Scripture that contradict the concept of Purgatory! !!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Scripture that contradict the concept of Purgatory! !!

1. "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8 KJV)

Here the apostle says that there are only two states: living (present in the body) and dead (absent from the body). He also states that when we are dead (absent from the body), then we are present with the Lord. There is no 'in- between' state such as Purgatory.

2. Remember the 'good thief?' Here is what Jesus said:

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-KJV)

Now, according to Roman Catholic teaching, that thief, while he may have been 'forgiven' of his sins, still had time to do in Purgatory, right? Yet Jesus told him that on that very day, he would be in Heaven! You don't hear a word from Jesus, either in this incident or anywhere else in Scripture, about artificial distinctions between 'mortal' and 'venial' sins, nor of the artificial distinction between the 'corporal' and 'temporal' punishment due to sin! If the concepts of Purgatory, 'corporal' punishment, etc., were valid, why did Jesus here contradict it? So who is right, Jesus or Rome?

According to the doctrine of Purgatory, that thief had a whole lot of 'temporal punishment' to pay off in Purgatory. Had that thief confessed to a Catholic priest, he would have been told to go do some penance, and that he would also have to suffer in Purgatory, despite the forgiveness. Thus, the 'forgiveness' of Rome is no forgiveness at all! Rather it is a trap for guileless Catholics, enticing them to pay for masses etc.

nolan

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 07, 2005

Answers

"1. "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Cor 5:8 KJV) Here the apostle says that there are only two states: living (present in the body) and dead (absent from the body). He also states that when we are dead (absent from the body), then we are present with the Lord. There is no 'in- between' state such as Purgatory."

A: Any Catholic today would say without hesitation that we look forward to being with the Lord after we die. Therefore it is no surprise that Catholics of Apostolic times, like Paul, would freely make the same statement. Since Catholics today accept all the same doctrinal truths the Apostles believed, including Purgatory, obviously the belief in Purgatory therefore does not conflict with the belief that we will be with the Lord after we die, either for Catholics of today or for Catholics of the first century. Suppose you were going to Washington to meet the President. When you got there, you discovered that he could not meet with you at the appointed time, but would see you the following day. Then, when you appeared the following day, you had to wait in a reception room for four hours before finally meeting him. Does the statement "I am going to Washington to meet the President" become false as a result of these delays?? Of course not! Likewise, the statement "we will be with the Lord after we die" does not become false just because there is a necessary period of purification before we actually meet Him.

2. Remember the 'good thief?' Here is what Jesus said: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-KJV) Now, according to Roman Catholic teaching, that thief, while he may have been 'forgiven' of his sins, still had time to do in Purgatory, right?"

A: No, not right. The Holy Catholic Church has always taught that the graces of baptism wash away all traces of sin and restore the soul to a state of perfect spiritual purity. A person who dies immediately after baptism enters heaven immediately. There is no need for the purification of Purgatory, since the soul of the person is already perfectly pure. The Church also teaches that a person who sincerely desires the saving graces of Baptism, but who is absolutely prevented from receiving the physical sacrament by circumstances, may still receive those same graces, a necessary conclusion given the perfect mercy and justice of God. The fact that Jesus told this man he would be present in heaven that same day is a clear indication that the man did receive the graces of Baptism through his sincere desire for union with God, and therefore had no need for further purgation.

It is not possible for anything in Scripture to contradict the teaching of the Church that compiled the Bible. Do you seriuously think that the bishops of the Catholic Church, in compiling the Canon of Holy Scripture, would have included anything that conflictied with the fullness of truth of Jesus Christ, which had already been taught by the Church for over 300 years by the time the Bible was compiled?? Any perceived conflict between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the contents of its book simply indicates misunderstanding of either Church teaching or Sacred Scripture, or in many cases, both.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 07, 2005.


Bravo, Paul M.

Let Nolan see what the Catholic Church actually teaches. His fixation on ''proof'' from scripture to combat Catholic truth, is a lightweight diversion. The Bible is not given Christ's holy people so they can dispute from it like lawyers in a divorce settlement. We read the Bible to gain interior holiness and love for God.

Anti-Catholics and many other Bible Christians are like sheep in a sheepfold who find a way to hurt their shepherd; to neutralize the ones who are there to give them peace, to feed and tend them. Imagine a lamb, taking a bite out of the shepherd's hand. ''I found a Bible,'' the lamb insists. ''Now I can fight you; I'm your equal with this Bible! I once was a little lamb. Now i'm a shepherd.''

Just because of the Holy Bible? How can they think an absurd thing like that? They fail first, to see: Jesus Christ NEVER gave the command to His followers, ''Get your Bibles out. Figure out why there can't be any truth in My Church, by reading it all!''

Did Jesus ever own a Bible, or write a book? When was He heard saying, ''Blessed are my followers who read the Bible every day? They will be called the real shepherds of my sheepfold.''--------- -- ? ? ? How about it, Nolan? --Find us that page in your Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.


you fool...read your bible, Jesus always referred and quoted scriptures.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 07, 2005.

You are a guest here, Nolan. I suggest not calling names.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

2 questions then I'm done:

1) Do Catholics believe that their church is the only way to God/Jesus?

2) Primarily for Paul - When you say that that Catholic Church and Scripture cannot be in disagreement, can you explain to me the fact that no where in the Bible does god inform us that marriage is a sacrament, and yet the Catholic Church believes it is? (Baptism and The Lord's Supper he informs are sacrements, no others,) Also I believe the Catholic Church has upwards of 6 or 7 sacrements, can you explain this to me, and how each one meets the requirements of being a sacrement? (Instituted by God, being tangible, and forgiving sin) I can see how marriage does the first two, but how does marriage forgive sin?

Thank you,

~jesse d.

-- Jesse D. (jessededeyne@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.



~~Jesse:
We didn't found the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ did. You ask if ''our'' Church is the only way to God/Jesus? --Why did you think it was OUR Church?

Christ is OUR Saviour, and yours as well. His CHURCH is the BEST way to come to Him and to Our Almighty Father. Whether she is the ''only'' way or NOT isn't for us to say. I know some Catholics who believe in Him. Some who don't practice their faith, they skate by; as if there's so much time to repent.

They may well be damned, and what's the good of their Catholic religion?

I have known a number of good and upright Bible Christians of sorts; who love God. They don't love the Church Jesus gave to this world. They judge the Catholic Church by human standards; forgetting WHO is her Lord and Bridegroom. Will these hnest, God-fearing folks also be damned?

I pray for them all. I'll pray for nolan and for you; because you need forgiveness before you can enter the kingdom of heaven. Your own faith can't save you. Bible-reading alone can't save you, and it doesn't save anybody.

LOVE is what can bring us to Jesus/God. And the love He gave us is channelled best of all into the Holy Church of the apostles. That's the Catholic Church.

If you would offer Christ all your heart; love for all eternity-- You MUST somehow be numbered in HIS CHURCH. Because there's no other church able to gain you forgiveness of sins, nor bring you His sanctifying grace. You MIGHT find salvation, through some kind of back door. But NOT from your assemblies or meeting houses or Bible classes or Sunday Schools. They would love to offer you Jesus Christ. But if and when you truly receive Jesus, it won't be from there.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.


1) Do Catholics believe that their church is the only way to God/Jesus?

A: Yes, the Church Christ founded is the sole means of coming to know Him. But that doesn't mean that members of manmade churches are completely unable to know Him. Each such church possesses a certain measure of Christian truth, received from the Catholic Church, and therefore members of such churches can know Christ to the extent that their measure of truth allows, and it is possible that the measure of truth they possess, if they sincerely live by it and are sincerely ignorant of the incompleteness of their beliefs, may be sufficient for salvation. Therefore, it is true that salvation is only through the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church alone is the source of the message of Christ which sets men free; but that does not mean that only Catholics can be saved.

2) "When you say that that Catholic Church and Scripture cannot be in disagreement, can you explain to me the fact that no where in the Bible does god inform us that marriage is a sacrament, and yet the Catholic Church believes it is?"

A: So what? Are you suggesting that NOT saying something constitutes "disagreement" with something that is taught? Scripture doesn't say we should have crosses on top of our churches or pews inside. Does that mean that crosses and pews are in "disagreement" with Scripture? What Scripture very clearly does inform us about, though I understand your resistance to this part of God's Word, is the full authority of the Church to define what is and is not binding doctrine. The seven Sacraments Jesus gave us are all described in Scripture, but Scripture is not and never was intended to be a manual of Christian beliefs. It is the function of the Church, not the function of a book it compiled, to define, interpret, and teach the fullness of truth. The Church would be continuing to fulfill this mission in the world even if it had never decided to gather some of its writings into a book. In fact, the Church would be teaching the fullness of truth even if those particular texts had never been written - just as it did before they were written.

It is true that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ and that they have a tangible component. But it is not true that every sacrament was instituted specifically to forgive sins. Each sacrament confers grace, but not necessarily the grace of forgiveness. In fact, except for baptism and confession, a person must have his sins forgiven BEFORE receiving a sacrament.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 07, 2005.


hello Jesse

in brief:

1) Yes, No salvation outside the Church.

2) Matrimony: see Ephesians 5:32.

All 7 Sacraments confer grace. Baptism (original & actual) and Confession (actual) forgive mortal sins. Blessed Sacrament cleanses venial sins.

some Canons from Trent to further clarify:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema. CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous.... let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; .... let him be anathema.

read also St Thomas on the Sacraments, if you're really interested. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

good luck!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.


Nolan - read your bible! Matthew 5:22

-- Dee (Dee@none.sorry), February 07, 2005.

Now i've tried to be nice and ask questions to get answers but more and more, as you people talk down to me I realize what you resemble to me... Pharisees. You talk and parade your faith and your salvation, and anyone who doesn't do what you do is not saved. You tell me you will pray for me that I may be sved and not damned, yet not once has one of you considered talking to me like a human. Like I am even worth the crap on the ground. You take verbal jabs, when I am looking for answers because you feel I am slighting you. Maybe you should realize some people do come to this site looking for answers and not looking to be talked down to like I am a heathan not worthy of your time.

Now I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus is the one who made the statement that "wherever two or more meet in my name, there am I with them." I'm lead to believe, in all my "Bible reading time," that Jesus is with me whenever a friend and I talk about Jesus.

I am also a firm believer that Jesus gave his life for me. I know this because in John 3:16 it states: That God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." But it goes on to state 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Again in all my "Bible reading time" I'm thinking this is a God of love. Who wants me in his presence. Who wants me to believe in him.

Also it is hard for me to believe that in all "my Bible rreading time" that people like King David and Solomon and Moses and Noah and all of the Old testament people are not in Heaven. I'm pretty sure they were not Catholics. I'm pretty sure they were all Jews. And yet you tell me they are not going to Heaven. But then you'll tell me that because the church was not around back then, they can be saved. Okay whichever you prefer, I don't care anymore.

Oh yeah and by the way... The Virgin Mary was a Jew. Read the Bible. IT states it right in the Bible. After Jesus was raised she believed Jesus was the Messiah. And I guess you'll tell me she was a member of the Catholic church. Now was this before or after she ascended into Heaven, when no one saw her, or can verify this. It's okay though, I know you'll explain it somehow. Because no matter what you have to be right. Heaven forbid the Catholics admit someone that is not Catholic can have a point.

You know what's even more humorous, the fact that most Catholics I know at least have the common courtesy to tell me, that even though I don't agree with Catholicism, at least we believe in the same God, and they'll see me in Heaven. You on the other hand don't. You tell me I am condemned. You tell me you'll pray for me, and you hope I get into Heaven..... Very Pharisee like if you ask me.

How about this... when talking about John the Baptist, Jesus says that he is the greatest on all the earth, and yet he is the least in Heaven. It's called humility. Joh had it, Jesus had it... no one on this board has it. It's really weird. You preach love, respect, honor, yet show me none....

-- Jesse D. (jessededeyne@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.



You started out asking if ''our'' Church is the only way to God/Jesus? Then I stated the truth.

We have no Church; Jesus Christ has His Church; He waits for YOU there. I figure that's very inclusive and inviting; not a put- down. Do you have a church with God awaiting me? No.

I mean; why aren't you joyful? Jesse; let yourself go. Don't be defensive; we love you. Don't come on with this poppycock:

''It is hard for me to believe that in all my Bible reading time people like King David and Solomon and Moses and Noah and all of the Old Testament people are not in heaven.

Who told you they weren't? I believe these good Israelites are all CATHOLICS in heaven. --So, --you say: ''I'm pretty sure they were not Catholics. I'm pretty sure they were all Jews.''--But if they had to be saved by Jesus Christ, and they are; --Then in some mysterious way they have been MADE Catholics. They are now members of the Church Triumphant. They have been BORN AGAIN by the grace of Jesus Christ, having received the Baptism of Desire.

''--And yet you tell me they are not going to Heaven.'' ? ? ? ? Who? Who told Jesse that? Not me!

Can you see, then? How badly you misjudge Catholics? You're ready to reject us without cause. And you want us to call you a Christian. What it means is, you want to BE a Christian, but not if it means you'll go to the Catholic Church. You came here with a built-in prejudice against the Church founded by Jesus Himself. Look at the things you're saying.

And, remember: YOU came to our forum; we didn't attack YOU. You came here prepared NOT to like Catholics, didn't you? Suppose I'd gone where you had been; and criticized you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


Jesse

"Pharisee"

1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.

2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.

Jesus did not object to the Pharisees because of definition #1. He objected under definition #2.

read the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. the Pharisee thanked God for giving him the means to be holy: "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others", Luke 18:9.

this leads me to the point.

NO Catholic should presume, in any way, their own Salvation. they can rest assured that they are getting the best care possible, through the Sacraments of the Church, without which there is no Salvation. however, even then, we are all horrible sinners, deserving of nothing. Salvation cannot be earned.

...and, btw, anyone who argues that faith alone saves, and they have faith so are saved, is probably far closer to being a pharisee than any Catholic. ditto those who consider themselves to be pre- destined unto eternal life, or those who believe we are ALL saved,.....don't you think??

the second fault of the pharisee was to "despise" the others who failed to keep the law as he did. clearly wrong. the command "love thy neighbour" transcends colour, national boundary, creed and all other differences.

however, the effect or manifestation of that love differs greatly. if you friends are assuring you that you all going to Heaven, then they're not giving you the love you need. my kids hate it when i take away their toys, but there's usually a good reason [i hope].

Eugene, your new friend in cyberspace, is giving you spoonfuls of love.

if i may digress a little, i think you need to be very careful with your Bible. don't just read the "nice" bits. read about how difficult it is to follow Jesus. the Cross is very heavy. we will fall, as Our Lord did. read about that rich man that was asked to give EVERYTHING away. read St Paul - he wants us all to be eunuchs. and to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

that's why we have the Sacraments? "pick me up's", to put it crudely.

there's value in reading a few history books too -- especially about the early heresies. Arianism is a good one. you'll get a feel for the value of the Church, Her organisation and Her Sacraments.

also, i am sorry (sincerely) if you feel badly treated. trust me though - you gotten off pretty lightly compared to some of the ear- bashings that are doled out in these parts!!

i hope you'll stay and chew the cud a little.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


I believe Our Lord also mentioned something about the results of a follower of his calling a brother "fool".

If you don't want to be "talked down to" perhaps you'd better not start reacting to people's posts with "you fool".

I may very well be foolish... but the proof is in my words or arguments or mistakes, not in the fact that I happen to disagree with you. Mere disagreement isn't foolish. Stubbornly refusing to admit mistakes or stubbornly refusing to acknowledge when someone has explained away your misunderstandings or mis-interpretation of scripture, would be foolish.

This is a Catholic forum...most members therefore are Catholic and not just pew warmers either. Most of us have years of study and experience or are converts. If you ask therefore a question in a challenging tone, and we dump truck on you with quotes and long posts...its to be expected.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 08, 2005.


Do our Catholic brethren realise how this came to pass?-- ---->

''. . . We believe in the same God, and they'll see me in Heaven. [Some have said to Jesse] ''You on the other hand don't. You tell me I am condemned.''

This is why Jesse said ''we'' are all Pharisees. It stems from something Ian has said very carelessly:

''in brief:

1) Yes, No salvation outside the Church.''

this type of Catholic exegesis is simply brutal. I've had miles of arguments with our so-called ''trads'' who take that stance without considering God's boundless mercy to His creatures. It's so uncharitable as to drive away those who are presently in most need of God's grace. No wonder a sensitive heart like Jesse's MUST interpret Ian's statement to mean that even the prophets and patriarchs of Israel have NOT been saved! (Since Jesse cannot be expected to know about Baptism of Desire.)

But in fact, Ian and others seem to reject even that avenue of grace; insisting we are the only ones saved, having been Catholics.

To be such a short-sighted Catholic is tantamount to Pharisaism. Jesse spotted it right off. Pharisees don't WANT you to be saved by grace. They want you to observe their strict rules of faith without recourse to God's endless mercy and justice.

In one parable Jesus spoke of the householder who went in the morning to hire laborers. They are each being paid a denarius a day.

We are to suppose this denarius a day is: ETERNAL LIFE. He went back over and over, and found more laborers, whom he hired. Even at the eleventh hour, finding others standing about, ''Why do you stand here all day idle?'' he inquires. They said to him, ''Because no man has hired us.''

He said to them, ''Go you also into the vinyard.'' (This is Christ's Church) In the evening the owner says to his steward (again, the Church)- - ''Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last even to the first.'' (Matt, 20 :8) When they of the eleventh hour were paid the denarius, the others thought they would receive more. But they also received each his denarius (Salvation). They murmurred; ''They only worked a single hour, and thou hast put them on a level with us (My Catholic brethren) who have borne the burden of the day's heat.''

He answered then, ''Friend, I do thee no injustice; didst thou not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is thine and go; I choose to give this last even as to thee. Have I not a right to do what I choose? Or art thou envious because I am generous?''

If the vinyard is the Church, and God is the owner, and He brings souls into His Holy Church without the consent of ''Trads'' that is, with a Baptism of Desire; doesn't a denarius equal salvation to some who enter the CATHOLIC CHURCH only because of God's infinite mercy and generosity???

Yet we see a few stubborn Catholics who resist the Will of God, insisting on their ''traditional'' vinyard?

Our faith in God must let others come in too. God is working for that end in the ''eleventh hour''. The 2nd Vatican Council is that eleventh hour. ''Trads'' are certainly welcome to keep on working in their traditional Rite. God tells them here: ''Take what is thine and go; I choose to give this last even as to thee.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


Joe C.... I never called anyone a fool. Please re-read the post and see that it was nolan who did this.

I would point out I have had nothing but respect for you and your religion.

I apologize for my would be rant on my last post, but my feelings have not changed, considering I just got a three paragraph diatride when I did nothing worng.

Thank you though....

jesse d.

-- jesse d. (jessededeyne@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.



hey Jesse

tell me this. would you put your dissappointment down to my post alone. eugene seems to think that i really got to you. that was not my intention, but is that true?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


Now i've tried to be nice and ask questions to get answers but more and more, as you people talk down to me I realize what you resemble to me... Pharisees. You talk and parade your faith and your salvation, and anyone who doesn't do what you do is not saved. You tell me you will pray for me that I may be sved and not damned, yet not once has one of you considered talking to me like a human. Like I am even worth the crap on the ground. You take verbal jabs, when I am looking for answers because you feel I am slighting you. Maybe you should realize some people do come to this site looking for answers and not looking to be talked down to like I am a heathan not worthy of your time.

Now I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus is the one who made the statement that "wherever two or more meet in my name, there am I with them." I'm lead to believe, in all my "Bible reading time," that Jesus is with me whenever a friend and I talk about Jesus.

I am also a firm believer that Jesus gave his life for me. I know this because in John 3:16 it states: That God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." But it goes on to state 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Again in all my "Bible reading time" I'm thinking this is a God of love. Who wants me in his presence. Who wants me to believe in him.

Also it is hard for me to believe that in all "my Bible rreading time" that people like King David and Solomon and Moses and Noah and all of the Old testament people are not in Heaven. I'm pretty sure they were not Catholics. I'm pretty sure they were all Jews. And yet you tell me they are not going to Heaven. But then you'll tell me that because the church was not around back then, they can be saved. Okay whichever you prefer, I don't care anymore.

Oh yeah and by the way... The Virgin Mary was a Jew. Read the Bible. IT states it right in the Bible. After Jesus was raised she believed Jesus was the Messiah. And I guess you'll tell me she was a member of the Catholic church. Now was this before or after she ascended into Heaven, when no one saw her, or can verify this. It's okay though, I know you'll explain it somehow. Because no matter what you have to be right. Heaven forbid the Catholics admit someone that is not Catholic can have a point.

You know what's even more humorous, the fact that most Catholics I know at least have the common courtesy to tell me, that even though I don't agree with Catholicism, at least we believe in the same God, and they'll see me in Heaven. You on the other hand don't. You tell me I am condemned. You tell me you'll pray for me, and you hope I get into Heaven..... Very Pharisee like if you ask me.

How about this... when talking about John the Baptist, Jesus says that he is the greatest on all the earth, and yet he is the least in Heaven. It's called humility. Joh had it, Jesus had it... no one on this board has it. It's really weird. You preach love, respect, honor, yet show me none....

-- Jesse D. (jessededeyne@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

[great post man]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.


and what bothers me the most about this,is that catholics claim that jesus established their church...while he never talked about it

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.

how do you know what he is talking about and what church really meant whe n he said it

how are you so sure that it goes about the RCC?

wound't jesus make this much more clear? just like he made clear that he is the son of god?

peter didn't establish the RCC,the RCC didn't came from his community but apart from it,that iganatius called the community(church) catholic doesn't mean that the community is the same thing as the later established institution who took that name

again,how are you so sure about what jesus was talking about? it doesn't mean if some day later a church is established that jesus was talking about a church in a literal way

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.


You're confused, as always.

''--it doesn't mean if some day later a church is established that Jesus was talking about a church in a literal way..''

The Church was not ''established later.'' Christ founded the Catholic Church and He instituted all the sacraments to come, one by one, in the gospel narratives written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In the Acts of the apostles, Chapter 2, we read the way God sent His Holy Spirit down on the apostles -- to start the official existence of a Church; and that chapter describes everything that took place. PETER was in authority from the start; he was the leader (Pope) of the only Church then existing in the world. We're reading already about the infant Catholic Church.

No Catholic Church ever ''started later.'' That is a total lie. Christ only founded ONE. He promised us that not even the ''gates of hell'' could ever prevail over her (Matt, 16, :18-:19).

That's why she is never destroyed or disgraced, even if evil men break their necks against her. She remains always holy; as she was in the beginning.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


--And for the 10th time: There is NO RCC. We are members of the Catholic Church. Christ didn't found an RCC. Look at the name of our forum: Catholic. NOT RCC.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.

sdqa.

you might be here for mischief's sake [mea culpa, who knows really, ignore that], but you have answered the question that i posed to Jesse.

i asked Jesse whether i had been solely responsible for his/her disappointment at the answers to her questions. and you have drawn my attention to this statement of Jesse:

"You tell me I am condemned. You tell me you'll pray for me, and you hope I get into Heaven..... Very Pharisee like if you ask me."

this ties into Eugene's post:

"I pray for them all. I'll pray for nolan and for you; because you need forgiveness before you can enter the kingdom of heaven. Your own faith can't save you. Bible-reading alone can't save you, and it doesn't save anybody."

Eugene, do a quick wordsearch on "pray". you'll get it. you were the only one to "patronise" Jesse. you are the Pharisee, according to Jesse.

sdqa, i don't know your motives, though i do understand you to be very intelligent and informed. post a resume? tell us what you are about? please do. you might get slammed but some of us are open to a civil discussion.

eugene, you have been caught with ***your hands in the knicker drawer*** -- as usual. will you confess this when you next "send Baby Jesus to sleep"? or when the Holy Ghost next personally communicates with you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


Eugene

no offence mate, but our posts crossed, an yet you remain the King of the Invective.

why not try being nice to this guy for a few posts? maybe it will be in vain. but this guy is bright - really bright.

you are not.

give him some respect.

-- Ian (ib@vetifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


"sdqa, i don't know your motives, though i do understand you to be very intelligent and informed. post a resume? tell us what you are about? please do. you might get slammed but some of us are open to a civil discussion."

[lol thanks for the compliments man,what would you like to know about me?]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.


I feel kind of sorry for you, Ian. Because you're so self- absorbed. Instead of keeping your eye on the prize you take quick offense for your own skin; forgetting we're all present for God's glory in the forum. Not to make or to save our personal reputations. I said very precisely; We don't merely TELL a non-Catholic; ''NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THIS CHURCH.'' We foster our good intent first; we cultivate good will. Yes; we correct someone if he strikes at the Catholic faith or ridicules our Church. But not from spite.

You now feel antagonistic toward me because I placed direct responsibility on one of your hasty declarations for the reaction of ~~Jesse to ALL of us, even me. You might've settled everything peacably, saying to Jesse; ''My choice of words wasn't intended personally against you.''

But instead you come back at ME; for daring to say FRANKLY, what's the matter. You're more worried about yourself than these non-Catholics, or the anti-Catholics who slam Christ's Holy Church! Now you pony up to sdqa, who's been behaving over the top; terribly around here. ''sdqa, i don't know your motives, though i do understand you to be very intelligent and informed. post a resume? tell us what you are about?

HA HA! Well; his/her resume includes: pro-abortion, pro divorce, pro-sexual license, sex between kids, anti- establishmentism and a few other rebellious attitudes. Hardly intelligent and ''informed'' Above he/she declares quite boldly that the ''RCC' was invented later, ''by men.'' The Catholic Church. //// --How well- informed is that?

You ought to get your toy ducks in a row, Ian. Forget about your personal pride and keep after lost souls.

I don't proceed around this place for the prestige. I offer a labor of love up to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus. If a few men and women treat me disrespectfully, I ask HIM to forgive them, and I try ever harder to bring souls to Christ. Why take insult at what you or anybody else says or does to me? - -I was even sexually abused as a little boy of four; and forgave my abuser after I reached the age of reason. Nothing in this world is worth fighting over, except Jesus Christ's glory.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


HA HA! Well; his/her resume includes: pro-abortion, pro divorce, pro-sexual license, sex between kids, anti- establishmentism and a few other rebellious attitudes. Hardly intelligent and ''informed'' Above he/she declares quite boldly that the ''RCC' was invented later, ''by men.'' The Catholic Church. //// --How well- informed is that?

[i'm not pro-abortion when it comes to a developed foetus,but i am for contraception and abortion in the right time when the baby isn't developed yet...

pro-divorce? what the ****? i never talked about divorce on this forum

sex between kids? if you consider 16year olds KIDS,...yes i'm guilty then...

anti-establishmentism? are you senile or something dude? where did you get that from?

off course the RCC was invented by men...ruled by men...controlled by men...through history and now...and what kind of men...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.


i'm sorry about your sexual abuse eugene...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 08, 2005.

Big DEAL. I trust in God, not in men or bad boys.

You simply keep lying. About an RCC, and about Christ's Church.

You defy authority; that's anti- establishmentism.

You babble about ''a developed foetus,but i am for contraception and abortion in the right time when the baby isn't developed yet...'' But what are YOU? A foetus brought to term, and allowed birth. --RIGHT TIME. What a crock! And I'M senile? You're a senile kid, likely enough.

pro-divorce? what the ****? i never talked about divorce on this forum..'' STOP with the ''what the .... '' stupidity.

You said clearly, marriage isn't necessary; because we get divorced 90% of the time is all.'' That means you believe in divorce, rather than marriage.

''sex between kids? if you consider 16year olds KIDS,...yes i'm guilty then...'' ---------------- I believe in MARRIAGE, not sex between ANYBODY; --least of all snotty kids. Somebody like yourself. Just today you bragged about losing ''your virginity'' as a boy. THAT MEANS KID, yes, you're guilty. You also lost all SHAME in the bargain.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


read yr posts Eugene:

are you really going to turn sdqa around - talking to him like that?

he's bright - very bright - as i said.

...and Jesse. how much good did you do with Jesse? you tried to turn that one on me. that's a pretty awful thing to do. what do i do. think the best -- assume that you've lost the plot?

imho, we should talk to Jesse, we should talk to sdqa. there's no harm. it won't make things worse.

sdqa:

sorry. thanks for response. i don't really want to quiz you too hard -- especially as, if you quiz me, i will curl up. to start -- yr age? i'm 36.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


Ian:

I don't know how you determined sdqa is ''bright''. Must be a lot of responsibility for you; IQ tests over the Internet. He's no brighter than any kid his age. I know many who are brighter. You couldn't ''turn him around'' with a team of oxen. (He's smart enough to out-fox YOU.)

As for Jesse; YOU offended him. Don't weasel out of it, Ian. I have no axe to grind; nor have I turned anybody against you. Calm your distressed feelings, please. I'm a 67 year old Catholic who's been around the horn once or twice. Usually when I speak to a person directly, I'm serious. But in a general discussion you'll find me affectionate to a fault, with all the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


"He's no brighter than any kid his age"

let's chat with sdqa. you, sdqa, and i... and anyone else that cares...

nice polite chat.

no sermons.

he's bright. he's very bright. let him speak. let's listen.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


''He's bright, he's very bright.'' --Hahaha!

Stop! You're making me cry!!!!! Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


Eugene,

off with his head?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.


Settle down a bit, Ian.
I said nothing like that. I don't happen to agree with you about a certain ''intelligence'' you're impressed with. You have a right to the opinion but I'm forced to laugh when you state it so seriously. We've been observing this young fellow and his playmates for a week or more. Every sign of immaturity and low brain-power has been right in your face and mine.

BRIGHT isn't the word I would choose; more like DULL. There's little you can accomplish discussing something seriously with sdqa. You may talk all you want; who's saying Don't! Stop it-- ??? Do anything you wish. I might do whatever the occasion calls for. But I have no plans to follow your lead. --I wish you luck.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.


ian, why pick on eugene for offering to pray for the eternal salvation of Jesse?

heck, eugene, if jesse comes back and says thats what offended him, i can always use a few extra prayers.

after all, jesse, ian, isnt praying for others something we are commanded to do by our Lord?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 08, 2005.


Eugene

"Pharisee" A hypocritically self-righteous person

1 you play a key role in driving Jesse away 2 then you try to blame all of that on me 3 when i point out that it is clear from Jesse's post that 2 is unfair, you ad hom me - all that nonsense about "pride"

just who's the pharisee, Eugene? the evidence is all there in those posts.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.


no salvation outside the church.....what about salvation in the church then when the church didn't even teach salvation to the people,sold indulgences,condemned and executed people for being heretics without having real proof for that...

when has jesus said that there is no salvation outside the catholic church...i mean this is a very very important issue,he said so many times that faith in him is needed to be saved...why didn't he say clearly then that faith in the catholic church is also needed?

the catholic church don't base their creeds on the bible,but used the bible just as a partly source which they can interpret however they want...

they take verses out of the context,claiming that jesus gave THEM the authority to teach things that are not mentioned by him...while he always refered to the scriptures...and said woe to anyone who adds something or takes somethign away from the scriptures...their answer to this is that the early church also did not have scriptures yet in the beginning...but the leaders/people from the early church knew jesus and what he taught...

the catholic church isn't christian...i have tons of proof

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.


Dear Ian:
I didn't play any role. I said what anybody can see; YOUR post told him, in answer to the question:

''Do Catholics believe that their church is the only way to God/Jesus?'' --Jesse D. (jessededeyne@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.

You replied: ''. . . hello Jesse
in brief:
Yes, No salvation outside the Church.

A slap in the man's face. I only told the truth; it was then, right away, Jesse called all of this forum, Pharisees. For that answer YOU gave him. (Because you're the real Pharisee?)

But all along I've tried to persuade you, forget your own pride. Ignore the personal, go for the Catholic faith; not your feelings. Except you want revenge for what I've stated about Jesse's misunderstanding. You shouldn't have told him that. It's YOU who did the harm, Ian.

We can forgive you, but I don't know if a non- Catholic can forgive you. I hope; I want you to have forgiveness. And I don't have any grudge against you. my advice is, get your feelings out of the way. Pay attention to the important work of this forum. --Stop attacking Catholics, Ian!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.


Dear Moderator:

When can we expect the Catholic- basher ''sdqa'' banned out of here permanently? Please inspect his last few posts, not only in this, but in other threads. He has NOTHING left to contribute. He's only remaining the single most abusive post in the forum. Until you do your job.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.


"the catholic church isn't christian...i have tons of proof"

ummmm ... so there were no Christians on earth until the 16th Century? Seems to me the Bible speaks of Christians much earlier than that. And earlier than that there was no body of Christians on earth except the Catholic Church. Go figure.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2005.


you fool...read your bible, Jesus always referred and quoted scriptures

nolan,

He not only talked in reference, he walked and did many things without speaking --He additionally spoke for the Father and passed on many traditions to the Church He founded.

Are you a Hindu?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 09, 2005.


Eugene

you did play a role. read the posts.

Jesse said this:

"You tell me you will pray for me that I may be sved and not damned, yet not once has one of you considered talking to me like a human."

now, YOU mentioned prayers, no-one else. not I, not Paul, but YOU. could it be clearer. according to her, you failed to talk to Jesse like a human being.

furthermore, here's what you also told her about her salvation:

"You MIGHT find salvation, through some kind of back door."

now, are we just shades of Pharisee, Eugene? where is the substantive difference? i say NO barring a miracle. you say "might" through a "back door". is that the trademan's entrance?

the answer is that neither of us is a Pharisee, essentially because you are abusing the term -- as i have already explained above, and to you on other threads.

as for that nonsense at the end:

"We can forgive you, but I don't know if a non- Catholic can forgive you."

you and the other new/non-Catholics need to forgive the Popes and Councils that gave us the Dogma. i, of course, forgive you.

"I hope; I want you to have forgiveness."

you have my complete forgiveness. it is here for you to see.

"And I don't have any grudge against you."

surely a good Catholic could never bear a grudge - why say this?

"my advice is, get your feelings out of the way."

there not in the way. there kept in a box when i come here. you need the advice, friend - go read some Councils, read some books on the Church, stop homilising and start studying. it's never too late, even at 67.

"Pay attention to the important work of this forum."

i do. it's certainly not about trying to be King of the Hill or a debate-winner. its sincere study and discussion.

"Stop attacking Catholics, Ian! "

like you, you mean?!?!?!?! anyways, every post of mine is now a response to further invective from you. i don't care about it on a personal basis -- so you actually don't need my forgiveness though it is there anyway -- but i do think that we need to get to the bottom of this Pharisee business sometime. i hope this is a step in the right direction.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.


Eugene

if you are willing - a test in itself - we can restore some decency to this thread by having an open discussion.

can you please, therefore, produce some writings that support this view you express - the "back door" theory, shall we call it.

let's see how far back this theory goes. Great Doctors, the earliest Popes, Councils since the start of time,......,

we leave the invective behind and have a honest, open conversation.

can't do better than that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.


You now think you can be my examiner? I should bring ''writings'' to IAN? On account of he's going to be Gene's guardian against mistakes?

I could; and maybe some day I will. Why haven't you produced the kind of ''homily'' that people like Jesse might accept out of Catholics? You won't try.

You are all about competition. Just one thing, though. I told you and others clearly: I don't hang around here to gain a reputation. I don't care about prestige or getting compliments. Or about my ego.

You compliment a depraved boy; ''He's bright; SO BRIGHT. You aren't.''

Am I supposed to say ??? ''Gee, Ian. I wish you liked me as much as you like spqd.''

But instead, who's debating ??? ---Over some incident 2 days old? Just you. I don't ask you to like me, or debate me. Just stop this fool competition, Sir. Get on with the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.


"Get on with the Catholic faith."

i'll continue looking for that back door. one of us might need it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.


Invincible ignorance can provide the back door into the Catholic Church for those who repent of all sin and love God. I don't mean the back door into heaven. Into the Church-- outside of where there is NO SALVATION.

>

Let's be realistic. Some extremely fine Bible Christians don't convert on account of IGNORANCE, and nothing but. If these otherwise god Christians KNEW the catholic faith is genuine, they wouldn't be allowed to plead ignorance. How is it there can still be an avenue open to them?

Perfect contrition for all their sins; a deep and everlasting LOVE for god and His commandments; and God's infinite Mercy and Justice.

He sees nothing ''impossible'' about letting a soul such as that in the ''back door of the Catholic Church. Only human beings choose to make things impossible for one another.

Sometimes our best Catholics are in invincible ignorance too. God allows them to worship Him. He forgives them too. Just remember; Jesus gave us a new commandment: ''Love one another, as I have loved you.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.


Eugene

i am pretty clear on what you believe. i've seen you post this kind of message several times.

but where did you get this from? is this yr personal theology?

Here's St Thomas' personal theology:

Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Is. 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."

see here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301001.htm

it' s really quite different from yours. is St Thomas also a Pharisee?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.


here is St Thomas ranking the levels of unbelief:

" he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfil what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. On this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all.

The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the corruption of matters of faith. On this respect, since heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the Jews than that of the heretics, except in such cases as that of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more than heathens do.

Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above (1) unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter as was stated (1) seems rather to bear the character of punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of heretics is the worst."

from here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301006.htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.


now, as if to prove the point Dogmatically, from Session 2 of Vatican I:

"I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:

[here are recited the Nicene Creed, Scripture & Tradition, the Sacraments, etc]

"This true catholic ***faith***, ***outside of which none can be saved***, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, ...."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.


source for VI

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum01. htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.


Ian:
I'm in agreement with Saint Thomas in most aspects not because I'm a scholastic but because of my Catholic faith.

You shouldn't trouble yourself about my sources or how I justify my belief. It's a distillation of hundreds of hours of Catholic as well as contemplation. Without intending to sound sanctimonious, I can tell you that great suffering also added to my spiritual health. There's nothing like it to bring you in earnest to God. Yet I can truly say that blessings also have been poured on me since I was a helpless soul. My parents and grandparents. The most Holy Catholic Church above all; in the eras of Pius XI XII, and on into the John XXIII and up to now. My comfort has always been at the holy altar. There I've accumulated over a lifetime what little I know; and from the lives of the saints.

I've read so joyfully about their sufferings and holiness and faith. Not only Thomas Aquinas; Theresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, my patroness Cecilia, Juliana of Norwich, Catherine of Siena, the Cure of Ars, Saint Bernadette, Thomas More, Loyola, Newman, Chesterton, the Little Flower, even Theilard de Chardin (which I'm sure you repudiate.) From hundreds of great lives I've gleaned something true and holy. It sure accumulates, and I don't forget the truth.

I started like all of them. At first sinful and a clown, with sdqa's restlessness. But by much suffering and prayer, I learned over time. Even today some storms keep rising. Why should they alarm this faithful soul ? ? ? I trust in Jesus Christ, not men. I truly think there's nothing to be afraid of. --But you've rarely seen the jolly side of Gene; so serious around here.

-----------If some of us weren't alert all the time in this forum, we'd be over-run by bashers, atheists, schismatics and vain- glorious Pharisees in no time. Somebody has to punch their lights out. It might as well be me, since God gave me so much hard preparation. I count you as a good Catholic. Don't let me discourage you. But I'll remind you when you're mistaken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2005.


Eugene

i quoted, and can quote, St Thomas, and certain Popes. including Infallible Definitions.

you quote yourself.

personal interpretation? protestantism?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2005.


IAN:
You just quote in your own context, out of spite against the Church of the apostles in our day. The problem isn't our Church, which hasn't broken faith with the Holy Spirit. The problem is a laity that won't rest until sheep take over the sheepfold from the shepherds. Do us both a favor, Ian:

Go pray for our Church; and ask God to give you increased faith. You have NO chance of altering the direction of the Church into the future. Certainly not by discouraging other faithful Catholics. You're merely frustrated; thinking you know more than the Popes or bishops. In fact, what DO you know? --How to criticize and invent abuses. That's all. They (WE) have Christ and his Holy Spirit as insurance against worldly or spiritual failure. Where is your faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2005.


that's called Papolatry, Eugene. Blind obedience. would you have sided with the Arians? i guess so.

"Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right; just because few do it doesn't make it wrong" -- St Augustine

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 13, 2005.


Ian speaks for the Holy Spirit. If one is loyal to any Pope other than a 12th century Pope, he's a papolater. Isn't that what Henry VIII said; when he confiscated the Church's English possessions and killed her priests? They were only Papists.

Now Ian's calling us papists because we follow John Paul II. And to Him, our Holy Father is no truer Pope than Arius was.

Just amazing, the paths into which pride and elitism lead. Ian thinks our Pope is nothing but a heretic. Way to go, Ian!

I was FOR war in Iraq; as a way of promoting peace in the middle east; which some people here thought had no chance. The Pope was against.

The Pope didn't sway me; but why am I still his loyal subject? Ian thinks that was ''blind obedience'' and ''papolatry''. Back to your drawing board, Ian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2005.


Eugene

“You just quote in your own context, out of spite against the Church of the apostles in our day.”

Prove it Eugene. For once, open a book. Prove it wrong.

“The problem isn't our Church, which hasn't broken faith with the Holy Spirit. The problem is a laity that won't rest until sheep take over the sheepfold from the shepherds.”

Goodness gracious. We live in an age of “faith communities”. A dozen special ministers of the eucharist, all kinds of enfranchisement of the laity. “Go pray for our Church; and ask God to give you increased faith.”

I do that every day.

“You have NO chance of altering the direction of the Church into the future.”

Personally, there are my prayers.

“ Certainly not by discouraging other faithful Catholics.”

I don’t. I have asked questions of you, over and over, all I get is invective, anathemas, and your **personal opinions**.

“ You're merely frustrated; thinking you know more than the Popes or bishops.”

I think they know more than I do, actually. I have no doubt that the Holy Father could recite Trent backwords, word perfect. I have no doubt that he knows what it all means too. You won’t - until you actually read it. Then, perhaps, we can have a proper conversation.

“ In fact, what DO you know?”

More than you – clearly – which I prove by always providing some authoritative backing to my assertions. You never do. Invective, anathemas, and your **personal opinions**.

“How to criticize and invent abuses.”

How could I ever compete with the King of the Invective.

“…. Where is your faith?”

wear it on my sleeve.

“Ian speaks for the Holy Spirit.”

Excuse me! This is one of your claims. According to you, you speak for the Holy Ghost -- and you send Baby Jesus to sleep everynight.

“ If one is loyal to any Pope other than a 12th century Pope, he's a papolater.”

You have to be loyal to **every** Pope in proportion to their orthodoxy. Read some books and you’ll see that’s how it’s always worked.

“Isn't that what Henry VIII said….”

No, he was 16th century. He broke with Rome to legitimise future Queen Elizabeth I. He had no time for Dogma.

“…when he confiscated the Church's English possessions and killed her priests?”

He did that – but he was a protestant.

“ They were only Papists.”

Well, there is no evidence that they were Papolaterers. To the English from Henry VIII onwards, a “Papist” or a “Romanist” was “any Catholic, even those that don’t worship the Pope but showed the due exalted reverence.

“Now Ian's calling us papists because we follow John Paul II.”

You introduced that word. You had to work hard – dragging Henry VIII in, the a little twist here, a little twist there. Not a single reference to any document of the church so far in anything you say.

But, as I say, we’re all “Papists” and "Romanists" – as we are all Catholics, even those of us who don’t worship the Pope and the Church unconditionally.

“And to Him, our Holy Father is no truer Pope than Arius was.”

Was Aruis a Pope?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Pope John Paul II is the Holy Father. Period.

“Just amazing, the paths into which pride and elitism lead.”

Indeed. Look in the mirror.

“ Ian thinks our Pope is nothing but a heretic. Way to go, Ian!”

Never, ever said that. Read again.

“I was FOR war in Iraq; as a way of promoting peace in the middle east; which some people here thought had no chance. The Pope was against. The Pope didn't sway me; but why am I still his loyal subject? Ian thinks that was ''blind obedience'' and ''papolatry''. Back to your drawing board, Ian.”

One swallow does not a summer make.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 14, 2005.


Dear Ian: ''Prove it,'' coming from you is not my idea of legitimate. ''For once, open a book. Prove it wrong.'' would be good advice coming from my Master.

You may NOT grill me for your own self-satisfaction. We're in an open forum. I don't like your condescending attitude.

Books I've read since the late 1950's (about our faith) by the score. Not that it makes me unteachable; but you ought to know I'm not coming off some turnip truck. That's why, in fact, all your posts here ring hollow to me. You haven't read enough. When I asked you if LOVE ever received your endorsement, you ignored that question. Over and over I've underscored the infinite love and mercy of God; but you read only accusations against our Catholic faithful from your arsenal of self-righteous Catholicism. The writings in which no pontiff EVER intended to attack his successors. Only blasphemers and apostates and deceivers. Why should you or anybody say our priests and bishops were their targets?

Therefore I don't find your challenge any reason to burn the midnight oil, Ian. Even if I posted some deep study like you want, it would merely excite you to further preening here; a Master grading the students. Something I find ridiculous.

But as I said in another thread; you seem a good Catholic. I don't detest you or anything you stand for, except sedition.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2005.


i'll take that as a "no".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 15, 2005.

Can't you take No? I am here as a free man.

Who says you're the Grand Inquisitor?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 15, 2005.


"When I asked you if LOVE ever received your endorsement, you ignored that question. Over and over I've underscored the infinite love and mercy of God; but you read only accusations against our Catholic faithful from your arsenal of self-righteous Catholicism."

Eugene

this is the cart and horses that you drive through Dogma.

according to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, these are all Dogmatic:

- God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.) - God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)

- God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.)

- God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) - God is infinitely just. (De fide.)

- God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

now, i f i were to be folish enough to construe these in the way that any earthling would understand them, it means that EVERYONE is saved. read the last one -- "God is infinitely merciful".

the thing is that you cannot do that. that is akin to protestantism -- find a snippet here, and base a whole thesis on said snippet to the exclusion of other teachings of the Church.

you have to take a holistic approach, having regard to ALL the Dogmatic teachings of the Church.

as it happens, you, ebven on this approach, have a pretty limited sense of God's love. you deign EENS as pharasaic, but you preach that there is some "back door" that some protestants might be lucky enough to find.

perhaps, the reason that God is perfect is because He is God. we don't need to look further than that definition, because it is self- evident in a way. we certainly don't need to add our own personal interpretation of what that actually means. the Church does that for Catholics.

the result is that there can be no conflict between EENS and any other Dogma of the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.


Dear Ian:
Please watch, I'm not going to repeat this again.

You said: ''if i were foolish . . .construe these in the way that any earthling would understand them, it means that EVERYONE is saved. read the last one. "God is infinitely merciful". the thing is that you cannot do that. that is akin to protestantism - ''

You're ducking the true sense of what I stated. I said the CHURCH teaches-- not protestants;

A soul who has truly loved God and his neighbor, rejected SIN; and yet remained UNBAPTISED but with no trace of blame for it; (invincible ignorance of God's Will, and His revelations,)

. . . May yet call on His Infinite Mercy and be forgiven. It is up to God entirely; because He is all-Just Infinitely Just. Being perfectly JUST, God will never commit even a shade of injustice. (This is Catholic doctrine!)

Mercy and Justice back the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. His infinite Wisdom is perfectly aware of the inner dispositions of a soul. God can tell whether or not an unbaptised soul would have asked for the Church's Baptism, the sacrament; had he KNOWN IT WAS A REQUIREMENT. HE WOULD HAVE ''DESIRED'' BAPTISM, KNOWING THE TRUTH.

If the All-Knowing God sees that good will, (God is never incorrect) and still damns him because there was no Church sacrament, then God is Injust. That leaves us only the right conclusion. God can baptise him invisibly, and save him.

NOT as you insist; ''Everybody is saved.'' Only the few; and only they whom God knows are deserving. These points, and the ones about Baptism of Blood, are backed by Jesus Christ in the gospels. This is what our holy mother Church was teaching you all along; way before the 2nd Vatican Council. I've added NOTHING.

Going back to your words of warning, ''the thing is that you cannot do that.'' HEY; I don't do a thing. God does it. Just remember that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.


that's heresy, Eugene. surely?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.

Nothing God does or favors is heresy. He'll even tolerate your gross error. He desires your salvation, despite your obstinacy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.

If that's heresy, then there is no guarantee that anything the Church teaches is true. You can't have it both ways. Either (1) the Church cannot teach heresy, or (2) any Church teaching, past or present, could be heresy. Take your pick.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 16, 2005.

Paul:

it's Eugene's personal theology to which i was referring. Eugene has found a way around Original Sin.

-- but you also seem to have missed the point made yesterday. as i said then, google Honorius, Liberius, Pope John 22, GeoCentrism,.......others avaliable..........

the Church CAN err. it has done so in the past. it CANNOT, however, err in its infallible teachings.

you need to read into Cardinal Kasper. what are you guys going to do if he is made Pope next? don't rule it out.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.


What an idiot!

I HAVE no personal theology! You've been shown what the Catholic Church teaches. Not what I think. I only try to clarify her doctrine. Stop insisting you know better, Ian. You don't know what you're talking about.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.


"This is what our holy mother Church was teaching you all along; way before the 2nd Vatican Council."

i have given you a roll call of great Popes, Saints, Doctors etc all denying salvation to those in Invincible Ignorance - including 3 Dogmatic definitions that rule it out.

do you want me to re-post it?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 16, 2005.


No. --Post it where the sun never shines on you. When I posted one CATHOLIC archbishop's text you dismissed it. Turn about's fair play!

The Popes you're referring to did NOT-- repeat they DIDN'T change the doctrine into your personal hobby horse, Ian. You don't understand the doctrine, so don't try to elaborate on it.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.


Eugene

you posted something from Bishop Sheen, if i recall. copy-typed by you from an old pamphlet or book going all the way back to the '50's.

goodness me. i've given you St Thomas, St Augustine, a host of Councils, and tonnes of other stuff. and Dogmatic definitions.

have it your way. but you see why i describe you as "entrenched".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.


"If that's heresy, then there is no guarantee that anything the Church teaches is true."

there is a limited, but cast-iron, guarantee. when the teaching is made ex cathedra or by an Ecumenical Council (inc. Pope), it is infallible.

teachings of the Ord Mag are hard to pin down, but they too are infallible if they are always and everywhere.

the rest is "fallible" -- meaning "Liable to fail, mistake, or err; liable to deceive".

as for "Either (1) the Church cannot teach heresy, or (2) any Church teaching, past or present, could be heresy.Take your pick."

i'll take (2), so long as the teaching is not infallible.

maybe i am going absolutely bananas here, but this is Catholic Doctrine 1.01.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.


So you agree that the teachings of the Church which are defined by the Pope, or an Ecumenical Council, or the Magisterium are infallible. Right! And where else would any teaching of the Church come from?? (Still waiting for an example of a fallible doctrinal teaching of the Church. You say there are some. Please name one.)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 17, 2005.

He can't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

Paul,

here's the kind of this you'd find if you Googled "Pope John XXII":

"Pope John XXII had stated before his election that he believed the soul didn’t posses the Beatific Vision upon death. He also gave a series of five sermons stating his belief. At the University of Paris, a group of theologians gave the opinion that the pope was seriously wrong, but that he had not made an ex cathedra statement. As a result, it was not binding and was simply a private belief of the pope."

This is from Constantinople III and mentions Pope Honorius:

"This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose--namely ... ****Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome****...-- and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind..."

i gave you other examples upstream - Google them and you'll see what i mean. i can give you more. but one is enough.

modern teachings from the Vatican may come in an Encyclical, Declaration or Audience, or in various other formats. these are all fallible - save where the Pope makes clear that he speaks ex cathedra.

Dominus Iesus was issued by Ratzinger. it's a teaching of the Church. it's fallible unless, and inasmuch as, it recites previous Infallible teaching.

ditto Vatican II, a self-avowed pastoral Council. it's all fallible teaching.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.


He can't. ''goodness me. i've given you St Thomas, St Augustine, a host of Councils, and tonnes of other stuff. and Dogmatic definitions.''

I saw nothing of the sort.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.


''the rest is "fallible" -- meaning "Liable to fail, mistake, or err; liable to deceive".''

You insist on saying the rest is FALSE. Make up your mind, Guv'nor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.


woah..... will you guys just chilax.... <--- in the best teen terms avalible!

ok... everyone count to ten..... done it? good

right....

things that well ALL agree on (at least i hope so)

1) jesus was Gods son born from the VIRGIN mary (lets not get into the sinning bit cos we dissagree on that!) 2) jesus NEVER sinned, he didnt come to serve but to serve 3) you can have eternal life by excepting jesus into your life as your king and dad (saying sorry and please be the most important thing in my life from this moment forwards) 4)as someone waaaaaaaaay up at the top of this debate said ---------- ---> "you need forgiveness before you can enter the kingdom of heaven. Your own faith can't save you. Bible-reading alone can't save you, and it doesn't save anybody." 5) jesus will return any day now in all of his splendor to judge us and after that (if you are a xtain) we will be together worshipping god forever....

maybe we should thank God for all of that instead of bickering the whole time....

ok... im a hipercrit (and i cant even spell it which makes it a WHOLE lot worse!) but i would look after any of you guys if you needed help and i pray for all of you guys daily (well maybe not daily... weekly is more like it but you get my point!)

JESUS is LORD and we need to tell more people that cos its not wether Mary sinned or not that matters its people salvation at stake here!

i'm gonna regret sending this but here it goes....

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.


i'm fascinated kt.

is Eugene gonna scream at you - or not?

and, if not, why not?

good luck!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 17, 2005.


confused but hey.....

-- KT (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 17, 2005.

Answer the girl yourself, Ian. You keep coming back to Eugene instead of a previous poster. And now you can't speak truthfully, either. I haven't screamed at you. I reply to you when it's necessary. Why would you resort to untruths? The truth hasn't occurred to you at all?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

you seem to be missing my point.....

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Several posts up Eugene Chavez wrote:

I was even sexually abused as a little boy of four; and forgave my abuser after I reached the age of reason. Nothing in this world is worth fighting over, except Jesus Christ's glory.

Forgive if you like, but I hope that you still pressed charges and that the abuser was caught and punished for what he did to you. Because if he abused you then he most likely abused others as well, and will continue to do so until he is put in prison.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 18, 2005.


this is low but the catholics cant tell anybody about child abuse at the mo so if i were you i would keep stum!

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Bonzo-- You can really spread the schiddt.

No; You've allowed your own fevered imagination to stretch everything I said out of proportion. I was about four; a tot. I was still totally innocent.

Instinctively I felt great revulsion. However the abuser was a relative, and a bully as well. I was afraid even to denounce him to my own parents. But after two gross experiences, I avoided all meetings with him. Shortly afterward, he joined the Army and I never saw him again except infrequently. He became a man and married a great woman; whom I always considered a saint. She was a terrific influence on him; so he became a much more faithful Catholic. They each passed away relatively young. I truly forgive him. He was an adolescent at the time of his sin against me. I don't ''treasure his memory.'' Certainly I CAN'T. But I hope God has given him peace now.

Don't play counsellor with me, Bonzzits. You're not very qualified around this place. -- Ciao //

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2005.


i'm sorry to hear this Eugene, but glad that you have coped. to forgive that must take some doing.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 20, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ