 |
| Farmer's blogspot today re Vatican and global authority on economy. |
 |
| CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE ARTICLE 10-24-2011 |
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
Monday, October 24, 2011
Has Vatican called for creation of a "World Authority" on global finance? If accurate, this is OMINOUS!
As my readers know, I despise Catholic bashing, just as I do Jew bashing, indiscriminate Moslem bashing, and fundamentalist Protestant bashing. However, equally true is that there has definitely been proven infiltration just about everywhere in all of the above circles. I took a peek at Farmer's website this morning. As my readers know, Bjorn Freiberg and I have had our serious differences. However, he has definitely performed valuable research over the years and I'm not going to ignore a call of "fire" just because I don't like the particular fireman. Today, he posts alarming information that I'm going to check out and suggest you do so also: that at least one Vatican spokesman, Cardinal Peter Turkson, has issued a call for a "supranational authority" to deal with global financial issues. Cardinal Turkson is a new name to me, so I'm asking our Catholic regulars for more information here. Lee Penn, himself a Catholic, has expressed many concerns to me about the Vatican's current direction. I would appreciate feedback on this and trust we can share relevant information about it here.
It seems as though it is one of the BIG news stories of the day. Here's a picture of the Catholic News Service report.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
584 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 584 Newer› Newest»Well, Susanna - congratulations!!!
You managed to at least 'quiet' the anti-Catholics for 12 hours and 13 minutes.
LOL
Craig,
I am not denying that Mosaic Law no longer applies. The epistle to the Hebrews says that. But it is the only code of law that God has ever given, so it is worth comparing man-made socio-legal systems with it, is it not?
Anon@8.55am
Given the firestorm this has produced, it's curious there's not an official word from the papacy. Surely Pope Benedict is not unaware.
Anon 9:49,
Any of the tenets of Mosaic Law or its principles would only work in the context of a theocracy. The 'church' will not have an adequate voice in any sort of global authority - and should not. As I've pointed out before Jesus Christ did not model a call to reform government as His call was to prepare for a Kingdom not of this world.
WARNING!! ASSISI DIABOLICAL CHARADE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!! Type "Assisi 2011, today" into youtube and see what comes up!
"Among the spiritual leaders attending will be Baha'i, Buddhists, Confucianists, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Sikhs, Taoists and Zoroastrians, joining 100 Christian leaders."
Well noted 8:23 am!
Here's a youtube link explaining it.
Babylon in Assisi.avi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_220NJxrZg
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=B_220NJxrZg
WARNING!! ASSISI DIABOLICAL CHARADE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!! Type "Assisi 2011, today" into youtube and see what comes up!
Italian Catholic Intellectuals Beg Benedict XVI To “Flee the Spirit of Assisi”
http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/italian_intellectuals_beg_pope_to_flee_spirit_of_assisi.htm
http://www.sspx.org/news/
assisi_iii/
italian_intellectuals_beg_pope
_to_flee_spirit_of_assisi.htm
He didn't though, sadly! Well, he'd set it up with old Nick, the Jesuit General, so why should he?
Craig,
You write: "Any of the tenets of Mosaic Law or its principles would only work in the context of a theocracy. "
Is Thou shalt not commit murder out of date? Is Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Catholic bashing? The doctrines of Rome are a vast departure from scripture and the DOCTRINES should be soundly, scripturally refuted. They are (at their roots) as damnable as the new age movement.
10:31am These are written on a man's heart are they not? When he is born again, surely!
10:34am they created the NA movement, and the fmsns etc, esp by the Jesuit Odour.
WELL SAID 10:34 AM!
Yes that Great Whore the Mother of all Harlots who sits arrayed in scarlet and purple, her golden cup of abominations brimming, on 7 hills is at it again decking her boudoir at Assisi! She claims herself a queen and thinks she's no widow, yet she is so utterly destitute, and in one hour all her fine gold, pearls, she has become a habitation of demons and in 1 hour her destruction shall be complete!
She's there with the other harlots. The C of E, the varied Orthodox heresies, and with Antichrist Islam and the filth of paganism.
God help us all!
Anon 10:31,
The main point is we cannot legislate morality. A man-made central authority will never work.
Anon 10:35's point is in mind here.
Craig,
I agree with you that "The 'church' will not have an adequate voice in any sort of global authority - and should not." I also agree that the Law of Moses no longer applies (see Epistle to the Hebrews). It is up to each nation to choose its laws. But a wise nation will accept that it would do well to read and ponder and decide whether to enact those parts of Mosaic Law that relate to interpersonal relations (ie, morality). Why? - Because human nature hasn't changed.
Can we negotiate to agreement?
Anon 11:55,
The whole point is individual salvation, not nations adopting whichever portions of the Mosaic Law (or Christianity) they see fit. One either accepts Jesus Christ, or one does not. There is no middle road.
Anon 11:55,
I'm not trying to be contentious for the sake of being contentious. I do see your point - to a point. But, the thing is, we can take, for example, a law against murder and most anyone would be agree with this as this belief is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian one.
Craig,
With apologies to Constance's readers for whom this is off-topic, I'd like to try to reach agreement because I'm confident we do actually agree and we are simply both being careful with our words.
So let me try this: A Christian who is in a position to influence the law of his land, eg an elected person in a democracy, should lobby for at least some of those laws of interpersonal relations that match the Law of Moses. (Not for the Mosaic laws regulating the relationship between men and God, of course!) In advocating those laws in public forums, our politician should give reasons, but should not say "Because God said so".
Regardless of what I say next, would you agree with that?
For those who do agree with this assertion, the goldmine of non-revelatory arguments for such laws is Thomas Aquinas ('natural law'). And I speak as a protestant, incidentally.
Anon 12:46,
OK, it sounds we are now in agreement. And, yes I try to be careful with words -- not that I'm always successful in that endeavor.
To prove that Pope Benedict understands and is well aware of the danger associated with all of this, I share with you the following quote from him. The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) specifically stated...
"...efforts to build the future have been made by attempts that draw more or less profoundly from the source of liberal traditions. Under the title New World Order, these efforts take on a configuration; they increasingly relate to the U.N. and its international conferences...that transparently reveal a philosophy of the new man and of the new world..." (from the book "The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder, by Msgr. Michel Schooyans, 1997)
Pope Benedict is WELL AWARE of the dangers associated with a corrupt New World Order as you can see in the above statement that he made several years ago. He is an incredibly intelligent and faithful shepherd of Christ's Church. One only need to read his books and writings and see for themselves that he is. God Bless him and guide him always.
A Catholic book that I highly recommend is entitled "THE FINAL CONFRONTATION: The Present and Coming Trial and Triumph of The Church" by Mark Mallett
To Anon@2.18pm,
What source does Schooyans give for that Ratzinger quote, please?
In 'Caritas in Veritate' (2009 encyclical, para 67) he says that “there is a need… for a reform of the United Nations organisation… that… can acquire real teeth… there is urgent need of a true world political authority… vested with the effective power to ensure security for all… it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties”.
If you put this quote together with Schooyans' then you learn that the present Pope is against a humanistic world government but in favour of a benevolent one. He doesn't seem to realise that the first set of people to get the ball over the line will spawn the Antichrist, and that universal benevolent goverment will come only when Jesus returns to trash the AC. It's so frustrating, why can't he understand his own scriptures? Catholics who 'get' this should try to encourage this view in their church.
My country had a great empire in the 19th century, and I thank God it wasn't any greater.
Anon 3:18
Unfortunately, catholics rail on about how the pope is infallible and they trust everything he says, which they are taught to do.
But if he is a true bishop in succession of Peter, if he is a true vicar of Christ - then he would know this, and not be deceived.
Unfortunately catholics will always make excuses for him, like, he doesn't know anything about it -or, he is not involved, that is another faction within the church, etc.
Trust me, he is involved, and he knows everything that goes on in the church.
Anon 2:18,
Given your stance that Pope Benedict is aware of the NWO, then why would he recommend the UN be the global governing body as he does in Caritas in Veritate? It doesn't require much study to determine the heavy New Age infiltration (if not New Age roots) of the UN.
There is God's Word.
There are The Ten Commandments:
(The Law).
There are ordinances.
There are precepts.
There are statutes.
There are His testimonies.
And there are His tender mercies.
See: Psalm 119 and it's twenty one
divisions. Just scan it this awesome
Psalm and notice these words:
Laws, Ordinances,
Precepts, Statutes,
Testimonies and tender mercies,
and tell me that
none of these things apply any more?
I believe that any traditional Christian
church that thinks we should disregard
all of these things is LOST.
How many times is the term
"..those who love the Lord and keep
his commandments" used in the
NEW TESTAMENT, even in the book
of Revelations ?
Don't be deceived.
The Ten Commandments are God will
for humanity for all time.
I don't advocate a return to the
precepts and ordinances that the Jews
were supposed to observe in the
Old Covenant, but you don't throw
out the baby with the bathwater !
Here's the last word from the Bible:
(Rev. 22:13,14)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his
commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life, and may enter
in through the gates into the city.
paul,
I think you may have missed the point of the discussion. It was in the context (as I understood and replied) of setting up Mosaic Law / Christian principles in government. My opposition is that this would never work unless all were converted as Christians because morality cannot be legislated.
The Mosaic Law was specifically for the nation Israel as a theocracy. Of course, Jesus did not abolish the Law fulfilling it instead.
I posted this before, but it "disappeared."
Regarding the Asisi conference,
Pope rejects Assisi public prayer
Vatican official says focus will not be on interfaith at meeting later this month
http://www.ucanews.com/2011/10/
20/pope-rejects-assisi-public
-prayer/
_______________________
POPE WON'T TAKE PART IN INTERFAITH PRAYERS
http://blackchristiannews.com/news
/2011/10/pope-wont-take-part-in
-interfaith-prayers.html
Big deal he is not taking part in the interfaith prayers. By helping sponsor such an event he is STILL promoting ecumenism.
Which is NOT biblical!!!!!!!!!
Your "bible only" rule isn't "Biblical" either!!! That is probably why you have to trash other peoples' faiths - so that no one will notice how unbiblical yours is.
Just got this in from the Catholic news service to which I subscribe. Phil Lawler is the former editor of the Catholic World Report.
Spare us from Vatican economic analysts
By Phil Lawler | October 25, 2011
http://www.catholicculture.org/
commentary/otn.cfm?id=856
To Marko:
While your present GUESS as to the antichrist's identity might be as good as my present GUESS, it is definitely NOT TRUE scripturally that God intended us to be ignorant. Jesus said repeatedly WATCH. Revelation 13 gave us a big clue, HERE IS WISDOM, LET HE WHO HATH WISDOM CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST . . .
Constance
Some of you so-called 'Christians' are going to be in for a big surprise if the 'great whore of babylon' turns out to be the United States of America!
catholic bashers who are ex catholics without a clue as to catholic doctrine - that is because the average catholic is not a theologian, but the heir of pop catholicism. A classic example was a catholic I knew who figured Mary had to be a goddess if she was mother of God. when you look at the actual official detailed position of RC vs. the average impression, feeling and so forth of the catholics shaped by culture of RC there is a difference.
Mary as intercessor - RC admits that Christ is the one intercessor mediator with The Father, but Christ also is God, and Mary intercedes with Him for us, and a typical Orthodox prayer is "bring our prayers to your son and our God, that by your prayers He may save our souls," and that sense of salvation is not a one time snap deal but an ongoing situation and specific problems in life as well.
also, do you not ask people to pray for you? that is the same thing.
usa as babylon - I wouldn't be surprised. there is a very good fit on details. bear in mind that babylon is not the antichrist. it is also a mystery as well as a specific. there are many cities situated on 7 hills, rome is only one of them. Albany, NY
cincinnatti, OH Los Angeles, Ca
Lynchburg, VA Nevada City, CA Richmond, Va Rome, GA St. Paul, MN
San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA Somerville, MA Staten Island, NY
Tallahassee, FL and Yonkers, NY are
among them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills
Jerusalem is also, but is characterized in Revelation as
equivalent to Sodom so that's out.
most likely, it will be a future Rome, with restored paganism. Right now, there are many pagan reconstruction groups, focussing on the false god pantheons of specific locations and ethnic groups, appealing to peoples' roots and the idea they should follow the false gods of their ancestors.
Mary worship gotten extreme in the past few centuries - yes, it has. certain doctrines now official, were once only opinions of some influential men, and opposed even by others incl. Aquinas. Look up the
history of the immaculate conception for instance.
Christine,
I agree that Rome has elevated Mary more in the last two centuries, with the 19th century Immaculate Conception and the 'infallible' declaration of her Direct Assumption in the 20th century. But Mary stuff is ancient - Dean Colet of St Paul's, London said in the early 16th century that people should "worship him [Jesus Christ] and his mother". That did not mean worship her as divine - the church wedding pledges of the same century included the words "with my body I thee worship". But it shows that Mary veneration goes back a long way - in fact it was 1000 years old at that time. Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing will depend on whether you are Catholic or protestant.
My best guess for New Babylon? Istanbul. It's on 7 hills, was known as New Rome after Constantine upgraded it and moved there, has been capital of Europe and then capital of the Islamic world, is on the border between the heartlands of secular humanism and Islam, today's 'big two' opponents of Christianity, and of which Napoleon said that "if all the world were one state then Constantinople would be its capital".
What is so ironic to me is that most Protestant Evangelicals want so BADLY to believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ (almost gleefully wishing and hoping)....that I am just surprised that they are still posting on this blog....since Constance's exhaustive, extensive research clearly points in another direction!!!
To Anonymous @ 8:31 PM
When Jesus said these words:
"And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd." (John 10:16 - KJV)
This proves that ecumenism (in it's purest form and original intent....minus a New Age agenda) is in fact 'biblical.'
Anon 8:19
I am a former catholic, but NOT a protestant evangelical. I do not believe the pope to be the ac, but he (the papacy) will play and is playing a huge role as we approach end times. And by a huge role, I mean NOT A GOOD ONE.
Constance has done much valuable research, but when did her research become the be all-end all?
I have seen many times when she has jumped to conclusions and been totally wrong.
Constance
Not trying to insult here, as we are all wrong at times.
Anon 8:42
I think you are seriously misinformed.
There is a huge difference in others from different faiths coming to know Jesus, and ecumenism.
To Anonymous (8:43 AM):
Re: "Not trying to insult here, as we are all wrong at times."
___________________________________
Yes, dear....including YOU!!!
Some of you who feel the need to 'correct with love' (?) should also remember to leave your arrogance and condescending attitude at the door when you post here.
You don't even realize what a complete turn off that is to people who read these comments!!!
To Anonymous @ 8:43AM:
Re: "Constance has done much valuable research, but when did her research become the be all-end all? I have seen many times when she has jumped to conclusions and been totally wrong."
___________________________________
Uhhhh....and you're still hanging around here because....???
Only TIME will tell just who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.'
Meanwhile, shouldn't we ALL be on our knees praying instead of 'ripping each other a new one'???
Or, how about just going out there and setting a good example to others....instead of turning people completely OFF???
(Hey -- now, there's a concept.)
http://gatewaynews.co.za/2011/10/26/heavenly-signs-on-day-of-prayer/
Apologies for being off the point. But this `open heaven` talk caught my attention. Looks more like chem trails?
Regards
Melinda
Something to consider...especially for all the rude, arrogant and just plain mean Catholic bashers on this blog:
The Truth about Assisi. Never-Before-Seen Words from Benedict XVI
"I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible." In a letter from the pope to a Lutheran pastor, the real reason for the convocation of the encounter
by Sandro Magister
ROME, October 26, 2011 – The following is an extract from a letter written by Benedict XVI on March 4, 2011 to Lutheran pastor Peter Beyerhaus, a longtime friend who had told him about his fears over the new convocation of the day of Assisi:
"I understand very well," the pope writes, "your concern about participating in the encounter of Assisi. But this commemoration would have been celebrated in any case, and, in the end, it seemed to me the best thing to go there personally, in order to try to determine the overall direction. Nonetheless, I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible, and to make it clear that I will always believe and confess what I had called the Church's attention to with 'Dominus Iesus'."
These never-before-seen words from pope Joseph Ratzinger were made public last October 1, with the authorization of the recipient of the letter, Pastor Beyerhaus, at the beginning of a conference organized in Rome by the association "Catholica Spes" on the meaning of the encounter in Assisi.
And previously, Beyerhaus had referred to it in an interview with the German newspaper "Kirchliche Umschau" last April.
But the matter went unnoticed. Only on the eve of the October 27 encounter was it revisited and reissued by a few traditionalist websites.
One of the speakers at the conference was Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, who said among other things:
"There are a number of dangers that such an encounter could bring in terms of the mass media communication of the event, of which – as it is clear – the pontiff is well aware. The means of mass media communication will say, even with the images alone, that all religions have come together to ask God for peace. A poorly formed Christian could draw from this the gravely mistaken conclusion that one religion is as good as another, and that Jesus Christ is one of the many mediators of salvation."
Lisa
When I was a child attending Catholic school we always celebrated May 1st as Our Lady's Day. In 6th grade I was chosen to be the one to put the garland on her lady's head in the annual May procession, where we marched to the grotto singing songs to our lady and it culminated in crowning a statue with real flowers in a little grotto/ altar setting. Being very shy, I frowned when I was chosen and the nun rushed down the isle and grabbed my long hair and knocked some sense into me. I have many more of these stories that sadly resonate with others that went through the Catholic school system. As in any religion, there's good and bad. I also had a wonderful nun that taught me to play the piano and I loved her like a mother. I think it would just be more forthright if the Catholics here would acknowledge the fact that a whole lot of ancient mythology is connected to Mary worship, hence the New Age slant that causes the reactions by Protestants here, this being a site that warns against New Age practices in the churches. May 1st is, of course, also Beltane, so the Vatican brings a lot of controversy upon itself just in view of some of the choices it has made, such as choosing this date to honor Mary in a May procession so reminiscent of the Druid May Queen celebration. Some of us know about that through the "Stairway to Heaven " lyrics from the diabolical group Led Zeppelin.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter. Here's more about the May Queen mythology connections:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/crownmed.html
This is the one post in which Constance has invited critical comments on the connection between Roman Catholicism and New Age, so let there be no complaints about the subject matter. It must be done with awareness of what is held in common though, ie the Holy Trinity and the New Testament. And it must be done with humility, although forceful rhetoric is not always wrong as Jesus Himself showed.
Benedicts letter to that protestant friend is simply misguided - not more, not less. If a Roman Catholic organisation runs the Assisi meetings then Pope Benedict certainly *could* have had it cancelled. If not then he should have condemned it or at least kept totally clear of it, as 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 commands all Christians. You can ally with non-Christians for moral purposes, eg with Muslims against pornographic sex education lessons in schools, but you don't get together for religious dialogue with non-Christians. Paul is very clear. Pope Benedict, please read and heed your own scriptures!
The notion that Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church support an anti-Christian agenda is incorrect. The document from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is not a magisterial document. Are there liberation theology proponents in the Vatican? No doubt there are, but these people's opinions do not form part of the Church's teaching. The article linked below provides comprehensive analysis of John Paul II and Benedict XVI's statements on the New World Order agenda.
http://conservation.catholic.org/Earth%20Charter.htm
Neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict XVI have ever endorsed the Earth Charter. Both Holy Fathers have criticized the beliefs underlying the Earth Charter without mentioning the Charter by name...Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and representatives of at least three Pontifical Councils have spoken out against efforts to supplant Christian values with a new global ethic (see articles below)...On the contrary, Pope Benedict XVI has referred to any such efforts as "utopian dreaming without any real content."21
"Is this not the time for all to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, truly capable of ensuring peace and harmony between peoples, as well as their integral development? But let there be no misunderstanding. This does not mean writing the constitution of a global super-State."
~ Pope John Paul II, Message for the World Day of Peace, 2003
To Anonymous @ 11:45:
Re: "....if the Catholics here would acknowledge the fact that a whole lot of ancient mythology is connected to Mary worship"
___________________________________
Well, since we Catholics do NOT 'worship' Mary....we choose not to 'acknowledge' your SLANDER and LIES either.
You are completely wasting your time. Try 'spinning' that venom with some of the rest of that fringe group of radical Protestant Evangelicals....who spend most of their time obsessed with HATING Catholics.
(You know, there should be a rehab or 12-step program for that kind of 'addiction' to obsession.)
Anon@12.59pm,
The quote you give from John Paul II typifies a time-honoured trend in Catholic writing, ie having it both ways. Then when critics speak against you, you can always point to the other strand and say you didn't mean what they took you to mean. This is a form of casuistry.
"...Jesus, however, repeats to us what he said in reply to Satan, what he said to Peter, and what he explained further to the disciples of Emmaus: No kingdom of this world is the Kingdom of God, the total condition of mankind's salvation. Earthly kingdoms remain earthly human kingdoms, and anyone who claims to be able to establish the perfect world is the willing dupe of Satan and plays the world right into his hands."
-from the book "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Benedict XVI
...as you can see the Pope is WELL AWARE of all of it.
Just a reminder:
Contrary to some Protestant Evangelicals' love for 'blood sport'....Catholics are NOT on trial here!!!
In the ancient days of the Christians vs. the lions...some of you bullies would have clearly been on the side of the lions!!!
LOL
Ever heard of Mr Valiant-for-Truth, Anonymous?
To Anonymous @ 1:48 PM
Re: "Ever heard of Mr Valiant-for-Truth, Anonymous?"
___________________________________
Yes, it's a Christian allegory about a Pilgrim's progress.
And your point is....?
I have seen absolutely NO evidence of anything either 'valiant' or 'truthful' in any of these accusations against Catholics....only lies and slander!!!
Some of you don't even both to do your 'homework'....you just keep 'vomiting' the same myths and distortions about Catholics that have been repeated ad nauseum.
Brain scanner 'reads' people's dreams - accurately enough to see what they are dreaming about
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2054594/Minds-eye-Experts-use-magnetic-scanner-videos-playing-inside-peoples-brains.html#ixzz1c6Q8wKOb
Dear anonymous 1:12
According to the free online dictionary the definition of worship is the following and take special note of (b):
wor·ship (wûrshp)
n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.
v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
v.intr.
1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2. To perform an act of worship.
Yes, Catholics DO worship Mary according to that definition. I actually think there are some very nice aspects of having extreme reverence for the mother of God. I wish ceremonies as lovely as the May procession could be instituted in all Christian churches, and gee whiz, I am an evangelical protestant! We could omit the statues but bring mothers and grandmothers of all ages flowers from their children and grandchildren in a little processional, with Mary's example of divine motherhood in mind. And we could sing a couple lovely hymns that recognize and honor the fact that Mary is the mother of God. I would like that personally. There are some wonderful aspects of Catholicism that I miss, since I am no longer Catholic. The reverence of worship in the RCC is a beautiful thing. I talked to someone in a liberal Christian church recently who told me that her church's choir is practicing singing Mama Mia songs! I was disgusted, though I didn't say so. I played the organ in the Catholic church for many years and I was proud to contribute to the ceremony of the mass. So I personally am not obsessed with hating Catholics, and none in my church are either that I am aware of. I actually think your response to anonymous 11:45 indicates it's the reverse.
The word worship has evolved in meaning, but nowadays it is generally understood to imply worship of a deity. Christians will believe that 'worship' should therefore be reserved for the Holy Trinity alone.
I agree that there is a lack of reverence in some modern protestant worship. One man put it rather well by saying that "We are worshiping God all-matey." You are guaranteed reverent worship in Eastern Orthodox churches, incidentally.
When Catholics say I am dissing Mary in some of my criticisms, I reply that when I am resurrected with my Lord Jesus Christ and all the other saints I look forward to saying Hail Mary, Mother of The King. Not before, though.
You know....some of you have become so conditioned to hostility toward the Catholic Church that you just arrogantly keep insisting that Catholics "worship" Mary or the saints.
This is absolutely FALSE.
However, the indoctrination into anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that we Catholics feel like we're talking to a bunch of 'slow learners' in trying to very patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God.
The Catholic Church is very clear and STRICT about this. WORSHIP is to be given ONLY to God....period!!!
Anonymous, I think the people who keep falsely insisting that Catholics worship Mary are the victims of brainwashing by people who have an anti-Catholic agenda. This is why the propagandists keep repeating this mantra over and over in the hopes that their target audience will also believe the propaganda despite the fact they have no evidence to back up this nonsense. They need to be deprogrammed from their trance.
Cathy,
I'm not sure if it's me you're replying to as there are other Anons than me on this side of the fence and I always aim to be courteous. I don't say all Catholics worship Mary. I don't say Catholics worship *only* Mary. I know that the Magisterium says she is not divine. But it was me who, a long way back in this thread, quoted some well-licensed Catholic prayers addressed to Mary - not addressed to God and then ending "through Mary Our Lady" - which specifically asked *her* to do things reserved in scripture only for the Godhead, or described her as a refuge for sinners. I also worry about her progressive elevation, as doctrine after doctrine over the centuries has her doing more and more things that Jesus did and for which there is no reliable evidence. Then there was John Paul II who ascribed his survival after being shot to Mary, who said of the battle against communism in Poland, "the victory, if it comes, will come through Mary", and who encouraged the Totus Tuus movement - Totally Yours - dedicating oneself totally to *Mary*; what about Jesus? Furthermore, Roman Catholicism has always been a visual religion of great stained glass windows, art and cathedrals, and any pagan from another culture who entered a cathedral in South America for the first time would be in no doubt who was worshiped there.
Perhaps we each think of the other "You just don't get it", but I welcome dialogue.
Another article for us all to humbly consider:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2011/10/missing-the-message-of-a-prophet/
Lisa
Pope John Paul II is alluding to the intercession of Mary who is the perfect disciple of Jesus and can thus teach us to love Jesus like she did. Why shouldn't Christians have recourse to Mary? Didn't Jesus Christ come to us through Mary? He could have chosen some other way to come into the world but chose Mary as His Mother. Do you think she was just used by God for this purpose and then discarded? Don't you think the Mother of Jesus loved him more than any other disciple after having lived with Jesus for 30 years until He began His public ministry? Is it possible that having lived in such close proximity to Jesus His Mother would not have grown spiritually to point of becoming His disciple par excellence? Isn't is also likely that Jesus' affection for His Mother is boundless and how on earth could anyone suggest that the Mother of Jesus could/would lead people away from Him? For that matter, how is it possible that any saint in heaven could do anything other than fulfill the Will of God? They can't/don't, because as the words of the Lord's Prayer tell us: 'Thy Will be done on earth as it IS IN HEAVEN. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to seek the intercession of Mary and the saints.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and our Mother too.
http://tinyurl.com/MaryourMother
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
Then there was John Paul II...who said of the battle against communism in Poland, "the victory, if it comes, will come through Mary",
Anonymous, didn't Jesus come to us through Mary.
http://tinyurl.com/WomanClothedWithTheSun
Thank you, Cathy for your support.
It means a lot to me and also to other Catholics who regularly post on this blog.
The reason our exasperation level is so high is that we have had these same discussions on this blog over and over again (ad nauseum)....many for the past 5 years or more.
The unfortunate reality is that certain people on this blog don't really want to hear what we Catholics actually believe. They just want to keep 'vomiting' up the same outrageous anti-Catholic bias and propaganda.
You people(catholics) crack me up. The church and it's hiearchy are almost identical to the pharisees that Jesus spoke about.
Lavish ceremonies, repetitive rituals (vain babblings), church officials that live like kings, who are treated as if they are royalty because of thier positions, emphasis on traditions and rituals as a part of salvation, and on and on and on.
Exactly the things that Christ rebuked the pharisees for doing.
And by the way, I am not some protestant who is not versed in the RCC. I am a former catholic, and VERY EDUCATED on church doctrines.
Anonymous said...
You people(catholics) crack me up.
Lavish ceremonies, repetitive rituals (vain babblings), church officials that live like kings, who are treated as if they are royalty because of thier positions, emphasis on traditions and rituals as a part of salvation, and on and on and on.
Anonymous, since there are thousands of Protestant denominations each with their own interpretation of Scripture, it's obvious to me that Protestants have a fundamental problem - they are incapable of agreeing on what Jesus said in the Gospel. Contrast this with the Catholic Church which after 2000 years of existence has a comprehensive, coherent interpretation of the Scriptures. Considering that four hundred years have passed since the Protestant Reformation in the 1600's, Protestants should have been able by now to agree on a comprehensive, coherent understanding of Scripture, don't you think? But no, since the Protestant Reformation the opposite has occurred. Rather than unity amongst Protestants, there has been division, resulting in a proliferation of denominations who can't agree with each other on the meaning of Jesus' words. Yet, despite this state of affairs with Protestantism, some Protestants like to tell the Catholic Church that Her interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. Unbelievable!
"We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need."
-—POPE BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus Caritas Est, n. 28, December 2005
"In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom...
—POPE BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, n.57
Anonymous said...
You people(catholics) crack me up. The church and it's hiearchy are almost identical to the pharisees that Jesus spoke about...And by the way, I am not some protestant who is not versed in the RCC. I am a former catholic, and VERY EDUCATED on church doctrines.
Anonymous, as a practicing Catholic I fully realize that while knowledge of Church doctrine is essential, such knowledge does not guarantee that a person will not lose their faith. Thank you for reminding me that I cannot rely on knowledge alone, but must humbly seek the truth through prayer asking the Holy Spirit to guide me always.
Anonymous said...
Thank you, Cathy for your support.
It means a lot to me and also to other Catholics who regularly post on this blog.
Anonymous, you're welcome. I don't understand the hostility of some non-Catholics towards the Catholic Church. It is simply bizarre.
Fantastic explanation as to what Pope Benedict is really trying to get across...stop jumping to conclusions.
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2011/10/benedict-and-the-new-world-order/#more-2406
"In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom..." Pope Benedict XVI —Caritas in Veritate, n.57
"On the other hand, ideological rejection of God and an atheisim of indifference, oblivous to the Creator and at risk of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute some of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism." —Caritas in Veritate, n. 78
Sola Scriptura was invented in the 16th century....
http://tinyurl.com/5szymh4
And by the way to Anonymous 7:41:
"And by the way, I am not some protestant who is not versed in the RCC. I am a former catholic, and VERY EDUCATED on church doctrines."
What you say is not possible (unless you are completely blind).
Anyone who understood the Catholic faith would NEVER leave. You are not "very educated" you are VERY BRAINWASHED! Yes, it is much easier to be a protestant and pick and choose what you want to believe. I pray that you will honestly search for what Jesus asks of you rather than fall prey to what our human nature would prefer to believe.
Please visit:
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/
Cathy,
Some responses. I am one of the Anons you have been replying to recently but there are others...
Anon] Then there was John Paul II...who said of the battle against communism in Poland, "the victory, if it comes, will come through Mary",
Cathy] Anonymous, didn't Jesus come to us through Mary.
Yes, but the victory didn't. John Paul II's comments quoted above very clearly show that his first priority - when his lfe was at stake and when his country was at stake - was Mary, not Jesus.
Our prayers are supposed to end up with God. We are told that there is ONE intercessor with God, the man Jesus Christ [who is also God]; that's 1 Timothy 2v5. So we pray through Christ. Nobody else, because there is one intercessor. I know your argument that Jesus would never refuse his mother, etc, and I can think of counter-arguments to that, but going down that road is ultimately inconclusive either way. As a Christian I do what the New Testament tells me even when I don't understand why - that's what faith means. In whom do you put your faith?
Cathy]...since there are thousands of Protestant denominations each with their own interpretation of Scripture, it's obvious to me that Protestants have a fundamental problem - they are incapable of agreeing on what Jesus said in the Gospel. Contrast this with the Catholic Church... Yet... some Protestants like to tell the Catholic Church that Her interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.
There aren't thousands of protestant denominations. The usual number quoted is 25000, from David Barrett's 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia. But Barrett used an eccentric definition of denomination, as an organised Christian group within a single country. It is as if he counted the Roman Catholic church in the USA and Canada as two denominations, for instance. To get the correct number you have to divide his 25000 by something like the number of countries (fewer because some countries have almost no Christianity). That brings it down to a few hundred - matching the list of denominations in Wikipedia.
Hundreds of denominations is still too many, though. What is God trying to tell us? I suggest that He wants not one church hierarchy but none. The apostolic-era church simply comprised a congregation in each place, with no hierarchy above that. An earlier Anon-post made that point in some detail. In Jesus' day there were plenty of rabbinic schools and He never said that that was wrong - he approved of debate about scripture and he corrected them, some with love, some with a sharp tongue, as necessary. If you get back to that structure then the question of denominations, defined by their hierarchies, never even arises.
Too much is made of the word 'interpretation' of scripture. The difficult scriptures over which people have differing opinions are the exception, not the rule. The hard thing is not to understand scripture but to live it and not ignore it.
"Sola Scriptura was invented in the 16th century."
It was made a doctrine in the 16th century but it was the original way. You are presumably familiar with the Catholic church's claims that some of its doctrines made 'official' in the last few centuries (eg, about Mary) have far more ancient roots - same argument. Jesus Christ was a Sola Scriptura man in regard to the scriptures of his day. After Him the Holy Spirit inspired a few individuals to write more scripture. The early church's task was to recognise those scriptures (the New Testament), then obey them. But it did not have any authority over them - just as if I recognise a prophet speaking I don't have authority over him. Rather the reverse, in fact.
To make sense of the NT you need the OT. And you don't need any church tradition to make sense of the OT, because the OT is not about the church. The OT builds upon itself from the Creation in a way that needs no tradition to understand it. QED: Sola Scriptura.
Thank you, Anon of 10.23pm, for the quote from para 57 of Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate about how a world government must be benevolent. I would LOVE a benevolent world government, but we are told in scripture that it won't happen until Christ's Second Coming. Before then, there will be a world government of sheer evil. Any Christian who understands his scriptures should therefore do nothing to promote political globalization, which attempts to undo what God did at Babel for man's own good. Those Catholics who understand this, please write to Benedict and lovingly explain this to him.
"Anyone who understood the Catholic faith would NEVER leave."
The Bible regularly warns the church (any church!) that there will be backsliders.
"You are not "very educated" you are VERY BRAINWASHED!""
Yes, it's good to have your brain washed by Jesus.
One morning I had the television on and the program was a Catholic one and two Catholic cleric-types were explaining that Mary remained a virgin all her life because when her Son Jesus was born he was not born in the usual way, through the vaginal canal, but instead he miraculously left her body like a ghost walking through a closed door or through a wall. And it went without saying, I guess, that Mary never had any other children so I guess poor Joseph had to live a celibate life. Though the Bible never mentions Joseph's forced celibacy. So is that what's taught to all Catholics? And then there are the many Catholics who buy into that Lady of Fatima stuff. I got on a mailing list some years back of some Catholic guy who asked for money regularly and sent out a little magazine with colored pictures of the then-Pope adoring some statue of Mary (as Our Lady of Fatima) and I guess that statue is adored in some fashion. The Mexican Catholics have another spooky "lady" they revere, The Lady of Guadalupe. They credit that apparition with all sorts of miracles. Then there was/is the stuff that went on 20 years ago in eastern Europe with people flocking there to hear spooky reports of sightings of Mary (Herzogovina?)
Re: Protestants not being able to agree on a theology. Most Protestant denominations are really just offshoots of Roman Catholicism anyway. They are the children of their mother the RCC. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. And they, like their mother, have been infiltrated by New Age beliefs and practices.
Anon@6.69am,
Medjugorje in Herzegovina is where you are thinking of. The RC hierarchy is sceptical, but it has still become a popular place of pilgrimage.
There are divergent definitions of virgin, one to do with never having sex, one to do with rupturing of the hymen (as in sexual intercourse and of course childbirth, which is preceded by intercourse in all cases except Mary's). The former is clearly the definition used throughout the Old and New Testaments, and also in normal usage today as nobody would deny the virginity of a tampon-using teenage girl who had never had a boyfriend. I don't know where the hymen-rupture definition came from, but it is part of RC teaching about Mary - as is the claim that she and Joseph never had sex and that she was therefore perpetually virgin. The obvious reading of passages in the NT suggests otherwise, and you have to really torture the text in order to reach that conclusion. The Magisterium seems to find it sullying that Mary (might have) had sex with her husband, but St Paul says that it is wrong for a married couple NOT to (1 Cor 7.5).
The earliest appearance of the perpetual-virgin tradition is in the "Gospel of James" which is first mentioned by Origen in the 3rd century as being of recent origin. It purports to be written by Jesus' half-brother yet claims that there were Temple virgins in the Temple at Jerusalem (which is nonsense).
To Anonymous (8:43 AM):
Re: "Not trying to insult here, as we are all wrong at times."
___________________________________
Yes, dear....including YOU!!!
10:14 AM
___________________________________
Yes 10:14 AM and YOU TOO DEAREST!!!
ATTEND TO THE FOREST IN YOUR OWN EYE FIRST< THEN YOU@LL SEE CLEARLY TO DEAL WITH THE SPECK IN ANON 8:43 AM'S EYE!
Joseph "had no [carnal] knowledge of her [Mary] until she bore him a son" - Matthew's gospel, chapter 1. If the couple continued to abstain, why did Matthew phrase it this way? If you hear that a woman broke her leg the week before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you suppose they did next?
Mary had sex with Joseph, get over it.
Insurance Companies promoting Anti-Semitic & Anti-Catholic policies? Whatever next!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDv8duEgH4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ArDv8duEgH4&
feature=related
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
Anon] Then there was John Paul II...who said of the battle against communism in Poland, "the victory, if it comes, will come through Mary",
Cathy] Anonymous, didn't Jesus come to us through Mary.
Yes, but the victory didn't. John Paul II's comments quoted above very clearly show that his first priority - when his lfe was at stake and when his country was at stake - was Mary, not Jesus.
Anonymous, here is the mistake with your understanding of Mariology - you stop at Mary. This is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. John Paul II's motto translates into: "To Jesus through Mary" - Mary is not the end - the end is her Son Jesus - and Mary ALWAYS leads us to that end. She tells us to "Do whatever He tells you" as recounted in the Gospel account of Jesus' first miracle which He performed at His Mother's request. In other words, she interceded for the wedding couple and Jesus at her request turned water into wine. Remember what Mary said to the servants: "Do whatever He tells you." That is the role of Mary in a nutshell - she points us to Jesus. And, Jesus illustrates in this Gospel account that He desires us to have recourse to Mary, for He could have performed the miracle without waiting for His Mother to ask Him. But, He chose to wait UNTIL His Mother's request before working the miracle. John Paul II was stating that his life had been saved through Mary's intercession, and as I illustrated above, Mary's intercession on our behalf is found in the Gospel account of the Wedding Feast of Cana.
Cathy,
How do you KNOW that the victory came through Mary (and Jesus) rather than directly through Jesus?
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
Some responses. I am one of the Anons you have been replying to recently but there are others...
Cathy]...since there are thousands of Protestant denominations each with their own interpretation of Scripture, it's obvious to me that Protestants have a fundamental problem - they are incapable of agreeing on what Jesus said in the Gospel. Contrast this with the Catholic Church... Yet... some Protestants like to tell the Catholic Church that Her interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.
There aren't thousands of protestant denominations. The usual number quoted is 25000, from David Barrett's 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia. But Barrett used an eccentric definition of denomination, as an organised Christian group within a single country. It is as if he counted the Roman Catholic church in the USA and Canada as two denominations, for instance. To get the correct number you have to divide his 25000 by something like the number of countries (fewer because some countries have almost no Christianity). That brings it down to a few hundred - matching the list of denominations in Wikipedia.
Hundreds of denominations is still too many, though. What is God trying to tell us? I suggest that He wants not one church hierarchy but none.
The simple fact is that the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the ONLY Christian Church which traces Her existence back to the Apostles. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church until the 16th century when a man named Martin Luther decided to break away from the Catholic Church. And, since Martin Luther, Protestantism has not stopped fracturing into the myriad of denominations in existence today.
Anonymous said...
One morning I had the television on and the program was a Catholic one and two Catholic cleric-types were explaining that Mary remained a virgin all her life because when her Son Jesus was born he was not born in the usual way, through the vaginal canal, but instead he miraculously left her body like a ghost walking through a closed door or through a wall.
Your incredulity is no different from scoffers who say: Jesus Christ was only a man and a prophet like Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, etc. Christians are a gullible bunch of fools for believing that Jesus had a human mother but no human father. That isn't biologically possible and is a fairy tale for fools.
Anonymous said...
Joseph "had no [carnal] knowledge of her [Mary] until she bore him a son" - Matthew's gospel, chapter 1. If the couple continued to abstain, why did Matthew phrase it this way? If you hear that a woman broke her leg the week before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you suppose they did next?
Mary had sex with Joseph, get over it.
Anonymous, the tradition handed down from the early Church flatly contradicts your assertion. And, the Catholic Church again shows Her wisdom in this matter, by utilizing the testimony of the early Christians as part of Her teaching that the Mother of Jesus is a perpetual virgin.
As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
"the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the ONLY Christian Church which traces Her existence back to the Apostles. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church until the 16th century"
Setting aside the question of whether the Apostolic Succession is important, have you explained that to any of the Eastern Orthodox Christians with whom you split over Rome's unilateral change to the wording of the Creed in 1054AD, and who comprised - then and now - the church in Greece, Russia and the many lands in between? The Christian bulwark that protected Western Europe from Islam util 1453AD?
"since Martin Luther, Protestantism has not stopped fracturing into the myriad of denominations in existence today."
Yes, and I suggested why: God is against church hierarchy. In ANY denomination.
Anonymous, here are some commentaries on the schism of 1054 A.D.
In any dispute with the Orthodox, Catholics are at a disadvantage. We regard them as schismatics-i.e., the break between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity in A.D. 1054 was more cultural and political than doctrinal-while they call us heretics-i.e., as preaching false doctrine
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/ecumenism/article_71.shtml
Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. So, why the division? What caused the division?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/
eastern-orthodoxy
Anonymous said...
"since Martin Luther, Protestantism has not stopped fracturing into the myriad of denominations in existence today."
Yes, and I suggested why: God is against church hierarchy. In ANY denomination.
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church.
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050400.htm
I posed questions (in my way) and those who answered ignored several points. My reading of The Bible tells me that Mary needed to be a virgin to be Jesus mother but there is nothing in the Bible about her needing to be a perpetual virgin. That is something some man/men came up with to justify their man-made theology. There is brainwash going on here.
Cathy,
Now you're discussing the rights and wrongs of the 1054 split between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. But all I was doing was pointing out the error in your assertion that "the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the ONLY Christian Church which traces Her existence back to the Apostles. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church until the 16th century". Thank you for conceding the point by accepting that the Orthodox ARE Christians.
You also responded to Anon@11.13am who said that Mary and Joseph had sex by stating: "the tradition handed down from the early Church flatly contradicts your assertion."
As I said before 11.13am, the tradition dates from a 2nd century pseudepigraphical document purporting to be written by James the (half) brother of Jesus yet making glaring errors about Jewish life of Jesus' time, such as claiming that there were Temple virgins in Jerusalem. Believe that and you'll believe anything.
Anonymous said...
My reading of The Bible tells me that Mary needed to be a virgin to be Jesus mother but there is nothing in the Bible about her needing to be a perpetual virgin.
Anonymous, if Mary had other children, how come Jesus entrusted his Mother from the Cross to the Apostle John rather than to his blood brothers and sisters?
http://tinyurl.com/nosiblings
In Saint John’s Gospel 19:26, it is related that as Jesus was dying on the cross He entrusted His Mother to the care of St. John. Now if Mary had other children it is incredible that Jesus would have given Her to someone outside of the family...She had no other children, no sons or daughters who could care for her. Jesus is designated as "the" son of Mary, (not "a" son of Mary.) "The" is singular.
"if Mary had other children, how come Jesus entrusted his Mother from the Cross to the Apostle John rather than to his blood brothers and sisters?"
Because "even his own brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5). That means they thought their mother had been lying about the virgin conception of their elder brother. Not surprisingly, then, Jesus preferred to lodge her with his most beloved disciple after his death.
Cathy,
Now you're discussing the rights and wrongs of the 1054 split between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. But all I was doing was pointing out the error in your assertion that "the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the ONLY Christian Church which traces Her existence back to the Apostles. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church until the 16th century". Thank you for conceding the point by accepting that the Orthodox ARE Christians.
Anonymous, the fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church which began with the Apostles, was THE ONLY Christian Church until the schisms/revolts which took place afterwards. And, it is obvious from the multiplicity of Christian churches since the schisms/revolts, that these separations from the Catholic Church have resulted in disunity within the separated churches themselves. Why is it that the different Orthodox and Protestant churches can't even speak with one voice but instead have factions present within Orthodoxy and Protestantism?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0091.html
Healing the schism of 1054 with Eastern Orthodoxy involves overcoming far fewer obstacles than healing the division of the Protestant Reformation, of course.
Anonymous said...
"if Mary had other children, how come Jesus entrusted his Mother from the Cross to the Apostle John rather than to his blood brothers and sisters?"
Because "even his own brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5). That means they thought their mother had been lying about the virgin conception of their elder brother. Not surprisingly, then, Jesus preferred to lodge her with his most beloved disciple after his death.
Anonymous, your answer is problematic in that you are summarily disregarding the customs of the Jews in that era. Then to top it all off, you refuse to lend any credence to the testimony of the early Christians who were closest in time to Jesus and who themselves discussed this question ad nauseam in the early days of Christianity. This approach of yours lacks credibility and frankly I see no reason why I should ignore the witness of the early Christians and Fathers of the Church like you have chosen to do.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html
To Anonymous @ 8:44 AM:
Oh I can see quite CLEARLY, dear. What a shame that you aren't able to see a thing....with your anti-Catholic bias clouding your vision!!!
Oh please....not the 'Mary had other children' PROPAGANDA!!!
WOW....I didn't think that even the Catholic-bashers on this blog would ever stoop that low.
Hey, fellow Catholics: we are going to have to wear BOOTS to continue posting here...as we will clearly be stepping in lots of poo poo.
LOL...
Oh, but thanks anyway. I really needed a good laugh today.
To Anonymous @ 4:39 AM:
Re: "There aren't thousands of protestant denominations. The usual number quoted is 25000...."
___________________________________
Yes, and there is only ONE Catholic Church. This fact alone speaks VOLUMES!!!
Anon@4.08pm,
Did you not bother to read the rest of what I posted after I had debunked the 25000 claim?
If you care about the apostolic succession then take it up with the Eastern Orthodox, not me. They are just as old as you because you and they derive from a split a thousand years ago. There is only one Orthodox church too, and they make the same claims to authenticity as you.
"Yes, and there is only ONE Catholic Church."
Actually there were two for much of the 14th century.
To Anonymous @ 12:10 PM:
Re: "My reading of The Bible tells me that Mary needed to be a virgin to be Jesus mother but there is nothing in the Bible about her needing to be a perpetual virgin. That is something some man/men came up with to justify their man-made theology. There is brainwash going on here."
___________________________________
Since you are unable to prove otherwise, I would say that YOU are the one who is clearly 'brainwashed' here.
I mean, WHY would anyone assume otherwise....that Mary didn't remain a virgin until she was taken up to Heaven?
Any so-called 'Christian' who wastes his or her time picking apart what Catholics believe (ad nauseum) needs to shop around for another religion and/or stop OBSESSING over Catholics.
There should be a rehab or 12-step program in your neighborhood that can help you with your mental health issue (addiction to Catholic-bashing).
"I mean, WHY would anyone assume otherwise....that Mary didn't remain a virgin until she was taken up to Heaven?"
Um... because she was married?
To Anonymous @ 4:20 PM:
No, there is only ONE official Catholic Church with an unbroken line of Popes - since Jesus made Peter the very first Pope 2,000 years ago....all the way up to today's Pope Benedict XVI!!!
To Anonymous @ 4:31 PM:
Re: "Um... because she was married?"
___________________________________
You know, this is no longer amusing when people are permitted to 'drunk blog' (as in 'drunk dial').
You Catholic-bashers have got to stop drinking and blogging....because when you post such utter nonsense, you couldn't possibly be SOBER!!!
I mean, it's one thing not to do your homework / research first....but this is beyond ridiculous. It's outrageous!!!
To all fellow Catholics,
You must read the messages from Oct. 27th and Oct. 28th at www.thewarningsecondcoming.com
After reading the past 300+ comments from this blog, is there any doubt now about the authenticity of prophesies at www.thewarningsecondcoming.com ??
Jesus, help us to endure!!
Catherine
To Anonymous @ 4:32 PM:
History got written by the winners, of course. But from 1378 to 1409 the crowned heads of Europe had to decide which of two equally (il)legitimate popes to hand their nations' tithes to. In that year the Council of Pisa expediently declared both the Roman and Avignon popes of the day heretical (and therefore invalid) and appointed another man. But the Roman and Avignon popes declined to resign, so now there were THREE popes – all demanding tithes. The church was clueless what to do, and the German leader Sigismund finally knocked heads together and forced an ecumenical council at Constance in 1414 which managed to restore a single papacy - soon to be held by such pillars of rectitude as Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) and Giuliano della Rovere, who even led a military campaign while pope.
No wonder there was a Reformation!
Why can't Protestants agree on the issue of the Rapture?
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=193
When Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church, he did not believe in premillennialism, let alone the Rapture, nor did any of the first Protestant leaders in the 1500s.
Yeah....and here's a great example of the Reformation:
King Henry VIII stomps his foot and gets angry because the Pope refuses to annul his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, who fails to produce a male heir. He starts his own church primarily so he can be free to marry Ann Boleyn. One daughter, 3 miscarriages, and no male heir later....Henry has Ann beheaded.
My point is that there are many 'former' Catholics out there who -- because they don't want to stay married to their current spouse, or they want to have an abortion, or whatever -- decide to 'stomp their foot' and leave the Catholic Church to 'shop around' for one with fewer consequences for their actions!!!
Anonymous said...
"I mean, WHY would anyone assume otherwise....that Mary didn't remain a virgin until she was taken up to Heaven?"
Um... because she was married?
Anonymous, for your information...
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
"King Henry VIII stomps his foot and gets angry because the Pope refuses to annul his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, who fails to produce a male heir. He starts his own church"
Look, I'm not an Anglican either. But Clement VII's refusal to grant Henry VIII a divorce came shortly after he had granted a similar favour to Henry’s sister Margaret. Moreover the papacy had granted an even more flagrantly political divorce to Louis XII of France in 1498. Check your facts.
Anonymous said...
One morning I had the television on and the program was a Catholic one and two Catholic cleric-types were explaining that Mary remained a virgin all her life...
Protestant Reformers on the virginity of Mary...
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
Cathy,
The timing of the Rapture is certainly one of the things that protestants don't agree on. But the point is to accept such differences as a matter of conscience and not divide over it. I am a post-tribulationist but my lead Elder is a pre-tribulationist and we get on fine.
Premillennialism was the early church's position for several centuries. Jesus comes back immediately before (pre) the Millennium during which he rules this earth for 1000 years as described in Rev 20.
St Augustine of Hippo was the most influential man in moving the church to postmillennialism, in which the Millennium of Rev 20 is taken to be the church era during which Jesus rules the world THROUGH THE CHURCH, and after (post) which He returns to enact the great judgement scene. To accept this view you have to suppose that Rev 20 is a recapitulation of an earlier part of John's vision - for which there is no evidence. This can't be right, because Satan is bound during the millennium (Rev 20), but John, *writing in the church era*, says that the whole world is in the grip of evil (1 John 5:18-19). Postmillennialism nevertheless proved congenial to the mediaeval Roman Catholic church, because it says that the church has divine right to rule the world politically.
If you want a stance that is both scriptural and in line with three centuries of the mosts authentic church tradition, go for premillennialism.
When the Reformers aserted Mary's perpetual virginity, they hadn't shaken enough dust of unscriptural dogma off their feet. So why didn't Matthew just say that the couple never had union in Matt 1:25, rather than the phrase he used - no union until she gave birth to Jesus? If you hear that a woman broke her leg the week before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you suppose they did next? As married couples *should* according to St Paul (1 Cor 7:5)
Why all the gymnastics to claim that the gospel references to Jesus' brothers and sisters, the most natural reading, meant cousins? And, as stated elsewhere above, the first mention of Mary's perpetual virginity is in a document from the 2nd century which Origen says is dubious, which claims it was written by a half-brother of Jesus but which makes the ludicrous claim that there were Temple virgins at Jerusalem.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question - suppose Mary and Joseph did have sex after Jesus had been born; what would be so unthinkable about that?
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
The timing of the Rapture is certainly one of the things that protestants don't agree on. But the point is to accept such differences as a matter of conscience and not divide over it. I am a post-tribulationist but my lead Elder is a pre-tribulationist and we get on fine.
Are you suggesting there is no objective truth in the Bible but each person decides what the truth is according to the dictates of his conscience? So then 100 people could read the same Bible and come up with 100 different meanings for each Bible verse? Is this what Protestants believe?
"Are you suggesting there is no objective truth in the Bible but each person decides what the truth is according to the dictates of his conscience?"
No. My lead elder and I agree that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. We just disagree about which! Don't tell me that you have never had a difference of opinion with another Catholic on the meaning of a verse - but you both accept that the other is in good faith and do not divide over it. Same applies here.
Anonymous said...
Let me ask you a hypothetical question - suppose Mary and Joseph did have sex after Jesus had been born; what would be so unthinkable about that?
The Bible, the Fathers of the Church, the tradition of the Church handed down from the early Christians and even the early Protestant reformers all agree that Mary is a perpetual virgin. There is nothing to think about - you are either a virgin or you're not.
Anonymous said...
"Are you suggesting there is no objective truth in the Bible but each person decides what the truth is according to the dictates of his conscience?"
No. My lead elder and I agree that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. We just disagree about which! Don't tell me that you have never had a difference of opinion with another Catholic on the meaning of a verse - but you both accept that the other is in good faith and do not divide over it. Same applies here.
Anonymous, Catholics look to the teaching authority of the Church to settle Scriptural disagreements and thus avoid having conflicting interpretations of Scripture which contradict each other. We have 2000 years of Church wisdom to guide us in the correct interpretation of Scripture.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth
"The Bible, the Fathers of the Church, the tradition of the Church handed down from the early Christians and even the early Protestant reformers all agree that Mary is a perpetual virgin."
C'mon Cathy, I don't mind you disagreeing with me - you are my sister in Christ - but it doesn't advance the debate if you merely ignore me. At 6.42pm I asked you a question about Matt 1:25 and I pointed out that the earliest document to begin the tradition of perpetual virginity was based on a lie (re authorship) and contained a glaring error of fact (re Jerusalem Temple virgins). Put "perpetual virginity" and "gospel of James" into Wikipedia if you don't believe me.
Those Church Fathers who assert Mary's perpetual virginity (and indeed the protestant Reformers) were all later than that document - they were fooled. But you needn't be.
"Anonymous, Catholics look to the teaching authority of the Church to settle Scriptural disagreements and thus avoid having conflicting interpretations of Scripture which contradict each other. We have 2000 years of Church wisdom to guide us in the correct interpretation of Scripture."
Cathy, the Eastern Orthodox say that too yet they disagree with you over (for instance) the divorce/remarriage scriptures.
When you and a friend have a difference of opinion in a Bible study do you always refer it to your priest? And are you always satisfied with the reply? You have the Holy Spirit, I beg you to think for yourself and accept the words of others simply as guides. Only the word of God is guaranteed inerrant. This is not a recipe for division if you all keep your eyes on what you all have in common, ie faith in Jesus Christ.
I had a very interesting experience today that I have never had since I started learning about the New Age Movement 30 years ago. I ran into an individual at a meeting who was a well dressed professional person. I met him and started talking to him and he told me he was a part of the Occupy Salem here. He started telling me how the world was going through a change that would be completed within the next couple years. I just listened and asked him questions so he would be comfortable to open up to me. He explained all about the new age of Aquarius we are going into and he also told me how actively his has been with the New Age over the past 15 years. I asked him about if he has ever heard of Maitreya the World Teacher. He told me he was very aware of Maitreya and proceeded to tell me how Maitreya is the Messiah for the New Age. He said Maitreya has been actively working toward this for awhile and goes by other names and will reveal himself anytime soon. I asked him if he knew who it was and he said he does but wouldn't tell me who. I asked him a list of different names and he wouldn't tell me one way or another. He said that would distract from his mission. He said when the time was right the world know without even seeing him. He told me the occupy movement will not end but will keep growing until the New Age comes in full. He said Maitreya is very much supportive of the occupy movement and that it is bringing about the change. Anyway I thought I would share this.
To Anonymous @ 6:06 PM:
Her story is much more complicated than you make it out to be.
Margaret Tudor/sister of Henry VIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margar
et_Tudor
Anon@7.25pm,
I said that Pope Clement VII's refusal to grant Henry VIII a divorce came shortly after he had granted a similar favour to Henry’s sister Margaret.
You say "Her story is much more complicated than you make it out to be."
I didn't make her story out to be simple or complicated, because I didn't say anything about it other than she was granted a divorce - which she was. What is your objection?
To Anonymous @ 7:18 PM
Re: "the Eastern Orthodox say that too yet they disagree with you over (for instance) the divorce/remarriage scriptures."
___________________________________
It is written in Matthew 19:3-6.
19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Anon@7.39pm,
Both marriage and divorce in the Bible are seen as decisions for the couple, who simply inform the authorities - the State has taken over the ceremony. So a study of divorce in the Bible is a bit complex. But Rome takes Mark 10 to mean no remarriage during the lifetime of a divorced spouse, and the Eastern Orthodox disagree.
I have my own opinion, but to go into the relevant scriptures would be a diversion. What I am saying is that it is possible to have the apostolic succession and 2000 years of tradition of interpreting the scriptures yet be wrong - because one of Rome and Orthodoxy is.
To Anonymous @ 7:33 PM
Re: "What is your objection?"
___________________________________
The only 'objection' I have is that by bringing up Henry VIII's sister, Margaret, you were clearly trying to distract everyone from the fact that the MAIN REASON why Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church was because Pope Clement VII would not grant him an annulment from his first wife, Katherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn.
(Also, if you read the entire Wikipedia profile on Margaret Tudor, her situation is in fact much more complex than you make it appear in your brief post.)
To Anonymous @ 7:47 PM
Re: "Both marriage and divorce in the Bible are seen as decisions for the couple, who simply inform the authorities - the State has taken over the ceremony. So a study of divorce in the Bible is a bit complex."
___________________________________
And just how do you think that Jesus would respond to that?
If you believe in 'the WORD of God' then how can you IGNORE the words of Jesus Himself as stated in Matthew 19:3-6?
There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome to be the "first bishop." More from your "church fathers."
The church was founded by Jesus and apostolic succession?
I think our Lord, if he visited the earth in person today, would rebuke the RCC and all it's trappings.
Why does the pope live like a king in a kingdom when Jesus didn't even have a place to call home?
Why are bishops treated like royalty?
Why must you ask for Mary's help when you can ask God yourself?
Why do you call priests "Father" when the Word says you should not do so?
Why does the RCC grant annulments with no problem if you have enough money to pay for it?
Why are you taught that your sins should be absolved by a priest when the Word says you can confess to each other?
Why does the church have images of Jesus when the first commandment explicitly forbids this?
And on and on and on.
"The only 'objection' I have is that by bringing up Henry VIII's sister, Margaret, you were clearly trying to distract everyone from the fact that the MAIN REASON why Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church was because Pope Clement VII would not grant him an annulment from his first wife, Katherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn."
Do you often attempt mind reading? I am not Anglican and I have no stake in defending Henry VIII's actions - he was an abundant sinner. What I was doing was showing the inconsistency - to put it gently - of the Roman Catholic church's stance re Henry's attempts to end his marriage, his sister's attempts, and those of the king of France three decades earlier.
Constance:
You are right. Good use of scripture, btw, and I stand corrected.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
I was just having a bad day, and got all grumpy and spoke without thinking.
It's just that I think we set ourselves up for unnecessary frustration and disappointment and all kinds of other things that are spiritually [distracting? controversial? I'm not sure what word I'm looking for here....] when we spend too much time guessing who the Antichrist will be and not enough time on other spiritual pursuits.
But then, I'm passing judgment on what you and others have been called to do (or passing judgment on what is "too much time" for certain pursuits), yes? So I apologize.
[Sat, Oct.29]
Anon@8.02pm,
Tell the Eastern Orthodox, not me! I haven't said that I disagree with you - I'm simply saying that you and they both have the apostolic succession and 2000 years of wisdom in interpreting scripture, yet one of you is wrong since you disagree over remarriage. So the apostolic succession and 2000 years of wisdom in interpreting scripture is no guarantee of being right, is it?
For the past 5 years, several of us Catholics have addressed ALL of these issues time and time again....even though we are NOT on trial here (contrary to certain individuals' wishful thinking).
We get very tired of repeating the same answers to the same questions.... and STILL these same questions keep getting brought up over and over again (ad nauseum).
Clearly, many of you don't really want to hear our answers. All many of you want to do is ATTACK. So, for that, we Catholics are unable to help you.
Some of you may need to obtain professional counseling for this anti-Catholic OBSESSION....which is clearly a mental health issue.
Good night . . .
John Rupp, I think you had an encounter with Benjamin Creme or one of his followers (Share International). That is their language for sure. For more of their crazy nonsense, just read through their stuff at www.shareinternational.org. Currently, they have a discussion about the Sword of Cleavage. Benjamin Creme really likes to bring this up periodically. Where did Constance get the idea the New Age has targeted Christians, Jews, and Muslims? The Sword of Cleavage is certainly one of those concepts Creme points out is what awaits those who resist the New Age. It reinforces what Alice A. Bailey wrote. Maybe the Occupy thing is there big chance.
C'mon Cathy, I don't mind you disagreeing with me - you are my sister in Christ - but it doesn't advance the debate if you merely ignore me. At 6.42pm I asked you a question about Matt 1:25 ...Those Church Fathers who assert Mary's perpetual virginity (and indeed the protestant Reformers) were all later than that document - they were fooled.
Anonymous, the weight of evidence after 2000 years clearly indicates that Mary's perpetual virginity is an indisputable fact. And, since Protestants don't have a unified interpretation of Scripture, you can't expect me to cast aside the Catholic Church's unified Biblical interpretation for a denomination that encourages each person to interpret the meaning of Scripture as they see fit. That's a recipe for confusion. I posted this link before but here it is again.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated.
Anonymous said...
Cathy, the Eastern Orthodox say that too yet they disagree with you over (for instance) the divorce/remarriage scriptures.
Anonymous, here's a commentary on Orthodox-Catholic relations.
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/ecumenism/article_71.shtml
Anonymous said...
Cathy, the Eastern Orthodox say that too yet they disagree with you over (for instance) the divorce/remarriage scriptures.
http://tinyurl.com/3vfz2dd
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous, Catholics look to the teaching authority of the Church to settle Scriptural disagreements and thus avoid having conflicting interpretations of Scripture which contradict each other. We have 2000 years of Church wisdom to guide us in the correct interpretation of Scripture."
Cathy,
When you and a friend have a difference of opinion in a Bible study do you always refer it to your priest? And are you always satisfied with the reply?
Anonymous, being satisfied with a reply from a priest is not the issue. If a priest gives me an answer that is not in line with the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture I have the right to ignore his answer. But if on the other hand, his answer is correct, I have the duty to accept his correct answer.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-II
John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
Anonymous said...
There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome to be the "first bishop."
There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome...
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome
Anonymous said...
Why do you call priests "Father" when the Word says you should not do so?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
Why are you taught that your sins should be absolved by a priest when the Word says you can confess to each other?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins
Why does the church have images of Jesus when the first commandment explicitly forbids this?
The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues
Anonymous said...
Anon@8.02pm,
Tell the Eastern Orthodox, not me! I haven't said that I disagree with you - I'm simply saying that you and they both have the apostolic succession and 2000 years of wisdom in interpreting scripture, yet one of you is wrong since you disagree over remarriage. So the apostolic succession and 2000 years of wisdom in interpreting scripture is no guarantee of being right, is it?
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/ecumenism/article_71.shtml
The Orthodox Churches are another group who have no unity and some of the various branches also differ in their moral teachings. The Catholic Church doesn't have this problem. It always has been One Church with a consistent message since the apostles.
I've listed some Occupy sites I find interesting. This definitely is a well orchestrated movement.
http://www.facebook.com/OmnipresentActivists
http://www.facebook.com/pages/WE/116122288421639
I'll try and post these again
http://www.facebook.com/
OmnipresentActivists
http://tinyurl.com/62dpv5d
http://www.facebook.com/
pages/WE/116122288421639
http://tinyurl.com/6k3q46u
Both Margaret Tudor and Henry VIII were descended from ancestors who had Porphyria, an ailment which can affect the mind. It is a wonder either could do anything sensible. I suggest that we are all of us not completely rational all of the time, and that we do unwise things and think unwise doctrines because of this. We must put our final dependence on rescue by the Lord Jesus who had a perfect mind and perfect emotions and didn't make our myriad of mistakes.
I have Porphyria too, on the Stewart line in all probability, since the Stewarts were my ancestors' next door neighbors.
I have come to put my faith in the mind of Christ.
King James of the Bbile also had Porphyria but still he was a Bible scholar of note.
His mother Mary Stewart had Porphyria too. Lots of unwise people who nevertheless put their faith in God.
We cannot be wholly correct while we live here on earth, be we Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox.
I would prefer everybody focus in on the issues of the "New World Order," the "New International Economic Order," and leave the other Catholic doctrinal issues alone, at least for now. I would like to hear opinions on how this meshes or fails to mesh with "Occupy Wall Street." I invite people to study similar Catholic movements that coincided with "there's something happening here" mass street action of the late 1960's, the 1970s and through 1982 when the New Agers got outed and the Catholic Church gingerly and slowly started taking stands against the New Age Movement in 1993 through the end of Pope John Paul II's papacy. Comparisons to the horrible events of Costa Rica in the second decade of the 20th century, Mexico particularly from 1926 to 1935, Spain from 1936-1939 and the Nazi administrations are important in light of similar things happening now.
Constance
Constance Cumbey said...
I would prefer everybody focus in on the issues of the "New World Order," the "New International Economic Order," and leave the other Catholic doctrinal issues alone, at least for now.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis29.htm
Cathy,
In line with what Constance has said, let's wind this down in orderly fashion. You are my sister in Christ, and I am one of the evangelicals with whom you have been debating here. (There is at least one other.) I'm dropping all other subjects but let me have a last iteration re Mary's perpetual virginity. Are you aware that at 9.41pm you again responded to my specific questions about the relevant scripture (Matt 1:25), and about the earliest manifestation of the perpetual-virginity tradition, simply by saying that scripture and tradition both say so? You are permitted to defend Rome's position yourself! My frustration is my problem but please ponder your mode of rhetoric.
OK, now let's all get off to church and pray for one another. I need it as much as anybody.
This link has an interesting video (first one).
http://tinyurl.com/3p6azxy
"No, there is only ONE official Catholic Church with an unbroken line of Popes - since Jesus made Peter the very first Pope 2,000 years ago....all the way up to today's Pope Benedict XVI!!!"
WHAT BALONEY & BLATANT LIES!!!! WHO WERE THE FIRST 4 CONSECUTIVE 'POPES' IMMEDIATELY AFTER PETER THEN?
WHERE IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IS IT WRITTEN THAT PETER WAS EVER IN ROME?
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ANTIPOPES? AND THE EVIL MEDICI POPES?
GET REAL, GET HONEST, AND GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!!!!
Hey Anon6.26am, we've been round that and Constance has asked us to get back to topic. BTW I'm one of the more ardent prots here.
To Anonymous @10:26 AM:
I watched the video that you posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_220NJxrZg
Thank you for posting it ...this is a real eye opener. I said it before and I'll say it again; the Roman Catholic "church" and the New Age movement are both drawing water from the same poisoned well. Christ gave us a very distinct warning: "You shall know them by their fruits." God's word in 1 Timothy 4: 1,2 warned: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirts, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." The entire New Age movement is in direct confrontation with God's Word, as is the RC with their unbiblical doctrines and dogmas. Those that side with this movement in any way are fighting against the Lord Jesus Christ and his holy word! You cannot serve two masters.
"Decide this day who you shall serve."
POPE BENEDICT XVI ON January 1, 2011.
A freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others....Whenever the legal system at any level, national or international, allows or tolerates religious or antireligious fanaticism, it fails in its mission, which is to protect and promote justice and the rights of all...All this exposes society to the risk of forms of political and ideological totalitarianism which emphasize public power...
http://tinyurl.com/2wc8pqz
POPE BENEDICT XVI on the DICTATORSHIP of RELATIVISM
http://tinyurl.com/3vste7f
http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.org/Cantley/relativism.htm
THE PHILOSOPHY OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
http://popebenedictxvi.blogspot.com/
To Anonymous ('Baloney' & loud angry poster) @ 6:26 AM:
Re: "WHO WERE THE FIRST 4 CONSECUTIVE 'POPES' IMMEDIATELY AFTER PETER THEN?"
___________________________________
Well, since you are obviously too lazy to 'google' this for yourself, I am going to be generous and copy and paste the link for you here.
By the way, this is all documented, historical FACT....so calling it 'baloney' just makes you look very ignorant and foolish.
A list of COMPLETE unbroken line of Popes of the Catholic Church from Peter to Benedict XVI:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
12272b.htm
And to answer your question:
"Who were the first four consecutive Popes immediately after Peter?"
Following Peter (32-67), there were Linus (67-76); Anacletus (76-88); Clement (88-97); and Evanstus (97-105).
To Anonymous @ 6:26 AM:
Re: "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!!!"
___________________________________
Well, actually - it sounds like Satan is standing right directly behind you....whispering over your shoulder?
Yes, let's all get back on topic (as Constance has suggested)...and remember today (Sunday) to pray for one another.
To keep attacking - when we are all God's children - is to play into Satan's agenda (not God's agenda).
Anon 12:45
I agree. But, have you noticed the responses from posters who disagree with RCC doctrines and traditions?
For the most part, they are a reflection of their disagreements and nothing more, even if they disagree with the RCC.
But, some (not all) of the catholic responses are some of the most juvenile, sophmoric and rude comments I have seen.
For those that have "ears to hear" ...
Take the time to prayerfully watch this video:
"The Catholic Church and the Coming One World Religion."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlMTATJJ1vA
Did Christ come to bring "peace and unity" amongst believers in the Word of God and those that follow error through the "doctrines of men?"
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." Luke 12:51
Is unity to be achieved by denying truth? RC is leading untold millions to believe that eternal life can be earned through faith plus works. This is a false premise that is the under pinning of all false religions (“By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”). Eternal life is obtained through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone. There is no other way to obtain salvation but through Christ alone!
Christ said in John 10:26-29:
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
The Pope is a "man" and has NO POWER given to him over the eternal souls of mankind! Those that have truly been born again are sealed, by God's grace, and are promised eternal life. If you are a Catholic, humbly pray that God would open your heart to His truth. Read the Gospel of John and prayerfully ask God to open your eyes to His truth.
To Anonymous @ 12:53 PM:
That's really funny -- since some of you Catholic-bashers are 'some of the most juvenile, sophmoric and rude' commenters that we Catholics have ever seen!!!
Take a LONG look in the mirror...
Here's a news flash for you Catholic-bashers who insist on keeping up the anti-Catholic VENOM:
We Catholics have a strong, solid faith that can NOT be destroyed by you or anyone else.
So, save your breath...
to anonymous "When you attack so-called 'false teaching and doctrine' (the Catholic faith), you are attacking Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself - since HE created the Catholic Church in the first place 2,000 years ago!!!"
Jesus did not found the ROMAN Catholic church in Rome. He founded His Church through Peter and the Apostles in JERUSALEM, from which it spread. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, which petrinely speaking makes it equal to Rome. All the five Patriarchates have a petrine connection.
Rome WENT INTO SCHISM after putting the heretical filioque clause in the Creed something Pope Leo III
(I think that is the right number) REFUSED to do, and FORBADE to be used in the Mass/Holy Liturgy though allowed it because people in the west had become used to it, in lesser events, and put up two silver shields with the Creed WITHOUT the filioque on them. later a pope caved to political interests and inserted it in arrogance, abrogating the right of the Ecumenical Councils to make such decisions, which pope Leo had submitted himself to. Try Orthodoxy for a change. (Unlike some of my fellow Orthodox, I do not deny your sacraments have grace, but it is evident RC quenches The Holy Spirit and the fullness of truth, unadulterated by official additions caving to delusions or excesses of the laity, is in the Eastern Orthodox faith. We got the fullness of the grace and truth, you got the partial grace and truth, and "whosoever calls on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved" )
to Cathy "Tell the Eastern Orthodox, not me! I haven't said that I disagree with you - I'm simply saying that you and they both have the apostolic succession and 2000 years of wisdom in interpreting scripture, yet one of you is wrong since you disagree over remarriage. "
we have similar grounds for divorce as the RC has for annulment, we are more honest about what we are doing.
"The Orthodox Churches are another group who have no unity and some of the various branches also differ in their moral teachings."
the unity of the Orthodox is that unity of the shared universal faith embodied in the Creed and some exegesis thereof and practice. That is the unity in sharing the Mind of Christ and the early Fathers. That is the only REAL unity. External unity means nothing, and an excessive focus on can mean fleshly orientation. RC sold out to this world power a long time ago. Omce they were a part of this unity, but went into semi heresy (not Christological) and schism from Orthodoxy, then lied about it to this day, claiming we are in schism. I AM NOT RECITING TRADITION HANDED TO ME, I did the research before converting.
" The Catholic Church doesn't have this problem. It always has been One Church with a consistent message since the apostles."
the consistent message from the Apostles is that shared universal faith of the Orthodox it had from the missionaries who brought the faith to Rome, before Peter got there and became its first bishop before which it was disorganized, and before that he was first bishop of Antioch. that shared same message
is still with us, unadulterated by your additions and whatnot that you call developing doctrine.
The moral stance is substantially similar, without the hypocrisy of changing definitions to pretend you don't do what you do. It also is consistent with the economia you can find in The Bible itself.
The celibate priesthood was an innovation driven by north africans with all sorts of anti physical creation baggage from God knows where.
Where some Orthodox have been preaching or practicing perversion or severe heresy or immorality that is the sort of thing that should get them deposed or defrocked or even excommunicated, but sometimes when it is secretly entrenched in the local or larger hierarchy this is hard to do. We have shown the same deplorable fleshly tendency that you RC have, of exalting the priesthood and the interests of the "poor sinner" above that of the laity and the victims, contrary to what St. Basil the Great did and advocated. Among us as among you there are those protesting and fighting this.
now your increasingly dishonest church even LIES IN TRANSLATING HOLY SCRIPTURE, and says that fornication means illegal marriage,
when it is clear from the context of the equivalent Greek word usage in St. Paul's letters and Revelation that it means nothing of the kind. Prostitution is EXPLICITLY mentioned. The word fornication is from Latin fornax, an arch, which was slang for a brothel because most were in basements with a walk up to a door that opened to the street under an arch.
constance has asked we keep on track with the NWO thing. I apologize for ignoring this, but I couldn't rightly let some things go. I think that the Vatican has fallen for the arguments of debt slavers the money changers
(no I don't mean Jews and there is a real good chance the Rothschild crew were not even good Jews but closet Frankist heretics and Zaharoff their
asset was found at his death to have a satanist chapel in his house) or been bought off. take a look at the scandal involving banco ambrosiano and Roberto Calvi, just google his name and go from there.
Christine,
Scripture is silent on the eternal (rather than temporal) procession of the Holy Spirit, and as an evangelical I think it was a tragedy for Rome and Constantinople to divide over an issue regarding which scripture says nothing. The Holy Trinity is ultimately a mystery. But I agree that Rome's unilateral action was arrogant.
Leo III was also the pope who crowned Charlemagne on Christmas day, AD800, an ambiguous event which has echoed down history to this day and was not welcomed in Constantinople.
In 1982 the Italian Banco Ambrosiano collapsed following the discovery of debts of the order of US$1000 million. Its main shareholder was the Vatican Bank (known formally as the Istituto per le Opere di Religione), which agreed to pay US$241 million to Banco Ambrosiano’s creditors in “recognition of moral involvement” in the collapse. The full truth of this scandal, in which the body of Ambrosiano’s chairman Roberto Calvi was found suspended beneath Blackfriars Bridge in London, is still not public. Much of the money probably went to fund anti-communist movements in Latin America, but connections to Italian organised crime are also plausible.
An Ex-Protestant explains why he is now a Roman Catholic!!!
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/reasons.html
I am curious about something and have been following this debate for the past couple days. As a non-Catholic I'd like to ask a question. If the Pope can grant indulgences, then why not free the whole world from hell and purgatory and send everyone to heaven? That would be the charitable thing to do, and the RCC is obviously into charity.
Here's an interesting article from Time Magazine about indulgences- It starts like this:
"It sounds too good to be true. Now, for a limited time — the year of St. Paul, to be specific, which ends in June — say a prayer, pop by a designated church and qualify for an indulgence that deducts time from your scorching sojourn in the cleansing fires of purgatory."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1881152,00.html#ixzz1cICwgpVW
or
http://tinyurl.com/aapgdz
Regarding indulgences...
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences
To Anonymous @ 2:55 PM
Excellent point. I've also considered the fact that Peter actually raised people from the dead. Peter (of course he was not the first Pope) had true apostalic power and those powers ended with the apostalic age. If, as RC doctrine claims, they are the recipients of an unbroken chain from the apostles, then it shouldn't be any problem for the Pope to raise people from the dead ... just as Peter did.
Ray,
"Peter... had true apostalic power and those powers ended with the apostalic age."
The supernatural powers of the apostles reported in scripture match the gifts of the Holy Spirit set out by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. And the Holy Spirit is available to all believers throughout the church era, ie until Christ's return. Your cessationist stance contradicts scripture. The gifts dwindled because right faith dwindled. But don't disbelieve every report you hear of such things today - especially from lands where the church is persecuted and every believer is totally committed - rather than going to church because it's nice...
Jesus Christ: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6
Pope John Paul II: "All that seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ will enter God's kingdom." (VIS, 12/6/2000)
Ray,
I expect to find plenty of Old Testament figures in heaven, on the basis that "Abraham [for instance] believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Yet these people never knew Jesus. Yet Jesus said that no-one comes to his Father except by him. How would you resolve this, please?
The promise of the Messiah was prophesied throughout the Old Testament by the OT prophets, beginning in Genesis 3:15. Belief in the coming Messiah was fundamental to the true faith of believers in OT times. No one is now, nor have they ever been, justified by the "works of the law." Galatians 3:9,10: "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." If you read the entire chapter 11 of Hebrews, you will see that in the Old Testament, as well as the New, faith in the God of the bible is the only means to obtain justification. The advent of Jesus Christ was the "word" becoming flesh (John 1:14) and was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies concerning the promise of the Messiah in which the OT believers faithfully looked forward to. In a very real sense, they believed in Jesus Christ prior to His advent to earth, because they believed God’s promises concerning Him. Hebrews 11:13: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Faith ... believing God rather than men ... is the only way to please God, for "without faith, it is impossible to please God."
Ray,
That all makes sense and thank you, but it's a question of where the line is drawn. The desire of Muslims to worship their Creator is sincere and strong, yet they get an enormous amount wrong about His personality. Will any of them be saved if they die as such?
God will judge each individual; "it is appointed unto man once to die but after this the judgment." What we do know is that Jesus Christ, and He alone, is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that "no man comes unto the Father" except by Him. Any speculation beyond that would be taking liberties that Scripture simply does not allow for.
OccupyAquarius?
Hi, thank you for your input on Benjamin Creme and his followers. I went to Share International's October magazine issue online and read the article on the "The Sword of Cleavage". Wow was that an eye opener. It also reminded me that the individual I talked to yesterday told me that there would be a lot of people who wouldn't be able to conform to the change coming and said that none of them would make it. I asked him what he meant by that and he said "It is just what I said, they won't make it".
You know, John, I am a skeptic over most conspiracy theories, but your encounter is evidence that something is a foot. The New Age Movement is not the figment of someone's imagination. Could it be a sign of God's prophecies imminent fulfillment? I don't know. It is odd how Occupy Wall Street so quickly became a worldwide phenomenon. Obviously, technology has played a role.
I hate to say it, but I almost hope this will be the catalyst that will push us into the "end times." This means God is going to act soon.
Have you noticed how the media has tried to push a confrontation between Occupy and the Tea Party? It's like they want to see wrestling match.
To Anonymous @ 2:55 PM
Excellent point. I've also considered the fact that Peter actually raised people from the dead. Peter (of course he was not the first Pope) had true apostalic power and those powers ended with the apostalic age. If, as RC doctrine claims, they are the recipients of an unbroken chain from the apostles, then it shouldn't be any problem for the Pope to raise people from the dead ... just as Peter did.
I see you are back, Ray B, as a "useful idiot" for the New Age, distorting doctrine to suit your own agenda.
So do you really believe Our Lord should have given the power to believers (including the Pope, who is merely a man) to perform miracles "on demand?"
Perhaps you should redirect your loyalties to Simon Magus, for your theology smacks of gnosticism not true Christianity.
I've also considered the fact that Peter actually raised people from the dead. Peter (of course he was not the first Pope) had true apostalic power and those powers ended with the apostalic age.
One more thing, Ray B. Your claim that Peter "was not the first Pope" is, well, your claim. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Peter was not the first Pope (i.e. given authority in matters of faith and morals) by Our Lord.
Do you claim to possess final authority to interpret scripture? If so, who gave you that authority and where is it recorded in the Bible? Please cite Chapter and Verse.
"Your claim that Peter "was not the first Pope" is, well, your claim."
Yes, and the Catholic claim that he was is THEIR claim, equally unsupported. Funny that when St Paul wrote to the congregation at Rome he never acknowledged any spiritual primacy lodged there.
"Your claim that Peter "was not the first Pope" is, well, your claim."
Yes, and the Catholic claim that he was is THEIR claim, equally unsupported. Funny that when St Paul wrote to the congregation at Rome he never acknowledged any spiritual primacy lodged there.
Intersting. You appear to be acknowledging that neither Catholicism nor Sola Scriptura (Protestantism) are explicitly supported in the Bible. The logical inference to be drawn is that Protestantism is as unlikely to be true as Catholicism.
Not saying I agree with that conclusion, but it does cause one to wonder where all the Protestant arrogance that permeates this blog comes from, since your claim to divine authority to interpret God's Word is, by your own admission, no greater than that of Catholics.
Anon@5.17am,
You wrote: "You appear to be acknowledging that neither Catholicism nor Sola Scriptura (Protestantism) are explicitly supported in the Bible."
It depends what aspects of Catholicism. There is unanimity among Caths and prots that the man Jesus Christ crucified died and risen is the divine son of the universal Creator.
My comments about Peter and the apostolic congregation in Rome were based on tradition as well as scripture. Plenty of things are true that are not stated in scripture, but nothing is true that contradicts scipture, and scripture contains all that is needed for salvation. That last clause is the doctrine of sola scriptura, for which I make the case as follows:
1. Jesus Christ was a Sola Scriptura man in regard to the scriptures of his day. Good precedent.
2. To make sense of the NT you need the OT. And you don't need any church tradition to make sense of the OT, because the OT is not about the church. The OT builds upon itself from the Creation in a way that needs no tradition to understand it. QED: Sola Scriptura.
"your claim to divine authority to interpret God's Word is, by your own admission, no greater than that of Catholics."
I couldn't agree more! I only wish that they, like protestants, would read the Bible more for themselves and politely ask their church leaders how some of their dogmas and practices are consistent with it.
"Anon@12.59pm,
The quote you give from John Paul II typifies a time-honoured trend in Catholic writing, ie having it both ways. Then when critics speak against you, you can always point to the other strand and say you didn't mean what they took you to mean. This is a form of casuistry.
1:14 PM"
Absolutely right, Anonymous 1:14 PM, I'm sure too that I'm not the only one here recognising the tools of the jesuit and opus dei trade of smoke, mirrors, lies and deception being employed regularly.
THERE REALLY ARE MANY EX-CATHOLICS POSTING ON THIS BLOG TO EXPOSE ROMANISM, YET SOME WHO BEING STILL CHILDREN OF THE RC WHORE ARE BAYING FOR OUR BLOOD AND WOULD HAVE US BURNING AT THE STAKE IN AN INSTANT IF THEY COULD AGAIN GET AWAY WITH IT!
Yes, the Hegelian dialectic is in full operation at this blog. It may look as though the devil's divided but it's a means to an end. An investment, calateral damage. This is how the lying whore the RC Mother of Harlots so-called church functions. Fact!!!!
Speak out? You'll be called the hater, the basher and bigot, but you'll no doubt only be wanting to defend those things Biblical as you're commanded to do. So what's it gonna be? Bow down and be silenced by those that call you Catholic-bashers and bigots, or speak out boldly, gently where needed, strongly at other times, always discerning and letting the Holy Spirit guide you in all you do, say, and write.
For maybe you will become another's enemy for speaking the truth, but be bold and carrry on the good fight in love, faith, hope, and truth!
"Popery is as much the masterpiece of Satan as the Gospel is the masterpiece of God"
Spurgeon
Pope Benedict XVI tells of 'respect' for Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8039383.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk
/1/hi/world/middle_east
/8039383.stm
Pope John Paul II Kissing The Qur'an
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTBjzLY6sH8
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ZTBjzLY6sH8
"Pope Benedict XVI tells of 'respect' for Islam"
That is a total mistake of his. This is the correct Christian approach:
Love Muslims/Respect their freedom to hold the beliefs of Islam/Abhor Islam. (The qur'an denies the divinity and death on the cross - and hence the resurrection) of Jesus Christ.
No logical difference from:
Love Nazis/Respect their freedom to hold Nazi beliefs/Abhor Nazism.
"Popery is as much the masterpiece of Satan as the Gospel is the masterpiece of God"
Spurgeon
Quoting Spurgeon is well quoting Spurgeon. LOL.
It's a most fascinating topic, especially for someone such as myself, who was grew up in a Fundamentalist/Evangelical setting and then entered the Catholic Church in my twenties after a couple of years at an Evangelical Bible college.
Here is a good article (one of many; Cathy has already referenced the Coming Home Network) from a recovering Protestant:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/09/catholics-scripture-and-culture.html
One of the best videos on the subject out there for educating both catholic and protestant alike.
Exposing The New Age Agenda [One World Religion]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Ht_SrJYK0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=c5Ht_
SrJYK0&feature=related
One of the best videos on the subject out there for educating both catholic and protestant alike.
Exposing The New Age Agenda [One World Religion]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Ht_SrJYK0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=c5Ht_
SrJYK0&feature=related
One of the best videos on the subject out there for educating both catholic and protestant alike.
Exposing The New Age Agenda [One World Religion]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Ht_SrJYK0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=c5Ht_
SrJYK0&feature=related
Whoops! Sorry for the duplicate threads.
Post a Comment