was the Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I could give more examples...

*********************

Pierre You could give more examples but... Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:04pm

Don't bother. Protestantism is so discredited in my mind that your arguments only reinforce my convictions.

Ooops, I just prayed again for you.

*********************

Faith I only posted God's Word.., Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:13pm

.......not protestantism.

Can you at least recognize that the apostles themselves recognized each other's writings as Scripture--since it says it right in your own Bible?? And this--long before any council ever sat down behind closed to approve any books...

Look it up in your Douay Rheims Bible.

Not only did Peter refer to Paul's letters as inspired Scripture.., but Paul cited Luke's gospel as Scripture also:

For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." 1 Tim 5:18

....that was refering to Luke 10:7:

Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

***********************

Pierre Re: I only posted God's Word.., Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:28pm

Poor Faith. The Apostles and evangelists were already the pillars of the Church, the Kingdom of God on earth. No discontinuity.

Gotta get back to prayer.

****************************

Ya see how poorly they respond? They are the angry ones with no answers...that is why jake deletes me...

-- Faith ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Faith,

I read a number of your posts there in which you made inconsiderate comments. Here is a sample:

Faith said: But I am not Catholic anymore--I go to a Bible-believing church. After stating that you left Catholicism, you later said (implying about Catholicism): I don't like man-made tradition that isn't supported in the Bible or anything.

These statements both insult Catholics and the Catholic Church, implying that their teachings are un-Biblical. You made numerous such subversive comments on the site, attempting to insult Catholics while trying to seem innocent. This is the perfect way to get Catholics to ignore you, and/or get banned. Instead, if you believe that Catholics are wrong, engage in an honest intellectual debate.

If you don't think Catholicism is Biblical, don't resort to cheap shots. Use real Biblical arguments, listen to the other side's point of view, and always show respect to their views as a guest on their forum. If they don't play fair, then leave. But any injustices you may face do not give you or anyone who claims Christ any right to come back with more injustices and/or insults.

As for personal insults, I noticed this one specifically:

http://disc.se rver.com/discussion.cgi? id=208699;article=3694;search_term=jake;show_parent=1

[poster:] Faith ( original and true)
[subject:] Jake is such a coward and dictator!!
Wed Oct 1, 2003 13:24
67.85.16.67

He deleted the heck out of most posts from anyone who managed to make them all look foolish.

They can't stand the heat.....

And they can't defend their idolatrous and false religion.

No surprises tho...

Jake reposted this http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi? disc=209132;article=14808;title=Traditional%20Roman% 20Catholicism.

Well, Faith, now I see that this was an old post of yours, so you are not culpable this time in that regard. However, I was quite insulted when you referred to Catholicism as an "idolatrous and false religion." I still stand by what I wrote at the top. I think your behavior at this Catholic forum was inappropriate.

Imagine if I went to a Protestant forum and started making subversive implications about their false, unbiblical religion. What if I said "I'm Catholic because I don't believe in extra-Biblical, man-made traditions (Sola Scriptura), and I agree with Jesus that we need unity among Christians (John 17) that is not present in the divisions of Protestantism." I'm sure it could be much more harshly stated.

Anyway, do you see how it works both ways? David has more than once advertised Protestant forums here, and warned us to be careful not to get banned. Are the Protestants scared of Scripture and God's teachings?

I'm honestly trying to show you how to be more effective when you are a guest on such forums. I have noticed that you used this similar language and behavior sometimes at the Greenspun Catholic forum, and I think that was part of the reason for the fact that you were banned. On this thread you are claiming that you innocently posted Scriptures and got banned for it, as if you were merely the victim. If you truly believe this, I'm trying to show you another perspective on the matter. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

No Emily..,

I was asked what is meant by strictly biblical--as I had said that I wasn't Catholic anymore--just a strictly biblical Christian.

That may offend Catholics--but I didn't intend to offend.

They choose to believe things that are not found in the Bible and they claim that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for them.

So why are they offended?

I explained the difference between myself now from when I was a Catholic. They asked. A biblical Christians finds the Scriptures to be fully authoritive.

And there is no denying that many Catholic Doctrines are man-made., since they cannot be supported in the Scriptures. I used the *Assumption of Mary* as a valid example.

They can't answer me., so they get nasty and I get banned. That is the bottom line.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Also Emily..,

I notice it doesn't bother you that they jumped all over me with insults..like this:

Catholic eagle protestantism at its best Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:29pm

This is a picture where protestantism was developed

http://opax.swin.edu.au/~scottie/hell.jpg

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Faith said: Bible is not the ultimate authority for them.

Catholics don't claim that the Bible is the ultimate authority, for the simple reason that the Bible itself states otherwise. Show me one passage where the Bible states that it alone is the final authority. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

Faith said: A biblical Christians finds the Scriptures to be fully authoritive.

Catholic Church teaching says that the Bible is fully authoritative, as God-inspired Scripture. So I guess that makes faithful Catholics "Biblical Christians" by your definition.

Faith said: I notice it doesn't bother you that they jumped all over me with insults

Actually, this distorting of the situation is exactly what I referred to in my previous post to you. I was addressing you, not those other people, because you brought this matter to this forum. I was not addressing them. If they asked me, I would say some of their stuff was rude too. Notice, I said:

If they don't play fair, then leave. But any injustices you may face do not give you or anyone who claims Christ any right to come back with more injustices and/or insults.

I believe that personal insults are always inappropriate. The matter at hand should be addressed in a charitable manner.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the Assumption of Mary. If you are sincerely interested in hearing a Biblical defense of this doctrine, check Tim Staples' tape series All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

So then Emily--

Please cite one post from that Traditional board where I was rude intentionally. Like I said--they may have taken offense in something like my pointing out that I was no longer a Catholic--but a strictly biblical Christian--but that is their problem., not intended to insult on my part. And I am not refering to a post from last year where I finally lost it because I was unfairly being silenced.

I am talking about just the posts from last night--which I linked us to here.

Where was I rude or where did I personally insult anyone?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Faith,

I already told you what I thought and provided some quotes. I was trying to help. I'm not going to show you anymore. It was comments similar to the ones I showed you in my first post. I was trying to help with some advice -- so you are free to take it or leave it. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

Thank you Emily..,

My purpose was to show you that I did not behave offensively or insult anyone personally--as you said that I did.

You will not provide the posts--because they don't exist.

Thank you for the advice that I don't need..

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.

Faith/Susan/Larry/ Dennis

Who??

-- Dan (Dan@msft6h3cs.com), June 28, 2004.

Faith,

It seems to me that what I said offended you, so I'm sorry for that. I did not intend to do so. What I was trying to do was point out some things that might have been offensive to get you banned. You began this thread making a claim, and I was trying to present the other side's possible perspective.

Faith said: My purpose was to show you that I did not behave offensively or insult anyone personally--as you said that I did.

I'm glad that you did not intend to behave offensively. I was trying to show you what others might see as offensive. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions, but if I did so, then it is possible that others did as well.

Faith said: You will not provide the posts--because they don't exist.

I provided some sample quotes that encompassed the gist of what you said there. I am not out to prove anything against you. I only wished to give you a view from the others' perspective.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 28, 2004.

The truth is, Emily.,

That I said nothing offensive unless as a Catholic--they know that they are following tradition instead of God's Word., and they have a guilt complex or something. Why should the truth offend them? They must know that half the stuff they do--is not in the Scriptures..

The fact is that jake dragged out old posts after-the-fact. That has no bearing on what I was saying the other night. I was pre-judged.

If you read only the initial posts that I had going on there--you will see that I neither insulted anyone--or their blessed Mother--as they claim that I did.

It's just their cover--so they don't have to deal with my questions.

I said that the doctrine of the "Assumption of Mary"--was not a biblical doctrine. That is not an insult unless one takes it that way. It is simply an admitted truth. Even the Catholic Church admits that it can't be actually found in the Bible.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.

Faith, people aren't obligated to defend their faith every time it's challenged. Perhaps if they saw that you wrote an essay with proofs about why the Assumption is not Biblical, then they might have answered. I don't know. But if you just make quick comments claiming "X doctrine is not Biblical," and that's all you say, it's just ad hominem. As for the Assumption of Mary, I answered you on the Luther thread.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.

And I answered you back : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.

Oh Faith, you REALLY flatter yourself if you think the reason you got banned from the Catholic Forum is because you're arguments were so persuasive that us morons couldn't make a coherent reply! That is exactly the kind of arrogance you foster and display in your so called challenges. You don't go over to someone's house UNinvited and then start telling people how ridiculous their decor is, do you? And yet that is PRECISELY what you did, and THAT is why you were banned.

Emily is right, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, you are insolent and sarcastic and arrogant. You have never shown one shred of humility or true charity. You have never been able to persuade a well-grounded Catholic because you simply do not have the truth, and you are ill-prepared to convince others of the lies that you yourself have swallowed.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 29, 2004.

"You have never been able to persuade a well-grounded Catholic because you simply do not have the truth, and you are ill-prepared to convince others of the lies that you yourself have swallowed" - Gail, to Faith

It's up to God to give revelation.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Up above someone wrote:

---- Paul would never have entrusted the truth he wanted the whole church to know to oral tradition.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly by an apostle telling them that the Day of the Lord had already come. This is found in 2 Thess 2:1-2:

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come."

Paul warned them to accept only letters written in his own handwriting:

"I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters." This is how I write. 2 Thess 3:16

...and to receive infallible truth only from his lips.... ----

So, because no one should believe someone claiming to know when the day of judgment will be, the Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition is disproven? Please, Protestants, think what you're saying! That is a direct non-sequitur.

Also, b/c Paul doesn't want people writing something and passing it off as his, he never taught anything orally? Where is the logic here?

Finally, how do you know Paul did not teach anything not written down? Were you there? By what authority do you make this statement?

Why is it that Protestants just quote the Bible and think it proves what they believe, without bothering to explain why? IT BOGGLES MY MIND, but I see it all the time.

--from a traditional Catholic, attending the pre-Vatican II Traditional Latin Mass only

-- JC (euthyphro9999@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Excuse me Gail--

But I wasn't talking about the Greenspun site--

Though from there--it was a personal matter by a very unprofessional man named Ed--who banned me because he had a bad hair day.

From jake's baord--you are not in any position to judge. You ought to check that site out though., and see what these Catholic people have to say about your Catholic religion.

So much for unity.... Check out what they say about your pope!!

http://disc.server.com/Indices/209132.html

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.

Faith,

It would seem to me that you are not being very effective as an evangelist for your particular brand of Protestantism. Remember what it says in Galatians, the fruits of the spirit are: love; joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. I think Gail is right, there have been times here and in the Catholic Forum when you haven't displayed these qualities. I will also admit that there have been times when I haven't displayed these qualities myself. I do think however, that if we are going to try any work in apologetics we need these fruits. Because, after all, it says in Matthew 7:16 "By their fruit you will recognize them."

In my opinion, you would be a little more effective with more humility. Sometimes we get so focused on showing the other person how right we are that we forget that we are not infallible. I don't say this to offend you, I need to be more humble at times myself. I am also not excusing anyone elses behavior, I have read very little of their forum, so I don't have enough information to judge.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

I think I have been highly effective James..,

That is why Catholics in general despise me.

Shall I show the same kind of love and charity that Gail does?:

You have never been able to persuade a well-grounded Catholic because you simply do not have the truth, and you are ill-prepared to convince others of the lies that you yourself have swallowed.

I don't lie James.., so to expect me to be charitable towards someone who lies about me--is hard.

I don't even try to evangelize anymore--now I just go around correcting the false ideas being spread by unbelievers.

-- ('faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.

How can any person despise the truth?

BTW, do all Catholics truly despise you, Faith? I don't think that is an accurate assumption. Some Catholics have not met you....uh, that's just me joking around. I don't think those in the Catholic forum actually despise you. And, I don't believe anyone in this forum despises you. Gail may be fighting fire with fire, so could it be that your despise of the Catholic doctrine may have an interplay with this back and forth volley?

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

I address the false teachings of any religion with the Word of God.

Who can argue with it??

I laugh so hard when I ask a simple question like, "Is the doctrine of the "Assumption of Mary" or the "Immaculate Conception" in the Bible?? And I get a link to a tape series or a 60 page explanation about why they believe it is...

I mean--just cite the Scripture--if you can., or otherwise, admit that it isn't in there. Lol!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.

So, the explanations provided for you don't hold water? Obviously not because the answers, seemingly, are not in the Holy Bible. Revelations has been suggested to hold the answer, but you do not accept that possibility. Catholics, generally, believe that Mary was taken to Heaven. So, why is it so difficult to believe that Mary's Assumption is false?

I have mentioned Enoch and Elijah; they were taken to Heaven. Were they more important than Mary? Mary, who was asked to be the earthly mother of Jesus, the mother of Christ was less important and did not deserve to be taken to Heaven like Enoch and Elijah? Enoch and Elijah were divinity? No, yet they were priviledged to ascend, unlike Mary?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Faith, the ideas are there. You just need to open your eyes to it. That's the purpose of the explanations. Plus they look at the original languages, and we lose a LOT sometimes in the English.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

rod..,

We know that Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven because why??

That's right--because God reveals this to us in His Word.

Don't ya think that if this were so with Mary--that He would have revealed this as well? And I don't mean in any confusing way--but as clearly as He did with the others?

It is simply not revealed to us because it did not happen.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.

Oh but the assumption of Mary is revealed to us, Faith, through the one true Holy CATHOLIC Church that Christ instituted, the Church with the keys, the Church with the historical proof of apostolic succession. Christ instituted a Church to govern through scripture. He never said that if you have a grievance take it to scripture, He said to take it to the CHURCH! He never said "Start your own church according to how you see fit." Where is that IN SCRIPTURE Faith? It is NOT in scripture, and YOU KNOW IT!

You keep harping on the Assumption of Mary. Why? Does it really baffle you that Christ would tenderly come for His mother at her death? God tenderly buried the body of that great patriarch, Moses, at his death. God the father took Enoch so that he didn't see death. God took the great Elijah up into the clouds. And yet you are astounded that the Lord of all the universe, whose mother is surely more important to Him, than even our own mothers are to us, would come for the woman who sacrified ALL for her son and for the redemption of mankind. What folly to think as you do. What a cold- hearted Jesus you serve, who thought little or NOTHING of His own mother. She was nothing more than a womb on legs meant to simply give him birth and nothing more. You say this can't be because its not in the Bible as if Jesus has done NOTHING of significance since the ascension. 2,000 years has passed and Christ has done nothing. Well then, Christ hasn't formed any of the Protestant churches either for the same reason . . . IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!

For some reason you think that YOU have the keys to correct everyone else's doctrine. You have anointed yourself with the oil of knowledge! You are the epitome of what is wrong with Protestantism whose foundation is REBELLION! Rebellion against the very same Church that Christ instituted.

So you go ahead, Faith, and plunge head-long into your rebellion and you will continue to exhibit the fruit that is in accord with rebellion; strife, contentions, endless disputes, dissension, division and finally, complete and utter MADNESS!

For as it is written "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2004.

Faith said: It is simply not revealed to us because it did not happen.

It is revealed in Scripture, but you don't acknowledge it. It is revealed by the Church Fathers and the teaching of the Catholic Church, but you don't acknowledge it.

Do you believe that for something to have definitely occurred, it must be mentioned in Scripture? I could conclude that the Protestant Reformation never occurred, because it's not in the Bible?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Emily, you read my mind. We made the exact same point at the exact same time. How's that for unity! Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2004.

Anything that important--must be in God's Word--otherwise--it wasn't that important!! Obviously.

The fact that God didn't see fit to include the *taking up* of Mary., but thought it important enough to tell us of Enoch and Elijah--ought to at least raise your eyebrows in question.

Your analogy about the Reformation is ridiculous--since it occured long after God's Word to us was complete.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.

But you have made a critical point about your belief in Mary's Assumption:

Mary and Israel are both inferred by you.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

"Your analogy about the Reformation is ridiculous--since it occured long after God's Word to us was complete."

Yet the fact remains; the Reformation occurred, but was not pre- recorded. Which brings this curious problem:

Which other events have or will occur in the history of man that has not been recorded in Scriptures, yet are significant events in God's revelations?

Remember, Protestants believe that the Reformation is a very significant revelation, which was never recorded in Scriptures.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Unless, of course, we consider the Reformation akin to the Apostate, hmm?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

No it isn't ridiculous Faith. Your argument against the assumption of Mary is that it must not be true because it's not in the Bible. Do you have other arguments against the assumption of Mary?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

[Deleted by Moderator: Please see Rule #1 and #6]

-- jake (j@k.e), July 01, 2004.

Dear Moderator

Can we please do something about Jake's post? We can't go around insulting people in this forum. We have rules about such things.

Perhaps Jake would like to rephrase his comments about faith?

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

I meant "Faith", but while we are at it, Jake's faith seems like a double edged sword. I sense a double standard and paradox to his posting here.

Is this the Jake who was banned from the Catholic Forum?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

"Do you have other arguments against the assumption of Mary?" - Gail, to Faith.

Yes, this doctrine was first taught by heretics, not taught by the Early Church Fathers, and derives from non-canonical spurious writings. And yea, the fact that they are not found in scripture also gives us more reason to not accept this doctrine.

And what is your argument Gail?

"Rome has spoken, case closed"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Thanks. [see email]

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

David,

Here is a link you may find interesting. These are early quotes by some pretty substantial "Fathers" venerating the Virgin and invoking her name in prayer.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Right, but never anything about this "assumption" right?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

David, please note what the "heretics" Augustine and Ambrose and Origen and Hippolytus, and Ephraim had to say about the "unbiblical" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

"(S)he was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." "Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135

All quotes compiled by Joseph Gallegos.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Gail,

I do not care what they say about that (in this thread). I am asking where is this assumption of mary in the Early Church Fathers?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

That is, I'm asking you to stick whats being discussed.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

David, See what I posted in the Luther thread. Here is one comment from that: **In his Biblical Portrait of Mary, Robert J. Payesko says this:

Since the Book of Revelation was not accepted as part of the canon of Scripture for several centuries, it had no early tradition of interpretation. Once its canonicity was established, the identification of Mary with the Woman of Revelation 12 became obvious (since the Woman's Man-Child was Jesus). For instance, Epiphanius in 367 A.D. gave a Marian interpretation and Quodvultdeus, a disciple and friend of Augustine, wrote, "None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary." (De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661).

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Gail writes:

"David, please note what the "heretics" Augustine and Ambrose and Origen and Hippolytus, and Ephraim had to say about the "unbiblical" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception"

Augustine writes:

"He, therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal601 flesh of sin"

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xi.36.html

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

David, I don't know about the Church Fathers. But once you understand Mary's role as Ark of the Covenant, Mary's Assumption is obvious from the Rev. 11-12 passage. The Ark is in heaven and is Mary. Her body was not corrupted as others' bodies are.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

I'm building my case, David, bear with me. Did you even bother to read the quotes I provided?

First I show that the early fathers did indeed hold Mary in the highest esteem, invoking her name in prayer, referring to her as the Ark, the New Eve, the mother of God, and so on, holy, pure, immaculate of the immaculate, she is called.

Epiphanius makes the most excellent point and is the earliest writer concerning the absence of any historical record of Mary's death and burial.

"If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737

*****

At a time when any and every martyr was venerated at the time of their deaths, the precious bodies kept in honor of the Lord, where is Mary? She vanished. The Ark of the New Covenant she is referred to by one writer above, and we see in Revelations:

11:19 And the temple of the God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes and lightening and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. 12:1 and a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars . . .

Like the Ark of the Old Covenant containing the pure bread from heaven, the manna, Mary was the holy vessel containing and delivering to the world the New Covenant, Jesus. What happened to the Old Ark . . . it's never been found. What happened to the New Ark . . . she's never been found.

The fact that Jesus took His blessed mother to heaven only makes me love the Lord MORE, because He is utterly human and utterly God, filled with the tender love of a son for His mother, a more perfect love than any son could have for a mother.

Of course, Jesus came for His blessed mother. Why wouldn't He?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

David, I checked the site you linked and it didn't have that quote from Augustine. Regardless, though, even if he did say that, he's not infallible. The Church is the guardian of Truth (Jesus ordained it this way), not you or Augustine or any other individual.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Of course Gail, I, unlike some people, try to read what others refer me too, unless of course it's a 8-vol book I don't have time to read.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

It's there Emily, you just have to find it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Thanks, David. The other link you posted was the wrong one. (Ch. 36 instead of 38).

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Is this the passage you are talking about Emily?

Revelation 12 1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Yes, but you forgot 11:19

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Jake's faith seems like a double edged sword.

How so?

I sense a double standard and paradox to his posting here.

Why?

Is this the Jake who was banned from the Catholic Forum

Yes.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 01, 2004.

Emily, Rev 12:1-7 does not refer to Mary.

Keith Piper writes:

a)Genesis 37:9, 10 shows this woman to be the Israelite nation, with the sun representing Jacob, the moon representing his wife Rachel, and the 12 stars representing the 12 tribes of Israel. Christ was born of Israel. The Israelite nation is often referred to as a woman in Isaiah 54:5, "thy mother is thine husband" and Jeremiah 31:32, "although I was a husband unto them."

b)This woman cannot be Mary, because this woman is on earth during the tribulation, whereas Mary's spirit is in heaven at that time.

c)This woman is persecuted on earth during this time, yet Mary in heaven cannot be persecuted on earth.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Gail,

Can you find ANYONE in the 1 Century that believed in the Assumption of Mary? No.

2nd? No.

3rd? No.

4th? No.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

I think this is the pertinent part of the quote:

He, therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin.

RESPONSE: (I think your point here, David, is that Augustine is referring to Mary as a "flesh of sin")

But then Augustine goes on: For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it.

RESPONSE: (He's either talking here about a) cleansing Mary, his mother, or b) or cleansing the body he would take? We'll find out below)

Augustine seems to be contradicting your above interpretation here, David: HIS VIRGIN MOTHER, THEREFORE, WHOSE CONCEPTION WAS NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF SINFUL FLESH (in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, HE FORMED IN ORDER TO CHOOSE HER, and CHOSE IN ORDER TO BE FORMED FROM HER.

RESPONSE: He is clearly talking about the Immaculate Conception) So either Augustine was contradicting himself in the same paragraph OR when he spoke earlier about "maternal flesh of sin" he was simply referring to the carnal ancestral line of which he was born!

Gail

P.S. David, your first quote from this passage would prove your point IF it were not for the rest of the quote which you very graciously provided.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Gail,

Augustine says (about the Holy Virgin Mary) "I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins".

He is simply using cautious language and is talking about actual sin, not original sin.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

On the Ark of the Covenant,

Here are some Church Fathers who view differently:

Irenaeus

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-64.htm#P9567_2794261

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

Victorinus

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-30.htm

"'And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven.' The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' And when the Jews said, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building,' the evangelist says, 'He spake of the temple of His body.' 'And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament.' The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11:19)

Hippolytus

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-17.htm

"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)

Augustine

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-08/augustine/psalms/PSALM132.htm

"'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Taken from: http://home.n yc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian4.html

St. Augustine wrote:

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins--for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?--so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (St. Augustine Nature and Grace 36:45, c. 415 AD).

My view of this is that Augustine says here either that Mary was sinless or we don't know for sure that she had sin. But he at least leans toward the side of her sinlessness.

Taken from http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ10 5.HTM, regarding the above Augustine quote.

Scholars agree that St. Augustine certainly believed in Mary’s exemption from personal sin. Some also see in this famous passage his belief in Mary's exemption from original sin. Theirs may be a minority opinion among Augustinian scholars, but it would make St. Augustine a forerunner of God's Immaculate Conception of Mary. Anyway, he did not teach very clearly against the Immaculate Conception. And did St. Augustine overlook the immaculate conceptions of Adam and Eve, as does Mr. White?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

David,

You know as well as I do that there are very few FULLY FORMED DOCTRINES prior to the 4th century. Why do you insist on raising the bar with certain Marian or other Catholic doctrines? Heck, even the canon of the New Testament as well as the doctrine of the trinity was not clarified until the 4th century, yet you expect to have a fully formed doctrine on the assumption of Mary prior to the time that the N.T. was even ratified!! That is outrageous!!

The quotes you use surely do emphasis the fact that these doctrines were being toyed with and debated WITHIN the Church, heavily in some circumstances. That is the natural progression of the teachings of the Church and is what you would expect to find. They fought vigorously over what N.T. books should be a part of the canon, as well? What does that prove, David?

I'll tell you one thing for sure, and something you ought to FEAR as a Protestant. If the methods used by White and his coherts are "binding on the faithful," then the same methods can be used by people like the Jesus Seminar to completely unravel Christianity and the N.T. as we know it. Why can't so-and-so of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, look to an opponent of the Book of James amongst the Church Fathers and use that to "dis-bar" the Book James? In fact, these things are already underway.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Faith says:

"It is simply not revealed to us because it did not happen."

You have to realize that this is a pretty strong assumption. For example, I believe that the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. According to your criteria, it must not have happened because it would have been recorded in scripture, it certainly was within the time before the canon of scripture was closed.

Second, even Protestants have extra-biblical beliefs. For example, I know many Baptists who strongly feel that gambling in all forms is a sin. Is it in the Bible? No, of course not. And don't get me started on the women can't wear pants thing, another extra biblical belief.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

"According to your criteria, it must not have happened because it would have been recorded in scripture, it certainly was within the time before the canon of scripture was closed" - James

James, this is a straw man argument.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Gail,

Please stick to what's being discussed.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

David, please read my posts on the thread below from the Catholic forum, as that will explain perpetual virginity, Mary as Ark, and Mary's sinlessness. Then comment on what you thought of my answers.

Is Mary Virgin after Jesus?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Ok Emily, but you do realize I cannot post on that forum. I will create a seperate thread on this forum and reply.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Sure, David, that's fine. That's what I meant anyway. I know you can't post there.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

David, Gail did stick to the topic, since you asked for Church Fathers quotes, and she was explaining (rightly so) that everything Catholics believe does not have to be found in the Church Fathers. Truth is unchanging, regardless of men's opinions on the matter.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

David says:

"James, this is a straw man argument." in regards to my response to Faith's claiming that the Assumption didn't occur because it is not recorded in scripture. Actually David I don't think it is a straw man argument at all. I am just pointing out the logical error of her thinking. The Bible does not explicitly claim that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. It also, does not claim that she wasn't. There is evidence from Revelations supporting the idea of the Assumption, which of course is the subject of some dispute. Therefore, you cannot say that because something is not mentioned in Scripture that it didn't happen.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Munificentissimus Deus, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950, defining the Catholic Dogma of the Assumption.

This is truth.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 01, 2004.

Uhhh, David, I think we are all "off-topic" as you say. You accuse me of that ALL THE TIME! Seems you're the only one who can quote the Fathers! Go figure . . .

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Gail,

I wasn't talking about James White, or the Jesus Seminar, or the N.T. Canon.

I asked a simple question and you sound like you got upset. Can you give me an early church father quote that deals with the assumption of mary?

The fact that there are none is very relevant.

And btw, the Trity is found in Scripture. The trinitarian creeds were developed BECAUSE the Trinity was being attacked at that time.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

[] Joseph A. Gallegos © 1999 All Rights Reserved. *******

David,

I thought I provided the link to these earlier but perhaps I didn't. My mistake.

I mentioned White because he seems to think that if he finds one good quote in opposition to the Church's teaching that he's won the argument, when in fact he's only showed that there were debates on a certain issue AT MOST. Many of the quotes you use often actually refute your argument when read in context as I demonstrated earlier with your Augustine quote.

You mentioned, rightly, that a doctrine was not formalized until it was challenged (speaking of the Trinity). That is exactly right and the same thing is true on the doctrines of Mary. Her virginity, for instance, was challenged by heretics and the Fathers AT THAT TIME responded to the challenge in no uncertain terms, and that is when the teachings on the immaculate conception began to emerge.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Emily,

I made a thread for later.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CB1f

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

I have to rise a keyboard. I'll respond later..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

HI Jake.

Jake's faith seems like a double edged sword.

How so?

On one side you make yourself out to be a Catholic, yet you condemn those who are not Catholic. Your post has been deleted ,which confirms my accusation.

I sense a double standard and paradox to his posting here.

Why?

Like I have observed, you do not allow Faith to post in your forum because of her non-Catholic views, yet you may post here with your Catholic views. My way or the highway?

Is this the Jake who was banned from the Catholic Forum

Yes.

Then, you should remember me from that brief exchange of words in the Catholic Forum, yes?

Are you a sedevacanti (sp?)?

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Wow, the Feast Day of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary began in the 5th century . . . very early INDEED!

"Yet, by the late 5th century, all this changed. The feast of "The Dormition and Assumption of Mary" began to be widely celebrated in the East; and this feast was moved to the West in the 700's by one of the aforementioned Syrian Popes, St. Sergius I."

Quote found here http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

rod, I believe jake is SSPX, or at least that's where he attends.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Here's a link to New Advent's definition of the "Feast Day of the Assumption of Mary." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Very interesting in that by the 6th to 7th century, the feast day of the assumption was well-established. When you consider that the canon of the N.T. itself was not officiated until the 4th century, the fact that a mere two centuries later, this feast day was one of few feast days on the liturgical calender is very telling.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Rod asks:

"Is this the Jake who was banned from the Catholic Forum?"

I also think he is the Jake who is the Nick Alexander fan. Nick Alexander is the Catholic Weird Al. Check him out at

www.nickalexander.com

I am not sure the protestants would like him though because his songs, though funny are very Catholic.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.

Ah, SSPX, yes I understand.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

James,

Thanks for sharing -- those songs were hilarious! You can listen to some samples here. I think Protestants might like some of it. Anyway, I'd love to hear the YMCA spoof called RCIA. That one must be hilarious I'm sure :)

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Jake is a Traditional Catholic who rejects anything post Vatican II including the Pope!!

His is really more like protestant faith in that they recognize that Satan has infiltrated thr Catholic Church--and they agree that some Marian apparitions are demonic.

But for some strange reason--they can't see that this occured long before Vatican II., and they seem to need to keep one foot in the door.

It's really very entertaining to watch them trash their own Church as if they were separate from it. They call post Vatican II believers the Novus Ordo cult.

Jake actually deletes Scripture that I post. That should be like a big red warning flag to anyone on his board.

I once posted thses questions to him., and I was careful because I knew it would get deleted if I offended., but he could not reply:

Faith That site offers nothing more than theology Wed Sep 10 2003 5:25:19 pm

I am asking for proof that Peter was pope., and this site doesn't provide anything more than Catholic theology.

There is no proof that there was ever an unbroken line of succession from Peter until now. It is a Roman Catholic claim. But it isn't supported in the Bible or in early Christian history.

As a matter-of-fact, I have done my homework Jake., relying on sources from every position--not just my own.

There have been several lists offered by the Vatican to arbitrarily show Peter as the first in a long line of popes. Each list was considered acurate at one point, but they had to be subsequently revised--and they now conflict with each other.

The earlier lists come from Liber Pontificalis (Book of popes), presumably first composed under Pope Hormisdus (514-23), yet even the Catholic Encyclopedia casts doubt on the authenticity of such lists., and most scholars agree that the lists are mixed fact with fiction.

Who the actual bishops were cannot be known at this late date with any certainty. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia, published by the Catholic University of America, acknowledges this fact:

"But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiency in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes."

The truth is Jake, that the Roman Catholic Church--with all its archives, cannot verify an accurate and complete list of popes. The supposed "unbroken line of succession back to Peter" is therefore a mere fiction.

Also, it is important to remember that fueds were carried on between powerful families, who fought wars for the papacy for centuries. For example, Boniface VIII, a Caetani, had to battle the Colonna to remain in power.

Also.., bishop of Rome had jurisdiction only over that territory., and if he had jurisdiction over the whole Church, then wouldn't all of the whole Church been involved in choosing him like it is today? But at times the right to just elect their own bishop was denied the Roman citizens, and these Roman citizens actually revolted and forced their will upon the local civil and religious authorities. How could such pressure by mob violence be called apostolic succession by the direction of the Holy Spirit??

If I remember my history well--popes were both installed and deposed by imperial armies or Roman mobs. Some were murdered. It seemed that money and/or violence most often determined who would be Peter's successor.

At times, Jake--there were several rivals each claiming to have been legally voted in by a legitimate council. Surely you know the history behind the simultaneous election by rival factions of Popes Ursinus and Damasus?

Ursinus's followers managed to--after much violence--install him as pope., but later--after a bloody three-day battle, Damasus, with the backing of the emporer, emerged the victor and continued as Vicar of Christ for 18 years (366-84). So am I to understand that "apostolic succession" by an "unbroken line from Peter" operated by armed force?? Really?

Ironically--Pope Damasus was the first who, in 382, used the phrase "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." to claim supreme spiritual authority.

This all sounds so bloody, wealthy, powerful and corrupt to me. I hope rather than deleting my objections, that you might address these points with historical facts and not more Catholic theology. I really would be interested if you could prove this history wrong..

******************************************

Then I emailed him because he banned me....

Jake, I can't believe you banned me again. What ever happened to free discussion? I did not blashemy anything, did I?

I thought my post was carefully written and I even said that I hoped you would see that it wasn't blasphemy, but just historical information. Why are you so afraid of this?

Tell me honestly that you aren't aware of these facts.

Here's another tidbit that I would like for you to address:

Stephen VII (396-7), who exhumed Pope Formosus and condemned the corpse for heresy at a mock trial--was soon thereafter strangled by zealots who opposed him. His party prompltly elected a Cardinal Sergius to be pope, but he was chased out of Rome by a rival faction which had elected Romanus as its "vicar of Christ." Of the strange manner in which popes followed one another in an "unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter," one historian writes:

"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained (papal) throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks--or even days--before being hurled themselves into their graves.

Seven popes and an anti-pope had appeared in little over six years when...Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years' exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope [Leo V, 903] found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached climax, and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius [III, 904-11], sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff." (E.R. Chamberlin, The Bad Popes.(Barnes and Noble, 1969)

If you can't deny or defend this--then your religion is on shaky ground, and banning me can't make it go away. The strength of your faith and your knowledge will be revealed in how you treat my inquirey.

I stayed within your "no blaphemy" to the church and its doctrines such as where Virgin Mary is concerned, and I think I deserve another chance. I enjoy talking to some of your members, like Jeff., and have even considered looking for a church to check out in my area.., (though the problem I ran into was that my directory doesn't quite specify the difference between N.O and Traditional churches).

I mean., what are the rules Jake? Nothing can be raised or questioned at all?

Surely if the history I am reading is true--I would never consider going back to Catholicism.., not even Traditional Catholicism, though your form does intrigue me because at least you see some of the problems in the Church.

Anyway, Jake--I really did not intend to offend. I thought I was past being so *suspected* by you. I wanted good answers from you., and I did not want to be banned. If I thought that my post was a problem, I would have e-mailed it to you like you had requested.

Sincerely, Susan--aka Faith

Sources anonymous

***********

That's what got me banned--not any blaspheming of their Blessed Mother or anything of the sort.

-- (:faith01@myway.com"), July 01, 2004.

Susan, why in the world would you not cite your sources?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Geez, Faith, most of what you said isn't even close to accurate regarding traditional Catholicism, which is really just plain old Catholicism.

What do you want to know? Maybe I could try to clear it up. It's amazing the amount of noise that passes for fact.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Em, I'm glad you're here.

What's the difference between the Sedevantist(sp?), and the SSPX and the Trads?

Do you attend a mass that is "separate" from the R.C.?

Could you please give us some insight into Mel Gibson's "Catholocism"?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Sure; I'll try:

A edevacantist is someone who thinks that we have no pope at this time. Sede means "the chair" in latin, and vacante means "is vacant".

How they get to that conclusion is by taking what's called a theological speculation, and treating it as if it were doctrine. The speculation pretty much consists of this:

"If a pope falls into heresy, he ceases to be the pope."

A lot of theologians, some of them saints like St. Robert Bellarmine, have speculated theologically throughout the history of the church about what might happen if the Roman Pontiff actually fell into heresy. Would he be automatically deposed from the papacy? Would it have to be a publically stated heresy, etc. etc.

Many of them concluded something like the above italicized speculation above, but even though they were saints, the italicized is not Catholic doctrine or originate from the Deposit of the Faith. It's the product of theologian's speculations.

So here's what happens: the sedevacantists are faced with problems in the church. The Pope says and does things they don't like, a lot of stuff which I myself actually agree with them about and don't like either. However, the sedevacantist jump to a conclusion: that John Paul II simply can't be the pope, or we would never have said certain things he has said, or done some things he has done.

In effect, what they are doing is treating the italicized speculation as if it were a doctrine, pointing at the pope's blunders whether real or perceived blunders, and saying "hey, he can't possibly be the Pope. He's a heretic."

Usually, it's Pope Pius XII who they consider the last "true pope" because he was the last pope before Vatican II. But you'll find that there's about a thousand different opinions among these people about everything from points of doctrine, to who was the last pope, to the color of whatever; virtually none of them agree with each other about anything. We had several in our traditional Cathilic forum for a while until Jake finally had enough of them and banned sedevacantist discussion from the board entirely; a good move.

Personally I may sympathize with some of their complaints and agree with some of their points. But I do not agree with sedevacantism as a answer because it strikes at a fundamental Catholic principle, a doctrine of Faith, concerning the primacy of Peter and indefectability.

Neither I nor Jake, nor the majority of traditional Catholics, are sedevacantists. Personally, these sedevacantists drive me up a wall, to be blunt. That's a pretty brief summary of sedevacantism, but I hope it helps.

The SSPX is an order of priests who are committed to the Traditional Mass, sometimes called the Mass of Trent. In that sense, someone like jake isn't SSPX as in the claim "jake is SSPX" because jake isn't a priest in that order. People use that phrase loosely to indicate that either does, or would, go to an Mass offered by the SSPX. In fact, I'm not sure he goes to an SSPX chapel all the time; you'd have to ask him. But he does exclusively assist at the Tridentine Mass, as do I. He gets a bad rap for being schismatic when in reality there is no truth to the claim whatsoever.

That's two real brief and inadequate answers, but I hope it helps.

What's a trad? A traditional Catholic is someone who believes what the Church has always believed and prayed the way the Church has always prayed. Now that's a big question to answer.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Baaad spelling errors. I'm getting worse than ever.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Yes, Em, that helps a lot.

Do Trads typically go to parishes in union with the Papacy, or not? And do you know anything about Mel Gibson?

Thanks a bunch,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Hi Gail,

I found a site of the Papal-approved Latin masses. If it's not approved, then the group is in schism from the Catholic Church and ceases to be Catholic (while they may still claim to be so).

Latin Mass Churches

Here are some FSSP Latin mass locations, also approved by the Catholic Church.

I heard that Mel Gibson is somehow affiliated with the sedevacantists, although this could be just a rumor. I don't know whether he's a member.

I have found that "Traditionalist" can mean a *lot* of things, but typically applies to the various groups (both within the Catholic Church and outside it) that prefer the Latin mass over the Novus Ordo.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Oh thanks, Emily. There are only two parishes in my state that are Trad! I would like to check it out some time. I hope you'll share your experience after you attend one. I think I read somewhere that you said your diocese is very liberal. Could you elaborate? I am very very fortunate in that the rural masses in my area are very orthodox (I think).

Interestingly, EWTN is doing a special on "Faith in the Heartland" debuting this Monday at 6 p.m. Eastern. Gothic churches in Eastern Iowa is the centerpiece of the episodes. It is quite a sight to see a huge Gothic structure, replete with spires, stained glass windows, etc., set in the middle of hundreds of acres of cornfields! I hope you get a chance to see it.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

I go to what's called an indult, which is supposedly approved by the local bishop. It actually is approved by the local bishop, (this is the actual place I go) so when I say supposedly what I mean is that technically, the old Latin Mass was never abrogated. One doesn't even need permission in the form of an indult to go to one. Pope John Paul himself called up a commission in 1986 of nine Cardinals to ask these questions:

1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?

2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

The answer came back as a no to #1, and yes to #2; no priest or the faithful have been restricted from celebrating or assisting at the Tridentine Mass. In fact, the conclusion is in completely consistant with this ancient document from the year 1570 by Pope Pius V.

So while I go to the indult, and nobody could possibly call me out of Communion with the Church in any sense of the word for doing so, some will try to call jake a schismatic because he's been to the SSPX chapels or an independent chapel. But it's the same Mass, and the priests really DO have a perrennial grant to say it and the faithful really are not out of communion with Rome for attending. In other words, I'm not operating under the assumption that I have to attend the specific indult I attend. Rome itself has admitted that if I wished to attend a Mass at the SSPX chapels that I would be committing no sin, no schismatic act, and would fulfill my Sunday obligation.

There is a liberal and very destructive modernist assault on the Christ's True Church right now, and they just want to make us look bad. We're not; just fighting off in a small way a very large assault on the Church which has it's roots in glorification of the City of Man, and wars against the City of God. We're just hide-bound grumps tired of people goofing with our liturgy and doctrines... lol! We ain't gonna take it no more.

But we don't reject the pope, the papacy or any doctrine of the Faith.

It's really complicated, I know, but again I hope this helps.

Mel, from what I understand, attends the Tridentine at what's called an independent chapel if I'm not mistaken. He is through and through one of our type, a traditionalist. Traditional thought pours out of that movie full force; if one wants to know the traditionalist perspective, that movie does well at showing it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Emrald-

I can see myself attending the Traditional Church. I enjoyed the images you once posted of the Tridentine Mass.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Duh.......I see you've provided a link to those images.

So, why all the controversy about the Tridentine Mass? I don't see anything "scary" in the High Mass that would warrant such trouble.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Zoom...zoom....down that hill! Good things happen to good people!

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

Hey rod, I have absolutely no doubt that you would connect with it, if not immediately, then after a little experience following it. If you want to read through the actual text of Mass, I did a quick google found this which seems well laid out for reading.

Look at Psalm 42 which is probably the first thing I noticed in this Mass and which hit me like a ton of bricks. It made so much sense in light of all that which assaults the Church.

If anything, I would point out to faith if she's willing to hear it, that the divisive efforts of Satan will always be focused on the Catholic Church because he knows it's authenticity. He concentrates his energy against it because it's real, and tries as best he can to divide wherever possible. But it will prevail. By way of argument, the satanists mock only the Catholic Church and Her rituals because the Church is his enemy and none other, really. They have black masses, not black tent revivals. The Church is the object of attack, and at times we look disoriented, but we'll stand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Thank you very very much Emerald. That helps a lot! Yes, there is an assault on the Church; always has been, always will. Orthodoxy, however, does not hinge on one's personal taste; i.e., traditional versus, let's say, a guitar mass . . .?

I'll read the answer in the morning. Good night all,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.

Thanks, Emerald. I'll be doing some reading.

"...guitar mass..." hee...hee...no comment.

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

That was my father's mass in his day. My father served as altar boy and knew the mass in Latin. I grew up in the residule mass before things changed completely.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.

I'm not sure he goes to an SSPX chapel all the time; you'd have to ask him.

No, I don't, but I have, and I would. The Society of St. Pius X has done a tremendous amont of good for the Traditional movement, and I have a great personal affection and admiration of them, and of their founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The chapel I attend is not affiliated with any particular Traditional group, though my pastor enjoys a close working relationship with the SSPX.

He gets a bad rap for being schismatic when in reality there is no truth to the claim whatsoever.

The term "schismatic" is hurled around very carelessly by lots of people, most of whom have absolutely no idea what it means, and even less about when it correctly applies. For evidence, dig up some old threads at the Catholic forum.

For what it's worth, any liberal Catholic would consider Emerald "schismatic" because he attends the Mass of Trent exclusively, even though he does so well within the "permission" of his bishop. As has been already mentioned, no priest needs "permission" from anyone to say Mass. That's what he was ordained to do. That's his job. It would be like saying married couples need permission to have a baby.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 02, 2004.

Yes Emerald.. I realize that the churches that the apostles started were authentic.., and that Satan attacked immediately--not in the 1960's.

In particular--Satan did a beauty on us when he merged Christ's church with Roman paganinism during the time of Constatine.

Satan is busy attacking anything that might lead people back to the truth of God's Word--and that includes Protestantism.

Satan uses anything--even such things as the theory of evolution.

The bottom line is that we need to stick close to God's Word...ALONE.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 02, 2004.

We do indeed need to stick to God's Word alone. But any honest person must admit that a tradition which has fragmented into thousands of conflicting, contradicting denominations cannot represent God's Word alone, even though each of them claims to be following God's Word alone, for God's Word never conflicts with itself or contradicts itself. The first test of whether a Christian tradition is truly following God's Word alone is unity of teaching, absence of self-contradiction. Such constant and unwavering doctrinal unity across the centuries and throughout the world can be found only one place on earth - in the Church Jesus Christ personally founded for all men, on the Apostles. Unity of teaching and fullness of truth cannot and never will be found in manmade denominational religion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2004.

The unity in the Catholic Church is only in unity with itself (and fragmented within as well)--not Scripture. That just proves a strong cult!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 04, 2004.

We have one Catechism. Yes, Faith, there are, sadly, many within the Church who do not believe what is contained in the Catechism, but that Catechism along with the creeds fullfill the call, "One body, one baptism, one Lord."

Protestantism has so many differing "catechisms" that is quite clearly IMPOSSIBLE for the average Joe, with little or no biblical knowledge, and possibly illiterate as well to make an informed knowledgeable choice when choosing a "church."

I suppose we could scatter about as you and others have done, literally blown about by every wind of doctrine, or we can stay the course, tough it out, and wait to see the glory of our God.

Gail

P.S. As Ignatius says: "Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2004.

"The unity in the Catholic Church is only in unity with itself (and fragmented within as well)--not Scripture. That just proves a strong cult!"

A: Since the Catholic Church alone defined what is Scripture and what is not, it is clearly impossible for anything in Scripture to be contrary to Catholic teaching. The only way any conflict could exist between the Scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church would be if the Catholic Church, in compiling the Canon of Scripture, said "this particular writing contradicts what we have been teaching since the time of the Apostles, but what the heck, let's put it in our book anyway". NOT likely! The Catholic Church approved every text that is included in the Bible, BEFORE it ever got into the Bible. It surely did NOT approve texts that were contrary to the Christian faith of the time, otherwise known as the Catholic faith. Therefore, no such conflict can exist. Obviously conflict can exist between someone's personal interpretation of the Bible and Catholic teaching - which is why personal interpretation is so dangerous. Anyway, the differences between Catholic teaching and the interpretations of one Protestant denomination are often smaller than the differences among the individual interpretations of various Protestant traditions. Frankly, it seems a bit odd to hear Protestants talking about being "in unity with Scripture", when their fragmented tradition is nowhere near unity with itself, and therefore cannot possibly be in unity with Scripture.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2004.

"The unity in the Catholic Church is only in unity with itself (and fragmented within as well)--not Scripture. That just proves a strong cult!"

Well, hmmm. Let's see about that.

1. Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament, which is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Who agrees? These people:

Paul M., Gail, rod, jake, Eugene, JFG, Regina, Isabel, paul h, and so on.

2. Mary is ever-virgin, the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, was assumed into Heaven, and is the help of Christians. Who agrees? These people:

Paul M., Gail, rod, jake, Eugene, JFG, Regina, Isabel, paul h, and so on.

3. The pope is the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Universal Church; John Paul II is the pope. Who agrees? These people:

Paul M., Gail, rod, jake, Eugene, JFG, Regina, Isabel, paul h, and so on.

This should be an eye-opener for you, faith; the fragmentation argument will not ultimately succeed if tried. In fact, you'll find that all of Protestantism would most likely identify every on of these three items as what they reject about the Catholic Church, yet all three it persist with even those Catholics who disagree with each other.

But get this: Gail would probably be most happy to provide viciously successful documentation from the earliest days of the Church that all three are truths belonging to the true Christian Church at that time. You've got to actually read it and be willing to believe the truth, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 04, 2004.

That is a GREAT point Em!

Gail

P.S. And I don't think they ever read any of the Church Father quotes I provide, unless they can pull a sentence out of context to try to build a "protestant" doctrine on it.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2004.

Who is "they" may I ask?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 04, 2004.

Now back to that thing about a guitar mass, Gail... lol! I'm going to go see if I can dig up a guitar excorcism ritual from the year 800. In Latin.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 04, 2004.

Em, you are kidding, RIGHT? Guitar exorcism . . .

David, if you did not read what I posted above, then I suppose that you are one of the "they" of which I refer!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2004.

THE APOSTLE'S CREED

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Amen.

The Apostle's Creed dates very early in the christian Church, within a century of the last books of the New Testament. It is the basic creed of the Reformed Churches.

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Actually, this is true. The Universal Church is the Catholic Church, and the Roman Rite is just one among many other Catholic Rites.

So it doesn't refer just to the Roman Rite, but all Catholic rites.

But not to any Protestant sect.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 05, 2004.

I'm Catholic ;-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

No Emerald..,

....catholic means universal and isn't refering to any supposed rite-- but to all believers universally who belong to Christ.

Christ's body is universal in that true believers can be found all over the world.., especially among protestants...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

David???

What are you saying? Are you Catholic?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

Lol!!

catholic with a *little c*

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

Of course I am rod ;-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

Faith is too, so is Max :-D

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

Then what am I???

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Well, I excluded our Churches of Christ posters because they probably won't agree with my statment.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

aH but I am late of the Chruch of hcrist, and not actually in agreeance with them on several issues.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Well Zarove, what don't you agree with them? Do you believe that unless one is "dipped" he will be damned? Do you agree with there conditional security view or believe in justification by faith alone? What about musical instruments?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

For Gail..,

This cracks me up!!

I suppose we could scatter about as you and others have done, literally blown about by every wind of doctrine, or we can stay the course, tough it out, and wait to see the glory of our God.

Why is it that you think you can somehow separate yourself from the division of the original church that began at pentecost?

Somehow--you think that Catholics had nothing to do with protestantism??

I am sorry Gail--but Catholics are also divided and split--some are now protestants.., some are now atheists., and some call themselves Traditional..etc...

I'd venture to say that Catholicism is a major cause of much of the split and division of Christ's body...Lol!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

Well Zarove, what don't you agree with them?

{Plenty. I rehject the nption than Animals are soulles ebigns, for instnce. ( The Bible mentiosn them as having souls, incedentlaly) I reject that Satan Tempted eve in eden. The text reads that this was a Serpent, I agree withte text and the traditional Jewish Interpretation. I do not beleive in exclusivity, so that the Chruhc of Christ becomes the only true Chruch. A few other things as well. }- Zarove

Do you believe that unless one is "dipped" he will be damned?

{Techniclaly if I did beleive this, it would not prive I am Chruhc of Christ since many Chruches likewise teach this. Baptismal Regeneration is taught by Cahtolics , Mormons, and some baptist groups. It is likewise taugh by many fundamental CHruhces accorss America. I have no direct beleif concernign this at this time though.}-Zarove

Do you agree with there conditional security view or believe in justification by faith alone?

{I am sorry. I don't know what this is. My theological studies may bethourough, but I ahve pnly been researhcign theology in deapth for a little over a year now. Can you explain this?}-Zarove

What about musical instruments?

{I personaly don't like Musical intruments in services, as they tend to be too loud, and I have sensative ears. Other than this, I have no real objection to them, nor do I think they are essential. One can take them or leave them.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Faith asked: "Why is it that you think you can somehow separate yourself from the division of the original church that began at pentecost?"

ANSWER: I am united with the Church at pentecost, FULLY! You are united to the Church at pentecost, partially, because you reject the Catholic Church as being Christ's own invention.

Faith asked: "Somehow--you think that Catholics had nothing to do with protestantism??" ANSWER: Catholics that separated themselves from the Church committed a great sin; the sin of schism which is denounced in Corinthians, so they did indeed have something to do with Protestantism as they are the foundation on which Protestantism arises.

Faith says: "I am sorry Gail--but Catholics are also divided and split--some are now protestants.., some are now atheists., and some call themselves Traditional..etc... " ANSWER: As Emerald pointed out we have ONE CATECHISM, one teaching authority. Yes there are differing cultures within the Church, differing rites, differing missions, and unfortunately there are, I'm sorry to say, many "unbelievers" in the Church. But if I go to a parish in Kentucky they are participating in the same liturgy, reading the same scriptures and participating in the same sacraments as my church at home.

EXAMPLE: I have to mention here a scenario we recently had in St. Louis when a recent well-known Presbyterian pastor died after just having preached an 8 week series on why he does not believe in the rapture theory. The pastor that took his place, took the opposite position on the rapture. His congregants were calling in on the radio completely befuddled. The name on the church means nothing, all doctrines are changeable according to the pastor's theological bend.

Faith says: "I'd venture to say that Catholicism is a major cause of much of the split and division of Christ's body...Lol!!"

ANSWER: There is that mocking spirit again, Faith. What do you find so funny? I do not laugh when ANY church splits. When I read about the Anglicans ordaining homosexuals I GRIEVE. When I read about the Methodists ordaining homosexuals I GRIEVE. When I read that some part of the Presbyterians has lifted the ban on gay marriages I GREIEVE. I do not find anything that hurts by brothers and sisters in Christ as FUNNY.

It is Satan who laughs at divisions in Christ's body, Faith.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 05, 2004.

Em, you are kidding, RIGHT? Guitar exorcism . . .

Of course. I say so now because... I'm beginning to wonder if some might actually take it seriously!

Gial, for some follow-up on stuff upthread and for future use against sedevacantism, from the First Vatican Council:

"Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema."

Put that in the your back pocket.

Faith, it's gonna be hard when you find out that people you've seen disagree with each other will team up in defense of the Blessed Sacrament, the Mother of God, and the Papacy. Especially when they are of the early Church and at the same time contested by the majority of Protestants. That's a lot to take on.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 05, 2004.

I must agree with Gail. It is a sad situation when the faithful are lead astray; there is nothing funny in having people lost. If anything, there is more fear to be shadowed with when groups of believers disagree with doctrine or theology. So, if we disagree, we must know exactly why and then try to understand where the truth dwells. To poke fun at is not really a good idea.

p.s. If I've ever done such a thing--poking fun at a theology or doctrine--sorry. I'll try harder not to the next time.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

For Gail..,

In case you forgot--

Jesus says that His body cannot be divided.

So what should that tell you??

At the very least--you should realize then, that His Body is not divided--right?

Yet we know that earthly religions and churches--including Catholicism- -has been dividing and splitting ever since the start

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

Hey Em, Hey Rod,

I'm glad I can keep my guitar!! (I knew you were kidding . . I think).

Speaking on the issue of unity, there is a popular contemporary musical artist with a song out entitled "What we need is a common creed." (I can't remember their name) but at any rate they are Protestant and recognize that the disunity within Protestantism requires a creed. Whenever I hear that song I feel rather sorry for this band because they are crying out for what they know Christ wants for the body, yet I fear that it will never happen. I wonder if they realize that their forefathers already developed a creed(s) that has stood the test of time. I also wonder if they reject that creed because of its Catholic origen.

And you are right, Em, when it comes to the essentials of our faith, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 05, 2004.

Silly Gail..,

The Apostle's Creed is not Catholic--it was written early--at the end of the New Testament era--by the very next generation.

That makes it early Christian--not Catholic.., and Protestants use that Creed all the time.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

For Gail--again : )

Faith asked: "Why is it that you think you can somehow separate yourself from the division of the original church that began at pentecost?" ANSWER: I am united with the Church at pentecost, FULLY! You are united to the Church at pentecost, partially, because you reject the Catholic Church as being Christ's own invention.

You reject Christ's original church, as revealed in Scripture, in favor of the paganized version that came along at the time of Constatine. I have been baptized into the church that Christ founded on the day of Pentecost when He gave His Holy Spirit to those who would receive Him by faith as their Savior and be born-again into His body--His true church...

Faith asked: "Somehow--you think that Catholics had nothing to do with protestantism??" ANSWER: Catholics that separated themselves from the Church committed a great sin; the sin of schism which is denounced in Corinthians, so they did indeed have something to do with Protestantism as they are the foundation on which Protestantism arises.

The way I see it--protestants reject the fact that Catholics separated themselves from Christ the day they accepted pagan Rome's religion as a part of Christianity. The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals--became part of Christian worship.

Faith says: "I am sorry Gail--but Catholics are also divided and split--some are now protestants.., some are now atheists., and some call themselves Traditional..etc... " ANSWER: As Emerald pointed out we have ONE CATECHISM, one teaching authority. Yes there are differing cultures within the Church, differing rites, differing missions, and unfortunately there are, I'm sorry to say, many "unbelievers" in the Church. But if I go to a parish in Kentucky they are participating in the same liturgy, reading the same scriptures and participating in the same sacraments as my church at home.

So? What does that show? That the Catholic Cult is quite spread out?...the same can be said for many cults. You all make the same common mistake--you have a private interpretation of God's Holy Word. Look at Kingdom Hall--they teach exactly the same thing too. So do the Mormons. If any member in the cult should reject a teaching.., excommunicate them!!

EXAMPLE: I have to mention here a scenario we recently had in St. Louis when a recent well-known Presbyterian pastor died after just having preached an 8 week series on why he does not believe in the rapture theory. The pastor that took his place, took the opposite position on the rapture. His congregants were calling in on the radio completely befuddled. The name on the church means nothing, all doctrines are changeable according to the pastor's theological bend.

Ya know what Gail? Bull!! That could not happen unless the church was really wacked out. Our church has a faith statement--and it does not bring into the fold anyone who would be so radically different on any of these issues. But in fact--my church doesn't profess anything for sure on issues that the Bible does not. The rapture is one of those things that is an issue unimportant unto salvation.

Also.,if you think that the priests within your own church are any different--think again. There is much disagreement even on such things as whether or not a person can be saved outside of your church.

Faith says: "I'd venture to say that Catholicism is a major cause of much of the split and division of Christ's body...Lol!!"

ANSWER: There is that mocking spirit again, Faith. What do you find so funny? I do not laugh when ANY church splits. When I read about the Anglicans ordaining homosexuals I GRIEVE. When I read about the Methodists ordaining homosexuals I GRIEVE. When I read that some part of the Presbyterians has lifted the ban on gay marriages I GREIEVE. I do not find anything that hurts by brothers and sisters in Christ as FUNNY.

Do you grieve that many of your priests are homosexuals?

It is Satan who laughs at divisions in Christ's body, Faith.

Satan is in his glory because you don't understand that you are deceived. Christ's true body is not divided--Gail. It cannot be divided.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.

Gail-

I think my guitar and your guitar are tuned to the same notes. :)

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 06, 2004.

Christ's true body is not divided--Gail. It cannot be divided.

Exactly! : )

-- jake (j@k.e), July 06, 2004.

Faith says:

"Do you grieve that many of your priests are homosexuals?"

Faith, do you grieve that many of your Pastors are homosexuals? I hope you do. When a priest is a practicing homosexual, that is indeed a terrible thing. However, the idea that there is a huge number of homosexual priests is something of a media myth. Can you cite a well designed refereed study that documents the prevelance of homosexual behavior among priests? The few that I have seen have either been poorly designed or of limited generalizability. However if you do know of some credible studies, I would like to see them.

Second, sexual sin in all of its forms is a bad thing, however we have to be very careful about generalizing from anecdotal evidence. For example, I once heard a story that there was a Pastors convention and a Sales convention in the same hotel, and the Pastors watched more pornography than the salesmen. Now that is just a story I have heard, I don't know of its source (I heard on a Protestant radio station by the way), but can I legitamitely infer that most pastors have a problem with pornography? No, I would need much more credible evidence to conclude that.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

And jake--

Since the Catholic Church has always had a division problem--we can be sure that that religion is not the true body of Christ...hmm?

The reason that Christ's body cannot be divided is because it is not caught up in any one religion or church. It is a spiritual kingdom-- and its members are those who have faithfully received Christ and have been baptised by the Holy Spirit. We are universal and we are being added daily to His body--and when all the Gentiles have come in- --it will be the end of the age., and Christ will return to establish His Kingdom in the physical.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith says: "Silly Gail, The Apostle's Creed is not Catholic--it was written early--at the end of the New Testament era--by the very next generation. That makes it early Christian--not Catholic, and Protestants use that Creed all the time."

1) How do you know when it was written? 2) How do you know who wrote it? 3) What groups of Protestants use it?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

since the Catholic Church has always had a division problem--we can be sure that that religion is not the true body of Christ

No, "we" can't.

Upthread a ways, I posted the Creed of Pope Pius IV. Anyone who cannot sign their name in blood to those words is, quite simply (and sadly), not Catholic.

You're either Catholic or you're not. The only problems of division, then, lie beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 06, 2004.

Luckily jake

Jesus never said that we had to be Roman Catholic to be saved.

We just have to be baptised by the Holy Spirit into His body-- the body Jesus Christ.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Gail--

I know it was written long before your church began--which didn't begin until the period of Constatine.

The Apostles Creed was written probably in the first or second century. I would have to do a search to find out exactly when, tho.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith says:

"Jesus never said that we had to be Roman Catholic to be saved."

Of course not, you could be a Melkite Catholic, a Maronite Catholic or one of about 20 other churches that recognize the primacy of Peter.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

"Plenty. I rehject the nption than Animals are soulles ebigns, for instnce. ( The Bible mentiosn them as having souls, incedentlaly) I reject that Satan Tempted eve in eden. The text reads that this was a Serpent, I agree withte text and the traditional Jewish Interpretation." - Zarove

I have no opinion when it comes to animals and souls. Though, I'd like to believe what the bible says about it, I haven't the slightest clue what is mentions.

I believe you are wrong about the Serpent though. Have you read the Temptation of Christ in Matthew 4?

"I do not beleive in exclusivity, so that the Chruhc of Christ becomes the only true Chruch." - Zarove

Well, that's nice to read.

"Techniclaly if I did beleive this, it would not prive I am Chruhc of Christ since many Chruches likewise teach this. Baptismal Regeneration is taught by Cahtolics , Mormons, and some baptist groups. It is likewise taugh by many fundamental CHruhces accorss America. I have no direct beleif concernign this at this time though." - Zarove

Yes, many churches teach this like Mormons, JW's, ICC, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Churches of Christ. But I remember you mentioning one time you went to a Churches of Christ church, so I was wondering what your thoughts on baptism were. I have to admit, Kevin has gotten me to change my view on baptism (With alittle help from Max), though, I don't accept his view.

"I am sorry. I don't know what this is. My theological studies may bethourough, but I ahve pnly been researhcign theology in deapth for a little over a year now. Can you explain this?" - Zarove

On Justification,

“Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 513).

"The Holy Spirit unites us to Christ by grace alone through faith alone. Christ is the object of our faith, and in Him we are declared righteous. In our union with Christ, we receive all of the benefits of the New Covenant on the ground, not of our own works, but because of the life and representative righteousness and redemptive, propitiatory, substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on our behalf. Justification is God’s judicial act of freely remitting the sins of, and reckoning righteousness to, ungodly sinners who have now been united to Christ." - JWH

"This calling is an act of the grace of God in Christ by which he calls men dead in sin and lost in Adam through the preaching of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, to union with Christ and to salvation obtained in him." - Francis Turretin

Usually, those that believe in Justification by Faith Alone also believe in Perseverance of the Saints (aka: OSAS, Eternal Security)

Those who adhere to the Conditional Security believe that salvation can be lost and it (salvation) is kept by what the believer does ("obeys"). It is nothing more than a form of works-based salvation.

"I personaly don't like Musical intruments in services, as they tend to be too loud, and I have sensative ears. Other than this, I have no real objection to them, nor do I think they are essential. One can take them or leave them." - Zarove

Do you believe this has any effect on the salvation of a believer? Kevin thinks anyone who uses these *evil* instruments of death in church are hell-bound.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Actually Faith, you will find that no one knows for sure exactly who penned the creed, or precisely when. To be sure, it is a "tradition" that was passed down through the centuries, through the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church that Christ instituted.

In order to obtain any kind of actual knowledge concerning the origens of the Creed, one must rely heavily on the writings of the Church Fathers. Since the 6th century, legend has it that the Creed was composed by the 12 apostles themselves on the day of pentecost and that each one of the 12 composed one segment of the creed. Again, this is legend based on the writings of the Church Fathers themselves as they refer to this creed in part in their writings.

However, according to one Lutheran website the Creed was formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325 to combat the Arian heresy. It was revised at the 2nd ecumenical council in 381 at Constaninople to combat the Macadonian heresy.

Here's the Lutheran website I mentioned: http://www.luthersepiphany.com/luthersepiphany_057.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

I beleive the Musical Instrument issue is silly. For preference I like none. I grew up with none. I like harign the peopel sing. Instruments are loud and ina small, conclave building like a Chruhc that amlifies the sound can be queit grating.

But savation? That is an issue I never understood about the Chruch of Christ, since Salvation is throug Jesus. I do not understand how one could possibley think that the use of mechanical Instruments woudl damn someone. I mean, think about it. Do you relaly think that God just hates instruments, or that, wheyou die he will sit their and judge you based on someone playing a piano in Chruch? On what grounds? Why is that a reasonable criterion for anyhting?

It is not in the scriptures that the use of mechanical instruments is eeded for worship, and I admit they can be distracting, however, I do nit think they are evil or that they would cause one ot loose ones salvation. Nothing in the scritures even suggest God dissaproves, to me its a neutral issue and a cognregation shoudl chose if it employs tem or not.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 06, 2004.

The point is Gail--

That the Creed was not written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics- -but by early Christians who based it on the apostle's Scriptures. It is for all Christians.

Your claim to it--is false.

I can cite that Creed and mean every word of it.

You said:

To be sure, it is a "tradition" that was passed down through the centuries, through the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ instituted.

Just as long as you recognize that the holy, catholic and apostolic church that Christ instituted is not the Roman Catholic Church.,and that it isn't a tradition but a piece of written work-- then I have no problem.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

I am glad that you recite the Creed, Faith! Every Christian SHOULD, but every Christian does not.

But as to this: "Just as long as you recognize that the holy, catholic and apostolic church that Christ instituted is not the Roman Catholic Church.,and that it isn't a tradition but a piece of written work-- then I have no problem."

ANSWER: I have never seen one piece of evidence to disprove the Catholic Church's claim to be the organic institution born at Pentecost. Not one piece. It would seem that if your claim were true that Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome or any one of dozens of Church Fathers would have at some point written about the "apostacy" of the Church. But nothing like that is found. In fact, just the opposite is found by these great men.

The Creed was passed down to us much like the N.T. . . . tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

"I have never seen one piece of evidence to disprove the Catholic Church's claim to be the organic institution born at Pentecost. Not one piece. "

Really? I have never seen any evidence that suggests that.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

"Just as long as you recognize that the holy, catholic and apostolic church that Christ instituted is not the Roman Catholic Church..."

This is just another way of saying this: everybody can be saved except Catholics.

I'll bet you a million bucks, faith, that if I asked you what iyho, as a Catholic, I should do to be saved according to you, that the answer would be presented in terms of not what to believe, but get this:

...what not to believe.

I would have to stop believing things by the light of Faith. What's more, most of those things slated for denial are directly related to the Incarnation of Christ, the Word made flesh.

Hmmm.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 06, 2004.

No Emerald..,

I would tell you that in order to be saved you would need to accept Christ as your Savior--that you need to put your trust in His work on the cross to redeemn you--not any of your actions/works--and that in this you receive the Holy Spirit, which is the baptism that Jesus brings to those who have put their complete faith in Him. This is being Born-againby the washing and renewal of the Holy Spirit..

I believe that Catholics can and do experience this...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith, are you saying that as long as a Catholic believes the formula you just set out they can be saved?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

I would tell you that in order to be saved you would need to accept Christ as your Savior--that you need to put your trust in His work on the cross to redeemn you...

Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man
Blessed be the name of Jesus
Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar


What am I missing?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 06, 2004.

I don't know Emerald...what is that? Are they just words?

Receiving Christ as your Savior, and understanding what He has done for you-- is a personal experience. Do you feel it? Do you just know that you are saved because of what Christ did for you?

Did the Holy Spirit wash over you and leave you fully convicted?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith says:

"Receiving Christ as your Savior, and understanding what He has done for you-- is a personal experience. Do you feel it?"

This may be what she believes, but there is certainly nothing scriptural about it. The Bible does not speak as to whether we feel we are saved or not. The Bible talks about Faith in Jesus Christ AND we must remember that faith without works is dead.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

I don't know Emerald...what is that? Are they just words?

Not just words, but about the Word made flesh.

"Receiving Christ as your Savior, and understanding what He has done for you-- is a personal experience."

I'm not sure what you mean by a personal experience. I have noted, however, the word personal as in "personal Savior" cannot be found in Scripture. I do, however, see in Sacred Scripture continual reference to a mystical body of Christ of which Christ is the head and the those in the Church are members of. It is uniquely familial and strikingly anti-personal, if by personal you were to mean something akin to autonomy.

"Do you feel it?"

Sometimes.

"Do you just know that you are saved because of what Christ did for you?"

Not all who cry Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of God, but only those who do the will of the Father in Heaven. I'm not dead yet, so I have not yet reached eternal salvation; it that sense, I'm not yet saved. If I perservere then I can be. If I follow Christ, keep His commandments, etc. You've read what's necessary... it's all in Scripture. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5 through 7 is as good as any place to start.

The answer then: If I am ultimately saved, it will be because of what Christ has done for me. I cannot presume upon my salvation if I do not follow Christ.

"Did the Holy Spirit wash over you and leave you fully convicted?

I wasn't convicted... the Heavenly Court decided not to press charges just yet. lol. But I've been baptised.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 06, 2004.

James--

The Bible says that we can *know* that we are saved. Without salvation--which is deliverence from the power of sin--we cannot follow Christ.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.

Titus 3:3-7

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ***********

Being saved is spoken in the past tense here....salvation is towards eternal life., but it is not eternal life itself...and salvation must come first--before you can obey and follow Christ. Without being delivered first--the power of sin is going to win...We find that strength in Christ., and not before we are in Him.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.

"Being saved is spoken in the past tense here....salvation is towards eternal life., but it is not eternal life itself...and salvation must come first--before you can obey and follow Christ. Without being delivered first--the power of sin is going to win...We find that strength in Christ., and not before we are in Him."

The use of the past tense of save can be found in numerous places in the writings of saints throughout the history of the Church. You can find it in Scripture, and you will also find that the saint's understandings were the same.

In fact, any Catholic who understands the Blessed Sacrament understands that salvation begins in this life.

That's not what's argued, though. What's argued is the idea that it can be complete or certain in this life. There's that check in the mail, but then there's that cleared check.

All in all, and taken in the proper sense, I don't see how what you've written above contradicts a Catholic's understanding of being saved in either it's one sense of a beginning towards, or the complete sense of actual arrival at, being with Christ for all eternity in perfect and immutable union.

But again, the Sacraments... what others talk about as floating concepts, malliable ideas and as sort of phantom expressions, Catholics have in concrete in the Sacraments. The Incarnation, the Word made flesh, cannot possible be grasped to any degree (as if grasping the doctrine were fully possible) without a Sacramental understanding. For instance, the phrase Blood of Christ is etherial and meaningless without the Blessed Sacrament. Outside of the Catholic altar, it floats around as a loose concept without real and true meaning and existence, and begins to mean whatever the heck it is a person wants it to mean, or would like it to mean, or would be conducive to their personal interests. That's not how union with Christ works.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2004.

Here, faith,In Titus 3:3-7,

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

Paul speaks about his own experience. He had persecuted the Church. Yet, on his way to Damascus, he has this vision where Jesus speaks to him. He islater told that he will suffer for preaching in Jesus name to the Jews and Gentiles.

So for Paul, putting members of The Way, the original name of the church, in jail, whipping them, was evil, as he realized. Yet God was merciful enough to choose him for a mission. He had to do a mission. So there is action on the part of Paul.

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh

PS: Nice to hear from you, Emerald. Some here here was banned or asked to quit posting at one time or another at the Catholic forum. This excludes Gail, Emily, (Catholic coverts),James, Ian, Rod, Jim (Catholics).

David, Luke, Gillian,and Kevin are Protestants.

I reclassified myself from Catholic Yahwist to Christian Yahwist this year.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 14, 2004.

More Paul, faith: 1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Cr 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1Cr 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

So Paul responded to God's grace by doing something about it.

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh

-- (egonval@yahoo.com), July 14, 2004.

This verse supports a *no works* theology, Elpidio....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 15, 2004.

Why is it that "works" seems so right to me? Really, there is something that really resonates with "this is the right thing to do" I don't find it that hard to believe that some find "faith" through works.

There is even some Biblical basis for "Works." (so I've been told)

Why the big "no way?"

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), July 17, 2004.

Because Jim..,

Salvation is a gift--we can't earn it.

Christ paid the penalty for us--in our place.

Nothing we can do could ever be good enough to merit salvation.

It is an unmerited gift....that we receive by placing our faith in the *work* of Christ at the cross., and in Him to save us. We come to the Father through Him.

There is no other way.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 17, 2004.

If one can lose Salvation, it is because he hasn't accepted Christ. There is a Hell and there is Heaven. Logically and Scripturally souls will be Saved while the rest will not.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that Works will get a soul into Heaven. I don't believe that anyone here is saying, "Look at all of the good works I've done, surely I'll be in Heaven."

But, I am hearing, "I have faith, therefore I'm Saved and will be in Heaven."

I am also hearing/reading that there is more than just Faith in the Salvation plan. Most here are saying that Baptism is required. That is only on example of a physical act in order to seek Salvation. If it is true that all we need is Faith, than why Baptism? And, if Baptism cannot be ignored--a work--than what other works are necessary? I have my list as I'm sure others have theirs. So, it truly is not an accurate assertion: "Sola Fide".

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 17, 2004.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

"Nothing we can do could ever be good enough to merit salvation. "

But, in reality, we must do something--believe, for starters. And in so doing, we merit Salvation. If we choose not to believe--or not predestined to believe--in Christ, we loose. How else can a soul enter in to Heaven or Hell?

But, you see, John 3:16 is an offer to accept Christ. And, in so doing, we accept the whole plan of Salvation. Look at the rituals and ordinances and Sacraments, which are part of that Salvation plan. If it is only faith, then why conform to your church doctrines?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 17, 2004.

Because, Faith without Works is dead.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 17, 2004.

Why is it that James' proclamation does not hold water to some? It seems pretty clear to me.

The homilies during these past Sunday masses have stressed getting out there and doing something. Not for salvation, but because we should, it's right. The Good Samaritan" story was discussed last week as a basis for "works."

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), July 18, 2004.

Dear Jim;

Works are important but not as something that justifies us worthy to earn salvation. Rather our works (sanctification) are an assurance that confirms our “election” by God. Paul was right, all that is required of us is that we trust (have faith) that God has called us (justification). Jesus assures us that we will never let us be snatched from his hand. We do not seek to achieve the minimum requirement for salvation but to live up to our potential as individuals “saved by Grace.” We do not live with the fear that we have done too little to deserve salvation but have the desire (thanksgiving) to do more for receiving such a gift.

James was right about our human condition, we cannot live in faith without assurance of our salvation. Our work (Christian living) is the confirmation of God’s election for our salvation.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), July 19, 2004.

Sorry, I am typing without my glasses:

"Jesus assures us that we will never let us be snatched from his hand." should read

"Jesus assures us that HE will never let us be snatched from his hand."

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), July 19, 2004.

"Our work (Christian living) is the confirmation of God’s election for our salvation. "

I cannot agree with your assertation, Robert. Our work is the confirmation of our own desire to accept Christ. Christ has already Sacrificed Himself. Why would God "elect" some while not electing others? It is up to the individual to accept Christ or not. Christ' offer is universal.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 19, 2004.

No one is ever elected to salvation or to hell--for that matter--as far as I can see in the Scriptures.

Election and predestination always pertains to blessings that God pours out on those who are saved.., and this He knows from before the begining of time.

Look it up in the Bible. We are elected to be adopted children of God., we are elected to to be Christ-like.., and we receive eternal life as children of God. But these things come to us because we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Do you mean like The Virgin Mary?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

rod...who are you addressing?

It couldn't be me, because your question doesn't seem to apply.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Faith

"Election and predestination always pertains to blessings that God pours out on those who are saved.., and this He knows from before the begining of time. "

Do you mean like the Virgin Mary? God pours out [to] those who are saved not only blessings, but missions too. In that case, "election" would have a specific meaning.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

But, this would still mean that Salvation is predetermined. Why else would God pour out his blessings on someone who is not saved?

I reject the whole idea of election/elect and predetermination, unless I embrace the idea of the non-existence of free will.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

Predestination has to do with God's foreknowledge--which simply means to *know in advance.*

God knows in advance who will receive His Son in their lifetime and who will not.

Based on His foreknowledge of what we did with His Son., and whether we are saved or not--He then predetermines our blessings...

Of course God foreknew Mary--like He foreknows all things...but that doesn't mean He preprogrammed everything., and I too reject the notion that there is no free-will.

I think that the fact that evil exists is proof that free-will is true. Our freedom to choose is the reason evil is actual.

God knew that creating free-will beings meant the *possibility* of evil. But He didn't create evil.., just its possibility. We made it real.., and God uses it to serve Him.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

I don't know if God blesses those who are not saved

But, your belief--

"Election and predestination always pertains to blessings that God pours out on those who are saved.., and this He knows from before the begining of time "

basically, places Mary in Heaven.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

Dear Rod and Faith;

I offer my apologies that I will not be able to follow up on this conversation due to my schedule.

I would encourage you to read John Calvin’s treatment on the subject – if you have time for detail, The Heidelberg Catechism for a shorter reference – with scriptural notation, and “Predestination” by Dr. Howard Hageman (a short book similar in style to C.S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters”).

We all agree that the saving work of Jesus is complete. The question remains how it is actuated within our lives. I tend to look to the parable of Jesus regarding the lost sheep as the model of God’s action, where God is the shepherd who chose to go out to the field to find the lost sheep. He could have just as easily stayed with the other sheep that are obedient (faithful). I realize analogies are limited and other interpretations can be placed to it – such as the sheep was already in the flock and the shepherd was simply seeking to return it, so the parable only deals with the wayward believer.

It should be pointed out that while predestination can be discussed within Biblical and systematic theology, it is not a discussion regarding who or why one is saved or not saved other than it is God’s sovereign will. It is experienced by the believer only in his or her past. The present experience of salvation is choice and the future experience is hope. The present choice is always a decision to love or not to love, whether it is to love another person or God. In human experience our ability to love is a day by day effort, creating a common past with those we love and a future we hope to continue in that path. However, as with all things humans, it is imperfect. Granted, the past experience and fidelity to that love enables us to overcome some obstacles in the present (anger, hatred, greed, lust, etc.) but it is not guaranteed that the relationship will continue into the future.

The question is, is our relationship with God as weak a bond as our human relationships. I hope not. If my relationship with God depends on my goodness or even my faith (trust) – it becomes a ‘work’ and I am lost. How do I continue to have hope that my relationship will continue with God – even when I don’t want it to (a normal human response to grief or betrayal by others)? Because I can look to my past and see God’s divine hand directing, leading – and at times compelling me to go places and do things I wouldn’t on my own. With that as my past, why would I think that God would abandon me in the future? Or, as the first question in the Heidelberg Catechism goes:

“What is your only comfort in life and in death?”

“That I am not my own, but belong- body and soul in life and in death – to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven, in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me whole-heartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.”

Scriptural support 1 Corinthians 6:19,20 Romans 14:7-9 1 Corinthians 3:23 Titus 2:14 1 Peter 1:18,19 1 John 1:7-9 1 John 2:2 John 8:34-36 Hebrews 2:14-15 I John 3:1-11 John 6: 39-40 John 10:27-30 2 Thessalonians 3:3 I Peter1:5 Matthew 10:29-31 Luke 21:16-18 Romans 8:28 Romans 8:15,16 2 Corinthians 1:21,22 2 Corinthians 5:5 Ephesians 1:13, 14 Romans 8:1-17

Have a good summer – I look forward to catching up with you in the fall.

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), July 20, 2004.

rod--

I am not sure why you keep mentioning Mary. Mary is not unique in respect to where those who die in Christ go....and that is to be with Him.

And yes that is heaven., though it in not the heaven that Jesus establishes at the end of the age. That is future when He establishes a new heaven and new earth and where we receive our bodies back-- incorruptable and immortal and will live with Him forever...

I think for now--it's more like a spiritual thing. I am not sure.

And those who are not saved do not receive the blessings of being adopted children of God and eternal life.

Why are you bringing up Mary all the time. Did I miss something?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Thank you so much Robert Fretz..,

That was beautiful and very up-lifting : )

God Bless you and you have a great summer too.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Thanks, Robert. I look forward to your future posts.

Faith, I think this is the first time I have heard you acknowledge that Mary is in Heaven. The Catholic Church already made that clear. But, now, I have to ponder on your comment about two seperate Heavens.

I'm just connecting the dots.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

rod..Lol!

I have never denied that Mary would be *in heaven*.., though the Bible actually says that when we die--we are *in Christ*.., and so., since Jesus is at the right hand of God in the heavenly realm--that must be where we go too., though I think only in the spiritual sense.

Christ will return and raise our bodies and we will be reunited soul and body. Christ establishes a new heaven and earth after the thousand year reign., according to Scripture...That is where we will live with Christ forever.

There is only one heaven--and that is wherever God is. Heaven is being with God eternally. Hell is eternal separation from God.

rod--you must have me confused with someone else.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Oh--I get it!

You think I agree that Mary is seated in Heaven alongside Jesus and God as Queen??

Forget that, rod.

Mary is in Christ--like all other believers when they die.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 20, 2004.

Faith, you have this peculiar habit of putting words in people's mouth. I never said that you and I agree on Mary being seated with Jesus in Heaven. I believe your posts and mine are self-evident of our beliefs. I don't put words in anyone's mouth. You may laugh out loud all you want. Though, I fail to see the humor. We do agree about Mary being in Heaven, but you have alluded to Heaven under your specifications; I have not, but the Catholic view, which you don't seem to agree with.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

Also, why would I "think" that you would believe that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? You are not a Catholic. The answer that I am after is regards to Mary being saved and, therefore, in Heaven, either now or later, but inevitably will/is in Heaven. Afterall, it is your belief that God blesses those who are saved. I think that Mary being the vessel for Christ pretty much blesses her and specifies her as being Saved. That is what you have asserted earlier, yes? But, you concede that we are all the same in respect to Salvation, yet there still remains the fact that Mary was "favored" and Elijah was swept up into Heaven. I find that rather contradictory to the "...we are all the same..." assertion. Doesn't it??

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2004.

rod..,

Aren't you the one putting words in my mouth when you suggested that I ever said that Mary was not in heaven--or that she was not saved?

The Bible is clear that Elijah did not have a physical death--but was swept up to heaven...The Bible never says that with respect to Mary. That is the bottom line. You can assume and claim it all you want--it just isn't revealed by God in His Holy Word. That would be a strange ommision of something so important.

The Bible also refers to many people as being blessed and favored. Anyone who is faithful and follows God's will for them is richly blessed.

Proverbs 28:20 A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 21, 2004.

I have decided to start a new threads about a point of discussion: Do you believe in a physical resurrection? and Can a physical body enter Heaven without dying?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

No, Faith. I have been very clear, yet you fail to concede to my simple observations regarding your replies. That seems to be your m.o. "Who me??" should be your signature. The only thing I like twisted are pretzels and country roads.

Read my posts and your replies clearly.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

Say it in your own words, Faith. Is Mary in Heaven or not?

If Mary is with Jesus, then where is Jesus?

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

Faith? ...you still there??

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

rod.., I answered this question. All believers who are saved are wih Christ.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is at the right hand of God.

Mary was a faithful servant of God's., and surely she believed God and saw that Jesus raised from the dead....that makes her saved., as far as I can tell.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 22, 2004.

You answered it and then refuted it.

So, let me get you straight.

Mary is with Jesus (your words), Jesus is seated at the right hand of God (your words), therefore, Mary is also with God. God must be in Heaven. So, Mary is in Heaven.

I don't know why you won't concede to that, but instead only hint to it. So, I've put it together for you.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

But, truly, I know why you won't come out and say it plainly and clearly. You fear Catholicism. You have stated that, yourself:

"Subject: Traditional Roman Catholicism..,scary stuff! "

How plain can your fear be? Well, it is enough to cloud your posts with confusion. It is ok to believe what the Church teaches. You don't have to believe it all, I suppose, at one time.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

There is nothing to fear about Romanism. Unless, of course, we were living a few hundred years ago, then we'd have to fear persecution and being burned at the stake.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Or, we could have lived during the colonial times fearing them Puritan witch hunters and supersticious cultures who fled England in search of a new "freedom"--the Protestants. It works both ways, David. But, I know now why some people spread it thick with the false gospels. They are running on the indwelling of fear. By now, I'm sure that you can see the difference. The Scriptures do not indwell fear, people do.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod..,

Are you serious? Where did I ever hint that Mary was in heaven?

Mary is in Christ just like every other believer who has died. My mother is with Christ too...so is anyone who you know who died in Him- -even before they were really dead.

rod., please show me where anyone was even talking about Mary in this thread. You are the only one who brought her up--for no apparent reason., you seem to think she belongs in this thread. We weren't discussing her.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 23, 2004.

Faith, you have titled this thread, not me.

Traditional Roman Catholicism..,scary stuff!

As far as we know, Marian belief is still part of Traditional Catholicism.

Ok, I like ping-pong, too. You said that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. That puts Him in Heaven. You do the math.

Later.......

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

rod.., read the thread., you'll see what I mean.

I know what I said.

All believers are with Jesus--and if He's in heaven--then so are all of those who died in Him : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 25, 2004.

Well, then, we can agree that Mary is in Heaven with Jesus. That is practically the same as the Catholic belief. Thank you, Faith.

So, what is so scary about such Traditional Catholicism? Now for the next Tradition...

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 25, 2004.

rod..,

I also say that my mother is in heaven with Jesus and so are my grandparents...and anyone who died in Christ. Yes., that would certainly include Mary.

But the Catholic teaching is that she sits enthroned as Queen of Heaven and Mediatrix. In that--we disagree.

We do not read in God's Holy Word anything about such things--and we certainly do not need a Mediator between us and Jesus. Jesus is Mediator between us and God. It stops there....

Traditional Catholics reject anything Vatican II--including Pope John Paul II.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 26, 2004.

Faith said: Traditional Catholics reject anything Vatican II-- including Pope John Paul II.

Faith, that's not entirely true, as there are a lot of different groups that claim to be "traditional Catholics," some of whom remain in communion with the Pope, and some who reject the Pope or who are declared to be schismatic.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Well Emily--

I am just going by what I read over at the Traditional Catholic site hosted by Jake and his wife regina...

http://disc.server.com/Indices/209132.html

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 26, 2004.

This is what I posted today at his fatima third secret thread. The Church has had many revelations in the last 140 years about its coming destruction.

From John Bosco's Pope's ship facig obstacles, Leo XIII (75-100 years) prayer of saint Michael, Pius X vision, Sister Lucia's mountain where the Pope dies.

Interesting that the Vatican page has the Pope climbing a mountain. He is now at the top.

My mother in 2001 and 2002 saw the vatican being dstroyed. I myself had a dream in July 2002 where the Church buildings are abandoned,destroyed, .....I was told I could not build on it since it was too damaged.

Elpidio Gonzalez

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

PS: This is where I hide now, Jake.

Ask Jesus

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

You're wise not to take the word of some Protestant when it comes to what Catholics believe. To say that Traditional Catholics reject the Pope is, I'm convinced, not a product of ignorance, but a deliberate attempt to attack, mislead, and malign. Most people who call themselves Catholic say the same thing. Hatred makes strange bedfellows.

The serpent has a forked tongue.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

Okay jake..,

So you accept the Pope--but you just trash him????????

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

Hey faith, ease up on the question marks. We could use some of those.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2004.

Please re-read my post above about forked-tounguedness and bedfellows & such. You'd be amazed at who you have on your side!

That said, to resist someone's errorrs is not to "trash" them. I resist, reject, despise, and anathemize the heresy of Protestantism, but that doesn't mean I "trash" the particular heretics who are taken in by it. On the contrary, I am obliged to instruct the ignorant in such measure as I am able, and to pray for your conversion.

I cannot judge the Pope. No one can. He has no spiritual superior on earth. That judgement is reserved to God alone. However, we do have to make jugdements with respect to his words & actions insofar as they place our salvation in peril, and are in contradiction to the Church's Tradition. We cannot cooperate in the destruction of the Church which has been so hastened by the false ecumenism, existentialism, and other erroneous ideas he holds dear.

So, we have a great love for the Petrine Office and a great deal of affection for the Vicar of Christ; and we do owe him true obedience. True obedience does not mean that we believe that he is infallible in everything he says or does (error by excess), nor is it the flipside of that error (defect), where we feel we can simply dismiss or ignore him because we don't agree. If the Catholic Faith goes one way, and the Pope goes another way, we have to go with the Faith.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

jake,

I am confused. Are you Roman Catholic or not?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

Oh now jake..,

The biggest heresy of all is the claim to some so-called Papacy. That is a very unbiblical doctrine that comes pack-filled with some very horrifying history itself..

I say bull to all religion!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

I say bull to all religion!

We know.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

jake...

This is what Jesus said about religion:

Mark 7:1-9, 13

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

.....you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

And....

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the rock and foundation of the church..

But the Bible says:

Psalm 18:1-2

I love you, O LORD , my strength.

The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), July 27, 2004.

I have a Bible, too, and:

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. -Creed of Pope Pius IV

Malachi 2-7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

St. Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was SPOKEN by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. [Here, St. Matthew is quoting an oral Tradition that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene. This is NOT in the OT; it was only TRADITION]

St. Matthew 23:2-3 [Jesus speaking] "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" [i.e., His problem with the Pharisees was not because of law, authority or tradition; His issue with them was with their hypocrisy, their putting the Law before Love, and the pre-Talmudic practices!]

St. John 5:39-40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [NIV: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.]

Acts 8:30-31 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU.

1 Corinthians 4:14–15 I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of us.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [At the time this verse was written, the only "scripture" around was the Old Testament. Was Paul telling Timothy he needed nothing but the Old Testament? And in what way does "profitable" mean "sufficient"?]

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

3 John 1:13-14 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

But even Satan himself used that method against Christ, that of pitting one Scripture passage against another.

That's what you've got going here, faith... pitting Psalm 18:1-2 against Matthew 16:18:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2004.

Yes jake--the reason that Jesus hated religion was because of the hypocrisy and false teachings that developed. I agree.

John 5:39-40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [NIV: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.]

The religious leaders *knew* what the Bible said but failed to apply its words to their lives. They knew the teachings of the Scriptures but failed to *see* the Messiah to whom the Scriptures pointed. They knew the rules but missed their Savior.

They failed to receive Jesus Christ in spite of their knowledge of the Scriptures--

Acts 8:30-31 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

We should always seek biblical understanding with others...we should not try to understand the Bible alone. What is interesting with this verse is that it was the OT book of Isaiah which led this man to the truth of Jesus Christ. Philip was a believer--and just like all Christian believers., a true disciple of Christ. We all have the Holy Spirit in us--and are able to understand God's Holy Word.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU.

All valid teachings and any valid tradition to be kept, is recorded in the Word of God : )

1 Corinthians 4:14–15 I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel

Yes--Paul was the founder of the church at Corinthians.., so?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our epistle.

As recorded.....he makes no mention that there would be continuing tradition over the coming generations that we would have to keep in order.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of us.

Again.., your point? You don't think that this supports every false doctrine your church has made--do you?

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.

It is the Living God who is the pillar and foundation of the church. And the church is Christ's true body of believers....

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Again--all recorded for us.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. [At the time this verse was written, the only "scripture" around was the Old Testament. Was Paul telling Timothy he needed nothing but the Old Testament? And in what way does "profitable" mean "sufficient"?]

Surely--with God as the author of all Scripture--He meant all Scripture--past, present and future.

And actually jake--the Old Testament is the revelation of Jesus Christ and of salvation through Him. That is all that we really need to understand. So yes--the Old Testament is fully-equipped to reveal this truth.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

The Jewish Christians were immature. They should have been off teaching others., but instead., were stuck because they hadn't even applied the basics in their own lives. Why? Because they were reluctant to move beyond age-old traditions, and established doctrines. They weren't going to be able to understand the high- priestly role of Christ unless they moved away from their Jewish ties. That's what that verse is revealing. Jesus Christ is the only High Priest we need., as Hebrews slowly discloses.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So that should really put an end to the private interpretations of so many religions--but it doesn't.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.

This speaks to people who do not value Scripture. False teachers intentionally misused Paul's writings by distorting them to condone lawlessness. This was no doubt a problem because back then, as today, people liked it if their favorite sins could be justified.

Notice that already., Paul's letters were considered to be Scripture.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

So you think that this proves what? Do you seriously think that this establishes a body of unwritten tradition equalled to God's Holy Written Word? Anything that valuable was recorded for us..jake. This sounds more like a personal desire for these people to simply meet.

3 John 1:13-14 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee.

Again--a personal desire to meet.., as we should all share with fellow believers. Anything valid and pertaining to our eternal salvation has been preserved in His Word--necessarily so. Surely you don't insinuate that what John had to say to these people face to face was about Mary's bodily assumption or Immaculate conception or some theory about Purgatory or a Papacy--right???

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

what Paul had to say

Paul who?

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

By evading my post with silly antics., you reveal that you are stumped. Well--okay then. I am not surprised : )

I knew you couldn't maintain yourself.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

In all honesty, your post made no sense to me at all.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

Of course not jake--you are up to your ears in false teachings....why would simple exegisis make any sense to you?

What if we take your verses one at a time?

Your verse--

John 5:39-40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [NIV: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.]

My response--

The religious leaders *knew* what the Bible said but failed to apply its words to their lives. They knew the teachings of the Scriptures but failed to *see* the Messiah to whom the Scriptures pointed. They knew the rules but missed their Savior.

Do you see that? Or do you have a different explanation of what Jesus was saying to these Jews?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

Faith said: the reason that Jesus hated religion was because of the hypocrisy and false teachings that developed.

This is not entirely true. Jesus did not hate religion itself, but only the false teachings and hypocrisy, as you say. But when you say that Jesus hated religion altogether, you are contradicting St. James in his epistle, who says how God the Father views religion. I seriously doubt that Jesus and the Father have differing views on religion.

James 1 (KJV)
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Notice that the man who sins deceitfully, his religion is in vain. But the next verse shows that there is a type of pure, undefiled religion.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.

Okay Emily..,

It is the false religions and the false doctrines that come from them that I am speaking about and that Jesus also warned against.

I agree that there can be a biblically religious people that are pleasing to God. Those who do honor to His Word.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

faith says:

"The religious leaders *knew* what the Bible said but failed to apply its words to their lives. They knew the teachings of the Scriptures but failed to *see* the Messiah to whom the Scriptures pointed. They knew the rules but missed their Savior. Do you see that? Or do you have a different explanation of what Jesus was saying to these Jews?"

That all sounds pretty much ok. Here's the question though: what in the world does that have to do with the Catholic Church? Make some connections for me here. Dot to dot, take it slow, because I'm a slow one you know.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2004.

No Emerald:

You said:

But even Satan himself used that method against Christ, that of pitting one Scripture passage against another. That's what you've got going here, faith... pitting Psalm 18:1-2 against Matthew 16:18:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I am not pitting those verses against each other. Yours is a seriously deceived interpretation. The entire notion is incorrect.

When Jesus acknowledges that Peter is Petros[small pebble]--He then says that He is building His church on Petras[large foundation].

Peter knew what Jesus meant--he had already affirmed it two verses before when he declared, "You are the Christ--the Son of the Living God."

Jesus was saying in effect, "Peter, you are right; it is Christ that the church will be built upon."

**********************************

Then you said about this:

Faith: "The religious leaders *knew* what the Bible said but failed to apply its words to their lives. They knew the teachings of the Scriptures but failed to *see* the Messiah to whom the Scriptures pointed. They knew the rules but missed their Savior. Do you see that? Or do you have a different explanation of what Jesus was saying to these Jews?"

Emerald: That all sounds pretty much ok. Here's the question though: what in the world does that have to do with the Catholic Church? Make some connections for me here. Dot to dot, take it slow, because I'm a slow one you know.

That was a verse that jake provided--I am assuming., so to prove that the Scripture alone is not sufficient. I guess he thought that Jesus was saying that the Scriptures alone do not save. But Jesus was actually saying that if you really understand the Scriptures--they do save, because they point you to Messiah.., something that the Jews were missing even though they combed the Scriptures daily..

The problem was that they were allowing the traditions and teachings of men--to blind them to the truth that is revealed in the Old Testament. They were so busy trying to keep their rules (made by man)- -that they missed Jesus altogether.

This is something that I think the Catholic Church also has happening...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

We should always seek biblical understanding with others...we should not try to understand the Bible alone.

Who's helping you? How do you know they're right?

just like all Christian believers., a true disciple of Christ.

Not everyone who believes in Christ is His true deciple. Our Blessed Lord went to great pains to let us know this, both in Scripture and in the Sacred Tradition of the One True Church.

We all have the Holy Spirit in us--and are able to understand God's Holy Word.

There are 30,000 Protestant sects, all of whom think they have the correct understanding. You're just a pebble on that beach.

the church is Christ's true body of believers....

And just who are they?

That's what that verse is revealing.

How do you know? Should we take you at your word?

So that should really put an end to the private interpretations of so many religions--but it doesn't.

How is your particular interpretation non-private?

This speaks to people who do not value Scripture.

You don't have an authoritative bone in your body to tell anyone what any passage of Scripture means. That's my point here.

Do you seriously think that this establishes a body of unwritten tradition equalled to God's Holy Written Word?

Absolutely. Yes.

This sounds more like a personal desire for these people to simply meet.

Sounds like? To whom? You? Surely you don't insinuate that what John had to say to these people face to face was about Mary's bodily assumption or Immaculate conception or some theory about Purgatory or a Papacy--right???

Perhaps. I wasn't there. Neither were you.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 27, 2004.

For jake..

Who's helping you? How do you know they're right?

What gives you the impression that only your hierarchy--as sinful as they are--are the only ones able to determine what God has revealed to *all* His people?

Not everyone who believes in Christ is His true deciple. Our Blessed Lord went to great pains to let us know this, both in Scripture and in the Sacred Tradition of the One True Church.

Jesus taught us that those who believe in Him and are baptised by the Holy Spirit--are His disciples.

There are 30,000 Protestant sects, all of whom think they have the correct understanding. You're just a pebble on that beach.

And what separates your millions of Catholics from that same beach? You are no different--and you are also divided within your own sect as well.

the church is Christ's true body of believers....

And just who are they?

The Bible teaches that those who have died in Him--are His body. Those who were baptised by the Holy Spirit when they believed and received Christ as their Savior..

1 Cor.6:19-20

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

1 Cor 12:12-13

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Eph 1:3-14

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment-- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

How do you know? Should we take you at your word?

You should take God's Word and stop thinking that only some criminal pope from centuries ago could possibly understand what God's Word is revealing.

How is your particular interpretation non-private?

My church does not claim total authority over its people or excommunicate those who don't believe their every word. We study the Scriptures together--and I am sure we don't all agree about things like *when* will the rapture occur--etc. But we agree on the fundamental aspects of the Bible such as Jesus's divinity, His Resurrection., etc.

A private interpretation is when a group of men go behind closed doors and decide for everyone else--what the Bible says. Consider the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. What makes your interpretation not private like theirs.

You don't have an authoritative bone in your body to tell anyone what any passage of Scripture means. That's my point here.

Well that is not what the Bible says, jake. We see Jesus asking His hearers all the time, "Have you not read in the Scriptures?" and., "For it is written.." Jesus fully expected the Jewish people to have known their Scriptures.., and just think--without the Roman Catholic Church--no less.

Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Even the people listening to Paul--checked out everything he was saying., by searching the Scriptures.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 27, 2004.

Faith says:

"What gives you the impression that only your hierarchy--as sinful as they are--are the only ones able to determine what God has revealed to *all* His people?"

Scripture.

Second, Faith, when you find a church that has pastors that are sinless let me know and I will join it. You are letting your bias show. You are implying that Catholic pastors are bigger sinners than say baptist pastors. Where is your evidence?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

What gives you the impression that only your hierarchy--as sinful as they are--are the only ones able to determine what God has revealed to *all* His people?

Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours, although the answer is right there in your Bible if you want to look it up.

Jesus taught us that those who believe in Him and are baptised by the Holy Spirit--are His disciples.

What does it mean to be "baptized by the Holy Spirit?" How does one know if/when this "baptism" has taken place?

And what separates your millions of Catholics from that same beach? You are no different--and you are also divided within your own sect as well.

There is One Catholic Faith. Those who accept it are Catholics, those who don't, aren't. We've talked about this before.

You should take God's Word and stop thinking that only some criminal pope from centuries ago could possibly understand what God's Word is revealing.

You're tapdancing. How can you possibly understand, on your own, what God's Word is revealing?

My church does not claim total authority over its people or excommunicate those who don't believe their every word.

Which "church" was that again? The one that says "bull to all religion?"

Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. What makes your interpretation not private like theirs.

Because:

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. -Creed of Pope Pius IV

-- jake (j@k.e), July 28, 2004.

James..,

There is no one sinless., not one--except of course--Jesus.

The difference is that my pastors are not claiming otherwise.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 28, 2004.

Faith says:

"The difference is that my pastors are not claiming otherwise."

Please cite for me an example of a Catholic pastor claiming to be sinless. Not even the pope would claim to be sinless. From what I hear the Pope goes to confession every day (i.e. James 5:16), which he would have no need to do if he were a sinless man.

Once again, Faith, you need to learn the truth about the Catholic Church, and unlearn the distorted ideas that you have.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

I am sorry James--but the Catholic Church itself claims to be the only true and infallable Church of Jesus Christ.

You can deny that if you want., but I believe I understand the claim quite well.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 28, 2004.

Faith says:

"I am sorry James--but the Catholic Church itself claims to be the only true and infallable Church of Jesus Christ.

You can deny that if you want., but I believe I understand the claim quite well. "

Faith, quit changing the issue, the infallibility of the church has nothing to do with sinlessness. Let's get back to the issue:

You claimed that before that: "There is no one sinless., not one--except of course--Jesus.

The difference is that my pastors are not claiming otherwise."

Which to me implies that you are implying that Catholic pastors are claiming to be sinless. I am glad that you agree that the Catholic Church in no way has ever claimed that its pastors (including the pope) are sinless.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

James..,

Can infallable priests be sinful at the same time?

By claiming to be infallable--your Church hierarchy must be claiming to be sinless.., no?

What is meant by infallable?

In any event--infallability is a false claim because if we are sinful., and we are--how can we be infallable.

My pastors make no such false claims. That is my point. We don't put ourselves up on that pedastal and claim to be the only true church of Jesus Christ. Your Church makes that claim.., and further., it claims to be the world-wide headquarters of Christianity [The Vatican].

Yet the Bible tells us that Christ's church is not of this world.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 28, 2004.

"Can infallable priests be sinful at the same time?"

I don't think infallible means sinless, I have to run, laters.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

Well okay., David--

But I can't help but wonder how sinful man could ever be infallable. Do you see the quandry?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 28, 2004.

Faith,

Did you ever wonder how a sinful man could ever write infallible scripture? Or do you reject the idea that scripture is infallible?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

Faith,

Are you mad at me? :-\

I sent you an email at myway.com

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.

Scripture is infallible because God wrote it!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 29, 2004.

No David--I am not mad at you : )

Why would I be?

I've been extremely busy at church with VBS and I don't get to my email too much.

I did see your email about when you stopped us from posting on a certain thread. I wasn't mad--but that did put an end to some discussion...and so I was spending much more time at a private Christian board [the one I invited you to come and see]. I love to go there and debate with my Calvin and non-Calvin friends on board : )

I meant to respond--but got so busy and forgot. I am sorry.

Is that the email you are talking about?

I'll go check...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 29, 2004.

Faith says:

"Scripture is infallible because God wrote it!"

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (among others) were not God, but they were sinful men.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

they were sinful men.

Scripture contains no errors. Error only comes into play when some schmo tries to interpret Scripture according to his/her own personal whims, without guidance or authority, and claiming some bogus "baptism of the spirit" as their license to do so and their guarantee of accuracy.

Uncomfortable with some Scripture passages? Well, just rip 'em out! Call what's left the New Revised Edited Reviewed Standard Personal Version, hang up a shingle, and make your own church. Problem solved.

-- jake (j@k.e), July 29, 2004.

Uncomfortable with the paganism in your religion jake?

Just invent a bunch of doctrines to justify yourselves and then claim you are the *infallible church*.., something the Bible never reveals even exists!!

Your worship of the "queen of heaven" is one example....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 29, 2004.

Your worship of the "queen of heaven" is one example....

Please site evidence that Catholics worship anything but God.

-- (jake@HISway.com), July 29, 2004.

"O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. "

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Uncomfortable with the paganism in your religion jake?

Oh, and while you're at it, howza 'bout some evidence of the paganism in Catholicism. Thanks.

-- (jake@HISway.com), July 29, 2004.

Beautiful prayer. Thanks for posting it. But I'm interested in some evidence that Catholics "worship" the Blessed Mother.

-- (jake@HISway.com), July 29, 2004.

Are you really interested jake?

You've made her queen of heaven...

You claim she rose bodily just like Christ and is seated with God., just like Christ--actually-it seems she has usurped the place of Christ.

According to your religion., it is through Mary that peace will come.., she is your life and your hope.

Our Lady of this and Our Lady of that--

The Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Mary!!

However--the Bible attributes all those things to Christ and only Him as Our Lord and God. Jesus is Mediator--Jesus will bring everlasting peace., and Jesus is our life and hope--not Mary.

How many shrines do you have for Mary?.., and compare that with the number of shrines you have for Jesus. That alone should give you a clue as to *who* you worship....

-- (faith01@myway.com"), July 29, 2004.

Faith says:

"How many shrines do you have for Mary?.., and compare that with the number of shrines you have for Jesus. That alone should give you a clue as to *who* you worship"

Faith I am getting sick and tired of your lies. Worship comes from the heart. Do you know what goes on in my heart? You don't, so stop your pretending that you know who I am worshiping.

To answer your question, Jesus is Present in all of our shrines and it is he alone that we worship. Yes, we have shrines that honor Mary, but honor is a lot different from worship.

Have you ever tried to understand how Catholics view Mary? I don't mean look for evidence to support your agenda, but actually tried to understand the Catholic view of Mary?

When you make unfounded accusations like this, it is no wonder you have been banned from Catholic forums.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Faith,

In response to your view on Catholic beliefs about Mary, the virgin mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

You've made her queen of heaven...

Actually, Catholic teaching is that this title is fitting as she is the Mother of Jesus our Lord and King along the lines of the Queen Mother such as Bathsheba (Solomon's mother) in the House of David. So God actually gave her that title by choosing her to be the mother of His son, who is King and Lord of All.

You claim she rose bodily just like Christ and is seated with God., just like Christ--actually-it seems she has usurped the place of Christ.

No. Not "just like Christ." Christ is God and rose of His own power. The Catholic belief is that Jesus brought Mary into heaven upon her death (Mary was assumed into Heaven, not ascended into heaven). She is still a creature of God, not God Himself as Christ is. She is united in Christ as all believers are who persevere to the end and remain in God's friendship.

According to your religion., it is through Mary that peace will come.., she is your life and your hope.

Words such as these can be confusing, but it is always by the power and grace of God through Jesus Christ that peace comes. We do believe that her intercession with her son is powerful just as James, in his epistle, tells us that the prayers of the righteous are powerful. Through her pleas to Christ on our behalf, and Christ answering her prayers do we say that through Mary we receive graces. It's similar to me saying that God has answered my prayers through you if you pray to God on my behalf.

Our Lady of this and Our Lady of that--

The Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Mary!!

That is not Catholic teaching. Only God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

However--the Bible attributes all those things to Christ and only Him as Our Lord and God. Jesus is Mediator--Jesus will bring everlasting peace., and Jesus is our life and hope--not Mary.

Catholic teaching is in line with your presentation of Scripture here. Mary is only our life, our sweetness, and our hope with respect to her prayers of intercession with the one mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ.

We honor her only because she is the Mother of Our Lord. She deserves honor only because of her relationship to Him. As Scripture says, "all generations shall call me blessed." Blessed because of Jesus.

I believe you've already heard what Catholics really believe about Mary (probably at this forum). I can only hope that you will believe us when we tell you what is in our heart when we ask Mary to intercede with her Son for us and that we do not equate her with God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), July 30, 2004.

I noticed that "faith@HISway.com" was changed to "jake@HISway.com"

Jake didn't write those posts. I did.

-- Regina (regina@HISway.com), July 30, 2004.

Well Regina..,

Maybe you shouldn't use my name then...

I simply checked the IP address--and its the same as jakes'

The two of you are a team., so what's the difference?

If you don't like that the name was corrected to jake--perhaps you should use your own name when posting here--to avoid confusion.

faith is my handle--has been for many years.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

For Andy--

You said:

Actually, Catholic teaching is that this title is fitting as she is the Mother of Jesus our Lord and King along the lines of the Queen Mother such as Bathsheba (Solomon's mother) in the House of David. So God actually gave her that title by choosing her to be the mother of His son, who is King and Lord of All.

That may be what the Catholic teaching is--however., that is not biblical teaching. The title *queen of heaven* has always been in a negative reference to a pagan goddess.

No. Not "just like Christ." Christ is God and rose of His own power. The Catholic belief is that Jesus brought Mary into heaven upon her death (Mary was assumed into Heaven, not ascended into heaven). She is still a creature of God, not God Himself as Christ is. She is united in Christ as all believers are who persevere to the end and remain in God's friendship.

Well that is a lovely theory James., however--it is not biblical. God does not reveal that Mary didn't have a physical death--like the rest of us do. This story is what causes undo worship of Mary. Mary is not the Mother of God. God created Mary. How could she be His Mother?

Words such as these can be confusing, but it is always by the power and grace of God through Jesus Christ that peace comes. We do believe that her intercession with her son is powerful just as James, in his epistle, tells us that the prayers of the righteous are powerful. Through her pleas to Christ on our behalf, and Christ answering her prayers do we say that through Mary we receive graces. It's similar to me saying that God has answered my prayers through you if you pray to God on my behalf.

Well the Bible reveals that Jesus is our Mediator [between us and God.] There is no revelation in Scripture that tells us that we need a mediator between us and our Mediator. It's a slippery slope. Such a notion is also responsible for the undo worship of Mary. Mary herself would tell you that we are to look to her Son alone.

That is not Catholic teaching. Only God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

James--the reason that God can hear all of our prayers is because He is Omnipresent--which means to be present in all places at the same time. If Mary can hear our prayers--then she must necessarily be Omnipresent.

Catholic teaching is in line with your presentation of Scripture here. Mary is only our life, our sweetness, and our hope with respect to her prayers of intercession with the one mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ.

Like I said--it is simply not biblical. As Christians--we can come directly before the throne of God., in Jesus' name.

We honor her only because she is the Mother of Our Lord. She deserves honor only because of her relationship to Him. As Scripture says, "all generations shall call me blessed." Blessed because of Jesus.

I can see that you simply do not recognize that although you claim not to worship Mary--it is in fact, how it plays out in truth. I agree that Mary is blessed....but so are all who follow God's calling for them in their lives, as Mary did and set a great example. Many people in the Bible are called blessed, by-the-way. Yet--there are no shrines to them.

I believe you've already heard what Catholics really believe about Mary (probably at this forum). I can only hope that you will believe us when we tell you what is in our heart when we ask Mary to intercede with her Son for us and that we do not equate her with God.

The problem is that the true Mary cannot hear you.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

James...,

For one thing--I am not *attacking* anyone. I have my opinions about the false teachings of Rome--and I can declare them without having to be accused by you of such non-sense.

I am also not a liar.

Please keep to the subject and leave the adhominem posts aside.

-- ('faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

'tis very true that the Bible does not explicitly say that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven. moreover, anyone relying soley upon the Bible will struggle with other aspects of Catholic dogma. IOW, this is not limited to our our veneration ("hyperdulia", not "latria") of the Mother of God.

HOWEVER, that same person is also going to struggle, on a much more fundamental level, if he/she tries to find

a/ those parts of the Bible that say that the Bible is the sole source of dogma OR

b/ thos parts of the the Bible that tell us what "the Bible" or "Scripture" actually is

and then,of course, we have St. Paul clear mandate: ".... stand fast; and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

in this sense, therefore, protestant disbelief at Catholic dogma pertaining to the Blessed Mother could be portrayed largely as a function of rejection of Tradition -- added to some over-zealous interpretation of the Bible; which in turn fuels scepticism at the level of Catholic veneration of Mary.

but absence of Seciptural Tradition can only be is a gaping hole in any "deposit of faith"; and a serious limitation which, ironically, in practice, has not precluded acceptance of other Catholic dogma which are not so "obvious" from Scripture.

i just wonder how many of the "reforms" that have ben made by the "reformers" fall on this analysis. i also note, as has been noted here many times before, that Martin Luther was a committed Marian Devotee.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 30, 2004.

Ian..,

Paul was refering to only those traditions that are now recorded. He would never have trusted such important doctrines to word of mouth. Even during his day--there were false prophets trying to claim that the Day of the Lord had already come--and they forged this message in letters not really from Paul--but that made that claim. So Paul said not to believe anything unless it was written in his handwriting or came directly from his lips.

The Bible also tells us that the Scriptures are fully sufficient unto our salvation.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Maybe you shouldn't use my name then...

I didn't use your name. Your name isn't Faith. It's Susan.

-- Regina (regina@HISway.com), July 30, 2004.

Wrong Regina..,

My name on the internet is Faith., and always has been whether you like it or not. And that is my real email address as well.

So pick your own handle., or use your name., but not mine. That's all.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

I thought it was "angeloflight", Faith.

Oh well. Look:

I have deleted several recent messages from Emerald, and Faith who is now posting as angeloflight@hotmail.com. These individuals are prohibited from posting. Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 30, 2004.

Found here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00B3gp

Well, don't feel bad. Ed deleted my post, which consisted of an attempt to convince people not to buy into false apparitions, and another which contained a excerpt from St. Alphonsus Liguori's True Devotion to Mary.

Sounds like you both have some explaining to do.

"Angel of Light"? Faith, what's up with that? lol.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Hi Emerald--I am an angel of light : )

I like to spread the Word of God as He revealed Himself.

Paul and I were having a perfectly good discussion., and actually not even arguing. I think he was assuming that I was saying something he didn't agree with [something Calvinistic perhaps]--but in the end, he knew I was right.

Ed's vendetta is personal. I never did anything wrong or violated any rules there. He just got fed-up because he knows that what I point out is true--I use Scripture--so how can he argue?It's embarrassing for him, so easier to just delete everything I post.

I find it interesting that you recognize that some Marian apparitions are demonic--but you don't recognize that possibly all of them are. Why is that?

Why would God need to send Mary for any further revelation? Wasn't the cross enough?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

"Hi Emerald--I am an angel of light : )"

Well you see, Faith, using a name like that's bound to raise the hackles on just about anybody with an ounce of spiritual intuition:

2 Corinthians 11, 12 & 13: "For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light."

DRV version, of course. Now I'm not saying you're satan or anything goofy like that, but one can't help wonder why you didn't think that one through a little bit, especially in conjunction with at statement like this:

"I like to spread the Word of God as He revealed Himself."

At any rate, I didn't see what conversation you had with Paul. As for Ed, there's most definitely a reasonable argument for not having you in there, and I'm absolutely positive it isn't because your arguments are irrefutable. As for me and Ed, who cares, except it is interesting that the issue I was canned out of the forum was surrounding a discussion of Mary as co-mediatrix or co-redemptrix. It's pretty simple, really: I didn't like Catholics doubting this, not as a defined doctrine because it isn't yet defined, but the they were doubting it as something always held by the Catholic Church, which beyond a shadow of a doubt it has most provably upheld through all the ages of the Church. I simply got fed up with the incredulity of some of my own kind, shot my mouth off and got canned. In this way, I might be seen that traditional Catholics are rightly miffed at the anywhere from subtle to manifest protestantization of the Church at this time, and why the get passionate about moving to drive a stake through the heart of any such deviations from Catholic doctrine.

Regardless of any of the chaos the Catholic Church finds itself in, Catholics of any kind will persist, even poorly, in three ways that mark themselves as the true Church of Christ: The Blessed Sacrament, the Mother of God, and the Vicar of Christ.

"I find it interesting that you recognize that some Marian apparitions are demonic--but you don't recognize that possibly all of them are. Why is that?"

Because where there authenticity, the enemies of the truth will always move in to mask, hide, and suppress. Failing this, they then move in to mock, ridicule and scoff. Again, failing that, their next strategic objective is to mimic, imitate and deceive. So it's no surprise on this end that wherever there is truth there is also plenty of foul play as well, with mimicry and immitation surrounding only the truest of the true.

"Why would God need to send Mary for any further revelation?"

The word revelation here can be used in many senses. The truest sense of the word revelation would the Deposit of Faith, the truths divinely revealed by Christ to His apostles and entrusted to the Church to be preached to all nations for the salvation of souls. There have been no new revelations since that time. So in answer to your question, Mary was never sent for the purposed of imparting any new revelation. In fact, if one were to say this, they would find themselves to be in contradiction to the principles of the Catholic Faith itself.

Perhaps you mean revelations in a sense that would be better described as prophecy or something else. But regardless of the sense in which you mean to take it, if an honest examination is undertaken of any one of the apparitions approved by the Catholic Church, you will find that none of them promote any belief which has not already been known and always held by the Universal Church. By Universal Church, I specifically mean the Catholic Church. In fact, in the approval of these things, this is what the Church specifically looks for: whether anything contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Faith.

"Wasn't the cross enough?"

The Mother of God never points to anything other than her Son and the Cross. Mary is the most faithful adherent to Christ, His mission, His life, suffering on the Cross, death and resurrection, bar none. To be confident in the help of Mary is to be confident that she would show you how to best honor her Son and immitate him. Her response to the will of the Father in Luke Chapter one is the model for immitation. To be blunt, your response so far is a couple hundred levels below Zachary's, and he got muted for his. =)

If you're looking for proof of an article of Faith, you should already know that one cannot prove and article of Faith, because the articles of Faith had been provided by way of Divine revelation for the very reason that they transcends human reason, but are necessary for salvation. If you are looking for a proof against what is contrary to an article of Faith, that can be done, so long as the other holds enough of the other principles of the Faith in common such that reason can be applied in order to dispel what is contrary to the Faith.

I can't prove anything related to Catholic doctrine concerning the Mother of God to you. I can only try to dispel false opinion contrary to it, and then again that only if you were to hold enough of the Faith in common from which to proceed. I'm not sure you do.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

I believe David O. objects on 7/29/04 from the Catholic prayer that he quoted to Jake are these words:

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.

faith ,like Kevin, Luke, and myself alos oject to it. We cannot place our salvation of Mary.

Like fauith pointed out, the mediator is Jesus, not Mary. Besides our salvation doesn;t depende on Mary. This includes Jesus. For ME that even includes Yahweh, our God.

Faith mentions shrines. As a Mexican, I know first hand that Catholics worship Mary. From the candles people light up, to the bruises from moving from kneeling from outside the Church to the image. This could be San Juan de Los Lagos, or el santuario de Guadalupe in Mexico City. I should know: I portrayed Juan Diego 3 times. I even wrote a lay based on the apparitions of Mary , lcalled La Virgen de Guadalupe to Juan Diego. The famous legend dated to 1531 about these apparitions is 100% fake. The painting was made by the Indian Marcos Ipaq de Aquino. It is in Book 10 of Fray Bernardino's History in 13 volumes.

This is not the only fake story. There are many more.

Only in Tepatitlan , Jalisco I know they worship Jesus. He is called "El señor de los rayos".

Here in the USA, I found White and African Aricans worshipping Jesus. The only times I heard praises to Mary was in Church during mass.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- (egonval@yahoo.com), July 30, 2004.

Well, Emerald, how many apparitions of mary do you question as valid

Medjugorie?

Garabandal?

Lourdes?

Fatima?

Guadalupe? ....any I omitted

I accept Fatima. Still in doubt with Lourdes.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com,), July 30, 2004.

Andy, I think faith's objection to Queen of Heaven for Mary originated with Diana from Ephesus. She was called the mother of Heaven.

There is a legend about John the apostle at Ephesus. I believe the legend originated because the Christians wanted the people to turn to Christianity in the 4th century, so they changed Diana's worship as Goddess to Mary.

No proof John was there. So Mary never was there. So worship was mixed up.

Act 19:28 And when they heard [these sayings], they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.

Act 19:34 But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great [is] Diana of the Ephesians.

Act 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 30, 2004.

Consider this carefully, Elpidio; watch carefully:

The Catholic Church's devotion to the advocacy of the Blessed Mother; ain't nothing gonna stop it.

Alright, that being said, those who believe this is a problem raise a ruckus, right? Why? Because they say that the Catholic Church's teachings concerning the Mother of God is any number of things from misguided thinking to idolatry. Of course I or any other honest Catholic knows this all to be untrue and dishonest spin. But at any rate, that's what the complaint is.

Now I would answer back: why is that such a big deal? If someone gets this wrong in your view and falsely believes things about the Mother of God... is then therefore the destiny of their eternal soul at stake? Could they go to Hell for having believed such things about Mary, in other words?

If the person then responds "yes, a person could go to Hell for believing such things concerning Mary", I would simply shoot this back:

"So then, you do believe that the holding of articles of Faith, or the denial of them, most certainly does have direct consequences involving the destiny of the human soul? Namely, landing in heaven or hell?"

At this point, they would have to admit that this is so: that a person's acceptance, or rejection, of articles of Faith DOES have a bearing on the eternal destiny of a person's soul.

Now they're toast. Because as soon as this admission is procured, one need only to point out the absolute chaos of disagreement among all Protestants concerning even the most fundamental of doctrines put on the discussion table.

To escape this noose, they would then move to identify at a least a handful of doctrines that all "Christians" would supposedly all agree to and hold in common. Least common denomintors would have to be immediately established as to doctrine. But after a little trial and a lot of error, they would find that even this is an impossible task.

Conclusion: it cannot be argued that Catholics would perish for eternity for having believed Catholic doctrine concerning the Mother of God without also having to admit that agreement upon all the articles of Faith is essential for one to lay claim to the name Christian, and therefore, to be saved.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

2 Corinthians 11, 12 & 13: "For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light."

So by that verse--you think that there are no real angels of light?

That verse speaks about false prophets who disguise themselves as true apostles...

Satan is also refered to a the morning star--yet Jesus didn't hesitate to call Himself a bright Morning Star--did He?

Satan is just a great imitator--and He has deceived many.

The true light is Jesus--and it is His light that I spread. His Word is light. I can't make the connection that you are.

I fail to see the problem...Satan is darkness and He only disguises himself as an angel of light--deceiving many. I think he hides in the papacy, for example.

There are true angels of light......metaphorically speaking anyway. I am not an actual angel, but I do preach the gospel wherever I go.

At any rate, I didn't see what conversation you had with Paul. As for Ed, there's most definitely a reasonable argument for not having you in there, and I'm absolutely positive it isn't because your arguments are irrefutable. As for me and Ed, who cares, except it is interesting that the issue I was canned out of the forum was surrounding a discussion of Mary as co-mediatrix or co-redemptrix. It's pretty simple, really: I didn't like Catholics doubting this, not as a defined doctrine because it isn't yet defined, but the they were doubting it as something always held by the Catholic Church, which beyond a shadow of a doubt it has most provably upheld through all the ages of the Church. I simply got fed up with the incredulity of some of my own kind, shot my mouth off and got canned. In this way, I might be seen that traditional Catholics are rightly miffed at the anywhere from subtle to manifest protestantization of the Church at this time, and why the get passionate about moving to drive a stake through the heart of any such deviations from Catholic doctrine.

Well in the same way--I was asked to leave because I posted an article, written by a Catholic, that was quite bizarre--and I asked if what he [the author] said in the article was true? It wasn't even my opinion.,[I forget what it was even about]-- I took the article from jake's board. But I got banned instantly!! So in a way., I could blame your Traditional Catholicism too.

Regardless of any of the chaos the Catholic Church finds itself in, Catholics of any kind will persist, even poorly, in three ways that mark themselves as the true Church of Christ: The Blessed Sacrament, the Mother of God, and the Vicar of Christ.

How do those teachings prove that the Roman Church is the true church of Jesus Christ?

Paganism has survived in your religion. The only Christianity that the disciple John knew was the little flock of those who, hated by the world, were following Christ. And the Lord promised that those who do this would be hated by the world.

So how did this little flock metamorphose into the evil institution that it did--sitting in a seat of such worldly power and even ruling over kings and kingdoms in the past? This would have seemed impossible to John---yet., this is exactly what he comes to see in his vision of the future in the book of Revelation, and he is astonished!!

Paganism surely did survive in Catholicism--in the form of ancient rites and customs condoned, or accepted and transformed by your Church. An intimate and trustful worship of saints replaced the cult of gods...statues of Isis and Horus were renamed Mary and Jesus., the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the feast of Nativity..., the Saturnalia were replaced by Christmas celebration...an ancient festival of the dead was replaced by all Souls Day-and redeicated to Christian heroes.....and even the people and priests of the church would use the sign of the cross as a magic incantation to expel or drive away demons....

How can any of that really be what God would want--especially when you consider what He had to say about such pagan practices?

Because where there authenticity, the enemies of the truth will always move in to mask, hide, and suppress. Failing this, they then move in to mock, ridicule and scoff. Again, failing that, their next strategic objective is to mimic, imitate and deceive. So it's no surprise on this end that wherever there is truth there is also plenty of foul play as well, with mimicry and immitation surrounding only the truest of the true.

You really think that God wasn't complete in His bibilcal revelation to us? You really think He would need to send Mary like this? And what about her messages? They contradict the Word of God.

The word revelation here can be used in many senses. The truest sense of the word revelation would the Deposit of Faith, the truths divinely revealed by Christ to His apostles and entrusted to the Church to be preached to all nations for the salvation of souls. There have been no new revelations since that time. So in answer to your question, Mary was never sent for the purposed of imparting any new revelation. In fact, if one were to say this, they would find themselves to be in contradiction to the principles of the Catholic Faith itself.

Well the apparitions certainly have messages that contradict Scripture. From Genesis to Revelation--we are told that God is our refuge and strength--He is a very present help in time of trouble--He is our salvation. Fear not--I will help thee--says the Lord...

Nowhere do we see one prayer addressed to Mary and not one instance of her miracously helping anyone--nor any promise that she ever will or could. Protection and help are sought from, promised by, and found in God and in Christ alone.

Why would anyone call upon Mary? Is she more able than Jesus? You may not admit it--but Mary displaces the Christian Trinity.

Perhaps you mean revelations in a sense that would be better described as prophecy or something else. But regardless of the sense in which you mean to take it, if an honest examination is undertaken of any one of the apparitions approved by the Catholic Church, you will find that none of them promote any belief which has not already been known and always held by the Universal Church. By Universal Church, I specifically mean the Catholic Church. In fact, in the approval of these things, this is what the Church specifically looks for: whether anything contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Faith.

Well since Catholic doctrine and God's Word are not the same--it doesn't surprise me that demonic apparitions wouldn't contradict your unbilical doctrines. My only rod of measurement is God's Word--alone. Therefore., all apparitions are in contradiction with the Scriptures.

Wasn't the cross enough?--

The Mother of God never points to anything other than her Son and the Cross. Mary is the most faithful adherent to Christ, His mission, His life, suffering on the Cross, death and resurrection, bar none. To be confident in the help of Mary is to be confident that she would show you how to best honor her Son and immitate him. Her response to the will of the Father in Luke Chapter one is the model for immitation. To be blunt, your response so far is a couple hundred levels below Zachary's, and he got muted for his. =)

Really? So when the apparition at Fatima said:

"Say the rosary every day to obtain peace for the world...pray, pray, a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to Hell because they have no one to make sacrifices and pray for them...."

[She was pointing you to her son? How can that be? Christ has already made the only saving sacrifice!!}

The apparition continued...

"God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to MY IMMACULATE HEART. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

[It seems Mary's peace plan differs from the one revealed in Scripture.]

I can't prove anything related to Catholic doctrine concerning the Mother of God to you. I can only try to dispel false opinion contrary to it, and then again that only if you were to hold enough of the Faith in common from which to proceed. I'm not sure you do.

My faith is in Christ alone--through His Word. I have zero faith in the Roman Catholic Church.

-- (Faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

" one need only to point out the absolute chaos of disagreement among all Protestants concerning even the most fundamental of doctrines put on the discussion table." - Emerald

This is such a lame inconsistent argument. So, should we reject Romanism because there are disagreements? Also, I would like for you to name one, yes, just one, essential doctrine that Evangelicals disagree on. This is really a lie Emerald, because we are more united than you think. We all agree on justification by faith alone, the trinity, salvation by grace, the diety, the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc.. you will focus in on basically differences on church practice. I also replied to Vince and Paul about this, it is a false comparison. "Our organization has more unity than your group of organizations". You see how silly that sounds?

Eric Svensdon said:

"there are some Roman Catholics who believe it is wrong for the sacristy to be located any place but directly behind the altar. There are others who believe that using altar girls is wrong. Still others believe lay-ministers are not to administer the Eucharist. Still others believe that the mass should be sung, not spoken—and in some cases the singing should be in other languages than English (the Byzantine church comes to mind). Still others believe that the Eucharist should be placed on the tongue and not in the hand. Still others believe that it's wrong for the music during mass to be led by guitars and drums. We could go on and on and on with this. One need only peruse through Peter Stravinskas' Q&A section in the latest edition of Our Sunday Visitor's 'The Catholic Answer' to see the extent of the confusion that abounds in Roman Catholic belief about these things. Presumably, all of these Roman Catholics believe what they believe based on the "true" teachings of Rome. Thus, they severed from their previous Roman denomination which would not accept their current beliefs. And on and on it goes." See how well two can play at this game?

Oh, the chaos of Romanism!! =o

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

"As a Mexican, I know first hand that Catholics worship Mary." - Elpidio

Yes, I think it is more obvious if you go to Mexico or Latin America.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Well, I have not been to Latin America, but form my understanding, Catholics een their claim not to actually Worship Mary, rather pay Honour to her.

This said, however, One wonders why we cannot try harder to live by the principle sof the Bible, rather han debate semantics over soem issues. ( Not he Mary issue, bu the faith and works issue.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 30, 2004.

Zarove,

The Mary issue has no scriptural or historical basis. The Romanist really just has to "Trust Rome" on this.

BTW, You have never said what you believe about faith and works?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Let's just get to the point, David and Faith.

If I, as a Catholic, persist in devotion to the Mother of God, will I after death, suffer in Hell for that very fact?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Emerald,

what did Christ say?

Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." (NASB) Luke 11:28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (NASB)

"on the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." - a nice verse

a person who is 'devoted to the 'mother of god'' is not devoted to God. It is God's word we are to follow, not his mom's. if you persist in that belief and follow that path, how are you not serving the creation rather than the Creator who is Blessed for ever?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

The thing I worry about Emerald--

...is that too many Catholics are so busy focusing on Mary., that they might miss the gospel message which tell us that there is no name under heaven by which we can be saved except Jesus Christ.

What happens if you are placing your trust in Mary to save you?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Nope. No good, either of you.

IF... you are truly confident in your beliefs, you will be able to answer the question.

Once answered in the affirmative or in denial, one way or the other, we can then proceed to a discussion of the necessity of Faith in regards to salvation.

If not answered directly, I can assume that you are not confident in your beliefs, no?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Emerald--you can't see an answer in my post?

If you are looking to Mary for your salvation--you will not be saved.

Salvation is in Christ--alone.

If you are trusting in Christ to save you--then you would follow Him., not Mary.

Jesus says we are to follow Him. He never said that we needed to follow His mother., did He?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

"Emerald--you can't see an answer in my post?"

Not at all. The question was pretty simple.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

I feel the question was answered ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

If I, as a Catholic, persist in devotion to the Mother of God, will I after death, suffer in Hell for that very fact?

Just say it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

no, you will suffer in hell for depending on your salvation in something other than the finished work of Christ on the cross.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

If I, as a Catholic, persist in devotion to the Mother of God, will I after death, suffer in Hell for that very fact?

So let's clarify...

Have you received Christ as your Savior and do you trust that He paid for your sin upon the cross and that by His wounds you are healed?

It really doesn't matter what you feel about Mary..., it matters what you believe about Jesus.

We suffer in Hell when we are separated from God. The one thing that brings us to the Father is Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Have you received Christ?

The way to know if you have is to answer this for yourself--"Who am I devoted to?" Have you picked up His cross and are you following Him? If you can say yes--then you belong to Him.

It's about Jesus--only Jesus.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Ain't going to work, Faith; you're not addressing the question at hand, but instead, introducing other factors, some of which are no doubt good considers, but nonetheless, are not addressing the specific question.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that everything else I do say and think is in accord with what's necessary for salvation, whatever that might be.

This question remains:

If I, as a Catholic, persist in devotion to the Mother of God, will I after death, suffer in Hell for that very fact?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Like I said Emerald..,

We go to Hell for one reason only--and that is rejecting His Son.

Hell is separation from God. Jesus came that we might come to the Father.

If you are separated from God--then you will suffer in Hell.

It matters little what you do with Mary one way or the other.

What matters is what you have done with Jesus.

If you have received Jesus Christ as your Savior and have trusted Him to save you--then you will be among the *elect* who are predestined to eternal life.

If you haven't--then you will not.

The peculiar thing is that being devoted to Mary suggests that you are trusting her instead of Jesus.

But only you know where your trust rests....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Faith,

I think he wants us to say "yes". Just say yes and see what happens ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Emerald,

I'll answer for Kevin, Yes you will go to hell.

Now, I do not believe I am putting words into Kevin's mouth. He damns everyone. You use a evil musical instrument in church you are hellbound!

So pretend Kevin answered yes, and go on.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Lol..David.

I am not good at tricky games : )

His question itself reveals a lack of understanding in the things of God.

Mary has nothing to do with whether or not we go to Hell.

But I am afraid the answer could be yes......since being so devoted to Mary is an indication that he doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus. His relationship is indirectly related to Jesus through Mary. It's third party or something like that...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Faith is dodging the question, but we can go with David's "yes" anyways. Alright, so we've established that eternal life, among other things, in principle depends upon the holding of certain doctrines... so much so, in fact, that if something is held as doctrine which is false, if held persistantly until death, CAN damn a soul for that reason alone.

Right?

Btw, "no" would have worked just as well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Not dodging anything Emerald.

Your problem stems from not understanding what hell is or why we go there.

It must fall back on your *works* theology.

It would make necessary sense that if one has to earn their way to heaven with good works--then too., they can earn their way to hell by something they do wrong., right?

But the Bible reveals that hell is eternal separation from God--and that the thing that unites us to the Father is Jesus Christ.

So your question about Mary is not applicable, that is why it is hard to answer.

If I believed that a *sin* itself could send us to hell--then yes, worshiping a human being would definately qualify as a sin.

But only the ultimate sin of rejecting Jesus will keep you from the Father...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Ok guys, Emerald, this thread is Waaay to big now, I think we should move it to a new thread.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 30, 2004.

Nope; not gonna buy it... not at this juncture. Faith, being so very much against the Catholic Church's doctrine concerning the role of the Mother of God, this urgency would indicate to anyone that to believe those doctrines is a matter of real gravity in regards to the eternal destination of a soul who adheres to them; and so answering the question should come easy.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

I agree Emerald and said as much.

Believing that which the Catholic Church teaches about Mary can only serve to lead you away from God's truth about salvation.

In all likelihood--anyone who worships Mary--has not truly received Jesus Christ as his/her Savior--and that is ultimaely what we all need to do in order not to be separated from God for all eternity.

It isn't a good sign--that is for sure.

But who am I to say that someone can't possibly have a personal relationship with Jesus and still think it appropriate to worship Mary?

That is between you and God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

But you know I can address each and every one of those points. The reason I'm deferring on them for the time being is that I want to extract from your understanding exactly how crucial is the holding of any article of Faith to the eternal destiny of a soul, conversely, how crucial is a denial of an article of Faith or a belief in something contrary to it.

That's what I'm after. If you can answer that, you'll be able to answer my question, or vice versa.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

I think that worshiping Mary is a denial of the Biblical revelation that God is a jealous God and wants us to worship Him alone.

Thou shall have no other gods before me.

The Bible is so clear about how we come to the Father--and it never includes Mary in that plan of salvation.

If you still think after all these responses that I haven't answered you--then I obviously am on such a different page, that I guess I can't play.

Gotta go for now...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 30, 2004.

Being the case then that the holding of certain beliefs is necessary for the salvation of a person's soul, the question is then this:

What are the articles of Faith that absolutely must be held (the doctrines) in order to avoid eternal damnation and enter into Heaven after death?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

"If you still think after all these responses that I haven't answered you--then I obviously am on such a different page, that I guess I can't play."

The different page you're on is this: you keep insisting that Catholics worship Mary as a god. Something that the Catholic Church has never taught.

I can and will address each and every point you've made above, faith, but first I want to clearly establish the gravity you attach to the holding of, or denial of, an article of Faith generically speaking in regards to salvation; and then, what those particular articles of Faith may consist of.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2004.

Faith says:

"But I am afraid the answer could be yes......since being so devoted to Mary is an indication that he doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus. His relationship is indirectly related to Jesus through Mary. It's third party or something like that... "

That is an interesting speculation Faith, however I must point out that it is just that, a speculation. First of all, the Bible does not speak of having a personal relationship with Jesus, at least not in a direct sense. However, lets think about this for a minute. Take the rosary for example, I have a deeper relationship with Jesus because I pray the rosary, that I did when I was a Baptist. Why is that? It's because the mysteries of the rosary are primarily about Jesus. So I guess you cannot say that if I honor Mary it takes away from my relationship with Jesus.

We would expect that someone who has faith in Jesus to have the fruits of the spirit which are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness (meekness, humility) and self-control. Now the question is are those who honor Mary lacking in these? If they are, then we might have a basis to wonder whether or not they are truly Christians. After all, the Bible says that it is by their fruit that we will know them.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

Hey Emerald, what did you do to Dave Armstrong that he'd put you up on his blog? http://socrates58.blogspot.com/

He quotes you:

"Dave Armstrong is part of that narrow, clustered source of a body of anti-traditional Catholic thought . . . I feel safe enough saying that I think they have a hand in the destruction of the Faith . . . in general terms, I believe that they do immense damage to the Church.

--- "Emerald" (so-called "traditionalist" Catholic) "

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CGB8

Click on that thread Emerald, to continue the discussion. I can do some html things to move the conversation to that page later.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

This thread is now closed. The continuation thread is here

-- (Christian_Moderator@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004.