 |
| 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 401 – 584 of 584Anonymous said...
THERE REALLY ARE MANY EX-CATHOLICS POSTING ON THIS BLOG TO EXPOSE ROMANISM,
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/10/ex-catholics-and-protestants.html
The Catholic Church is the TRUE CHURCH...
http://tinyurl.com/3w82xku
Scriptural Support for the Ministry of the Pope...
http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/PeterNew.asp
John Rupp / OccupyAquarius? :
I think the topic you have been discussing is quite OMINOUS, borrowing the word from this thread title.
I have a hunch that this Occupy movement might be the beginning of something big. It will change over time to something larger than the sum of its parts.
It really might be the vehicle that the Antichrist uses to arrive on the scene. Or at least, the OccupyWherever people will be a willing audience to hear his message.
And there is already a strong spirit of "anti-belief" among them. "No isms" is something I see a lot on their chats, which means, essentially, "If you believe that there is an absolute truth that is authoritative, then go away! You are our enemy!" They don't say it that way, but that's what they mean.
I just happened to notice that there weren't any comments from our Catholic friends regarding the obvious conflict between the words of Christ and Pope John II:
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)
4:50 PM
Virtually the entire New Testament is in direct contrast to PJ II's statement .. here's just one verse as an example:
"... Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:3
Now ask yourself the question: why, if the "pope" is the "Vicar of Christ," would he be in direct conflict with words of the Lord Jesus Christ?
What could possibly be more "New Age" than the pope caling for "truth and spirituality" amongst the conflicting religions of the world? What "spiritual truth" is he referring to? It sure isn't the "spirt of truth" found only in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC_xX7s9dWw
Palestine wins UNESCO seat
Palestine won full admission into UNESCO, the United Nations science, education and culture organization, in a closely watched vote in Paris Monday. Global diplomacy hands view the 107-14 vote as a benchmark carrying larger implications for the Palestinians' bid for full state recognition before the UN Security Council. Both the United States and Israel have strongly opposed that initiative.
The United States, Israel, Canada and Germany were among the 14 nations voting against the Palestinians' UNESCO bid, while 107 countries--including France, Spain, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, India, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia--voted in favor. Fourteen nations--including the United Kingdom and Italy--abstained.
more at link
http://tinyurl.com/3trvmzt
I just happened to notice that there weren't any comments from our Catholic friends regarding the obvious conflict between the words of Christ and Pope John II:
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)
4:50 PM
Virtually the entire New Testament is in direct contrast to PJ II's statement .. here's just one verse as an example:
"... Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:3
Now ask yourself the question: why, if the "pope" is the "Vicar of Christ," would he be in direct conflict with words of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Probably because your lame and tone-deaf interpretation of these verses from John's Gospel, along with your equally lame interpration of the words of our beloved Holy Father (speaking as a Catholic of course) who in addition to being Pope also happens to be an intellectual giant, is so pathetic it isn't worth the energy to "refute"!
To all the Protestants and ex-Catholics here, did you know that today is an important date for those of us who don't recognize the authority of the Vatican? Happy Reformation Day!
I would much rather celebrate this holiday than Halloween, and evidently it is widely celebrated in certain countries around the world.
Luther was the first priest to become appalled by the church's sale of indulgences so he nailed the "95 Theses" on the church door.
Here's a link to the history lesson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Day
If you'd like to watch this trailer about the movie "Luther" you can go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MnoGXskk8o
Any help digging into the claims in these articles is appreciated.
http://tinyurl.com/3wowfqr
http://tinyurl.com/6hdgxlm
http://unifyearth.com/
Isn't it ironic how Luther was "appalled by the church's sale of indulgences" yet was himself a virulent and disgusting anti-semite?
No hero he. Eye, mote, and plank come to mind here!
Regarding indulgences, Cathy left a link on the last page to the "Primer on Indulgences" so I went ahead and read it:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences
From that article:
"In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).
I found that to be truly appalling! Jesus NEVER appointed the RCC as a "Minister of redemption". Jesus redeemed us, not the Pope or any church institution! Egads, wake up people!Are you really so blinded by this rhetoric, dear Catholic friends, that you can't see the forest for the trees?
Ray B. said...
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, here's a link to what John Paul II said...
4. Those who have chosen the way of the Gospel Beatitudes and live as "the poor in spirit", detached from material goods, in order to raise up the lowly of the earth from the dust of their humiliation, will enter the kingdom of God
http://tinyurl.com/3mu4j2f
What is Baptism of Desire...
Even if the Church teaches that it is possible to attain salvation by of the "baptism of desire" or "Baptism of Blood", she is not teaching that it is the ordinary means of salvation for anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/bdfj6s
I found that to be truly appalling! Jesus NEVER appointed the RCC as a "Minister of redemption". Jesus redeemed us, not the Pope or any church institution!
Good grief! Please tell me this is satire.
Who appointed you the "Minister of Scriptural Interpretation"? Moreover, it is the Catholic Church which first taught (and which still teaches) that JESUS redeemed us!
Get your facts straight!
Anonymous 12:08 said:
"Isn't it ironic how Luther was "appalled by the church's sale of indulgences" yet was himself a virulent and disgusting anti-semite?"
Talk about anti-Semites, I think Pope Innocent the Third certainly qualifies. So much so in fact that he mandated that Jews wear special identifying markings on their clothing ! Sounds a bit like Hitler, doesn't it?
Thankfully we are long past the days of Pope Innocent the Third, when the church was at the height of its dictatorship!
Interestingly, even Innocent the Third couldn't buy his way into heaven with indulgences!
According to a vision by someone the church calls St. Lutgarda. "St. Innocent III was believed to be in purgatory as the same day he died, he appeared to St. Lutgarda in her monastery at Aywieres, in Brabant. Engulfed in flames, he declared to her, “I am Pope Innocent”. He continued to explain that he was in purgatory for three faults which had caused him to arrive in this state. Innocent asked St. Lutgarda, to come to his assistance saying, “Alas! It is terrible; and will last for centuries if you do not come to my assistance. In the name of Mary, who has obtained for me the favor of appealing to you, help me!” At that moment he disappeared and St. Lutgarda informed her sisters of what she had seen.[19]"
I do hope that Mary or St. Lutgarda, or one of the good nuns, was able to get this poor pope out of the burning flames! Maybe he should have appealed to Jesus instead!
Read more about Pope Innocent the Third here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
PS: Can anyone really not see how anti-biblical all of this is?
Myths about Indulgences....
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences
Biblical Evidence for Indulgences...
http://tinyurl.com/24cjva
Cathy said,
"4. Those who have chosen the way of the Gospel Beatitudes and live as "the poor in spirit", detached from material goods, in order to raise up the lowly of the earth from the dust of their humiliation, will enter the kingdom of God"
Well that certainly leaves out the Vatican! Why don't they set an example for the poor in spirit and do what Jesus told the rich man to do? If the Vatican sold all its assets, and gold and jewels and property the world would no longer have any poverty!ROFLOL!
You can defend the RCC all you want, in the end it is the most hypocritical, tyrannical institution in the world, and this thread proves it has better brain-washing powers than the CIA!
Talk about anti-Semites, I think Pope Innocent the Third certainly qualifies. So much so in fact that he mandated that Jews wear special identifying markings on their clothing ! Sounds a bit like Hitler, doesn't it?
Fortunately, the authority of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals (this is the Church which Christ Himself created), is not compromised by the personal sins of its members (including the sins of popes, who are, after all, fully human!). Martin Luther, however, was a law unto himself. He did not like authority (except his own!) That's why he invented his own rules (Sola Scriptura and Sole Fide) and changed the canon to make his own "Lutheran" version of the Bible!
You can defend the RCC all you want, in the end it is the most hypocritical, tyrannical institution in the world, and this thread proves it has better brain-washing powers than the CIA!
In your hatred of the Roman Catholic Church you sound just like many of the most rabid Atheists and New Agers I know. Congratulations!
Interestingly, you won't hear Catholics at this blog going on like this about Protestants, despite the theological differences they have with them.
Pope Gregory himself condemned any such title of Universal Patriarch or Pope for the following reasons.
"First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226). "
Thank-you Pope Gregory for your wisdom.
Anon@12.29,
Certainly Martin Luther failed to wipe off all the anti-scriptural Catholic dust off his feet (eg, anti-semitism), but he made a pretty good start and I am free to read the Bible today thanks to that.
We protestants are often told that Rome was happy to see people read the Bible, and that it condemned only misleading translations into the vernacular. Why then did it not provide its own vernacular translations until *after* the Reformation, once protestants had forced the issue? Why did Catholic Queen Mary remove from English churches the English Bibles which her father Henry VIII had had put in them? The following quotes answer these questions:
"Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament [prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere], only the Psalter, Breviary, or the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, and these books not in the vernacular language" - Council of Toulouse (1229, after the peaceful Cathars had been massacred), resolution 14.
"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary." - from the Rules on Prohibited Books approved by Pope Pius IV in 1564.
And Clement XI, in his 1713 bull Unigenitus of 1713 CONDEMNED the following propositions (nos. 79,80,84,85):
* It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. CONDEMNED.
* The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. CONDEMNED.
* To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. CONDEMNED.
* To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. CONDEMNED.
It is obvious why. Rome was terrified that the people would see the discrepancy between its own practices and scripture for themselves, as Luther had.
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier. And the Apocryphal book of
Sirach (ch.30) has this to say about bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy”. Do you REALLY believe that is God speaking? He who so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son...?
Ray B, you might find this address from Pope Benedict XVI helpful...
These ideologies that dominate, that impose themselves forcefully, are divinities. And in the pain of the Saints, in the suffering of believers, of the Mother Church which we are a part of, these divinities must fall. What is said in the Letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians must be done: the domination, the powers fall and become subjects of the one Lord Jesus Christ. Concerning this battle in which we find ourselves, of this taking power away from God, of this fall of false gods, that fall because they are not deities, but powers that can destroy the world, chapter 12 of Revelations mentions these, even if with a mysterious image, for which, I believe, there are many different and beautiful interpretations.
http://tinyurl.com/3rasts2
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
Why, after the split with the Greek-speaking east in 1054, did Rome go on to develop the papal system yet Eastern Orthodoxy never did?
The answer is that Rome had been using forged documents to assert its primacy - documents claiming to go back to the early church, which the East were (rightly) suspicious of. This issue underlay the filioque controversy, which merely brought matters to a head. The documents in question are the Donation of Constantine and the pseudo-Isidorean decretals. You can look them up on Wikipedia.
When in the 12th century Gratian wrote his Decretum, which became the basis of Catholic canon law and from which many mediaeval theologians derived their knowledge of the early church, 313 out of 324 quotations supposedly from letters of the popes of the first four centuries are from forgeries. When in the 13th century Thomas Aquinas set up his blueprint for Catholic society, including the ideas that would underpin papal infallibility, he repeatedly (and unknowingly) quoted such documents as authoritative. The pseudo-Isidorean decretals were admitted by Rome to be forgeries only in 1789, long after the fact was established, but there was never any re-evaluation of doctrine, and within a century papal infallibility had been built on doctrines deriving from them.
You may laugh or you may cry, but belief in these claims is not an option.
The Roman church has basically based its dogma upon the premise that Peter was the first pope and all of the succeeding popes in the Roman church were the heads and authorities over the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ.
Here is a very astute look at the fine points of the argument, including the distinction between the words petros (small stone-masculine)and petra (feminine- bedrock), by Father John Maxwell
"The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following...problems associated with this claim.
First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.
Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.
Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174)."
Entire article here:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/2mwzuj
"Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please."
I don't think the fact that I say it makes it true. I'm not infallible. Jesus is, though, and he always appealed to scripture to settle an argument, never the Jewish tradition (which was subsequently written down in the Talmud) - which he often criticised when it was taken as equally authoritative. There is such a thing as predecent. Do yourself a favour and check the gospels for these incidents yourself.
"By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please."
No verse ledges that authority with the Pope either. Incidentally St Jerome is in good standing with the Roman Catholic church having made the Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin which served Western Europe for 1000 years. But please answer my question, which Constance's readers will take note that you ducked: the Apocryphal book of Sirach (ch.30) gives this advice about bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy”. Do you REALLY believe that is God speaking? He who so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son?
"Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." --2 Timothy 2:23 NIV
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
--Titus 3:9 NIV
Where's the love, brothers and sisters??
Quit arguing. It is useless.
Annonymous said @ 11:25 AM:
"Now ask yourself the question: why, if the "pope" is the "Vicar of Christ," would he be in direct conflict with words of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Probably because your lame and tone-deaf interpretation of these verses from John's Gospel, along with your equally lame interpration of the words of our beloved Holy Father (speaking as a Catholic of course) who in addition to being Pope also happens to be an intellectual giant, is so pathetic it isn't worth the energy to "refute"!"
11:25 AM
I guess the "beloved holy father," being the "intellectual giant" he was, knows more about the subject of salvation than the Lord Jesus Christ!
To Anonymous @ 11:25 AM:
You accuse me of being "tone deaf" in my "interpretation" of the verses:
Jesus Christ: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6
"... Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:3
Help my "tone deafness" out by providing your interpretation as to the meaning of these verses.
ARE CATHOLICS BORN AGAIN?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again
Ray B. said...
To Anonymous @ 11:25 AM:
You accuse me of being "tone deaf" in my "interpretation" of the verses:
Jesus Christ: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6
Here's your answer Ray...
http://www.catholicbible101.com/whatistruth.htm
Thanks, Cathy :-)
+JMJ+
To Anonymous @ 12:33 PM
Re: "Interestingly, you won't hear Catholics at this blog going on like this about Protestants, despite the theological differences they have with them."
__________________________________
So very true.
That's because the Catholics have CLASS and the Catholic-bashers have none!!!
Actually, we Catholics should probably feel flattered that the Catholic-bashers are so obsessed with us. They obviously feel very threatened.
But, ultimately, this is clearly THEIR problem....not ours.
To Anonymous @ 11:42 AM:
Re: "To all the Protestants and ex-Catholics here, did you know that today is an important date for those of us who don't recognize the authority of the Vatican? Happy Reformation Day!"
___________________________________
Well, that certainly explains a lot!!! (LOL)
I think the 'Pro' in Protestant must stand for: 'pissed right off' (since they seem to be ANGRY all of the time).
And since ANGER is one of the Seven Deadly SINS - tsk, tsk, tsk.
Interesting perspective on Reformation Day.
http://tinyurl.com/3mvefnj
Interesting perspective on Reformation Day.
http://tinyurl.com/3mvefnj
"since ANGER is one of the Seven Deadly SINS..."
Who told you that some sins aren't deadly? In Mosaic Law some carried greater earthly penalties than others, but ANY sin is enough to keep you out of heaven without the covering of Christ's blood. Read the Bible for yourself and don't believe any man who says otherwise. Cling to Christ and we shall meet there, Catholic, protestant or Orthodox.
From Cathy's link:
"The anti-baptismal regeneration position is indefensible. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, "Are Catholics born again?" is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, "Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think."
Absolutely amazing. "All Catholics are born again" simply because "all Catholics have been baptised." Incidently, the Mormon cult holds to this very same heresy as well.
Sounds like Marko has been eavesdropping on Occupy Wall Street. Well, I have, too. I just watch their video on their global revolution streaming and pay attention to the chat room. I must say their moderators act swiftly to ban off-topic discussions.
More on the authority given to Peter and his successors in the Catholic Church.
http://tinyurl.com/3pgj36n
To Cathy:
Your responses consist of assertions that Rome is right and references to weblinks. Can't you do your own argumentation?
To Occupy Aquarius @ 5:48 PM:
Well, conversations in this chat room would not go 'off topic' if the rabid anti-Catholics would just behave themselves and stop attacking Catholics!!!
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:19
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:19
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
I don't care if you go off topic. It's not my blog. It's amusing, this Catholic vs. Protestant thing, anyways. There isn't much on T.V. So, this is great fun!
Anonymous said...
To Cathy:
Your responses consist of assertions that Rome is right and references to weblinks. Can't you do your own argumentation?
Anonymous, first of all I have no desire to engage in argumentation, and secondly the links I provide are not pat answers but detailed explanations. If you don't want to read them you don't have to.
To Cathy:
Your responses consist of assertions that Rome is right and references to weblinks. Can't you do your own argumentation?
Ah folks, let us witness the insanity to which Sola Scriptura (worship of a book) leads us.
Let me get this straight, anon: you will only accept an argument if the person asserting it makes the argument up? Ridiculous!
I think I will try this now (these are hypotheticals to illustrate a point, by the way. I realize you never asked these questions.)
a. You claim the earth is round not flat. Don't cite the data of various scientists--give me your own arguments.
b. You claim Shakespeare was a better writer than Tony Kushner. Come on, don't cite any critics. That is intellectually lazy and has no merit! Make up your own original arguments. Come on, you can do it!
What? You refuse? Then you must be wrong and I must be right!
Newsflash, people. A book was not made flesh. Jesus was!
Cathy,
If we were debating this in person before an audience (rather than on a blog) then I would be asking you specific questions - in fact I have done above - and you would be replying, "Um, the organisation whose views I represent is right, so-and-so answered your question in his book such-and-such, and that's that".
If a politician were reduced to responding to an interviewer like that then what would you think of him? It doesn't look convincing here either.
Anon@3.39am, of course one may cite the work of others. Where such work is relevant you summarise its thrust, though, rather than use citation to cover up your own rhetorical incapability.
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:19
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
7:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:19
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
7:58 PM
OccupyAquarius?:
Yes, I've been watching the global chat for days now. The way they kick people off for going "off topic" is because that chat room is very specific for what they want discussed there. Even so, you get a "feel" for what the people who post there really think, and they are ready for global change on a fundamental level. What's scary is that they have no sense of history and have forgotten what has happened in the past when large numbers of peoples and nations embraced that same ethos.
http://www.ucanews.com/2011/10/
20/pope-rejects-assisi-public
-prayer/
the paranoid traditionalists are as usual a tad off, but perhaps the pope has heeded their concerns and reined in his sloppiness itself an imitation of JP II's sloppiness in this regard, after all, the event between Elijah and the priests of the false god baal was mot an interfaith prayer session, they did their thing, and after it failed he prayed to YHWH and fire ca,e down fro, heaven and consumed the offering to YHWH.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:18 - 20
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:18 - 20
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
Anonymous said...
Jesus was a Sola Scriptura man. That'll do for me. As for Luther chiseling the canon, St Jerome had denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha more than 1000 years earlier.
Your claim that Jesus was a "sola scriptura man" is exactly that, a claim with no proof. Do you think the fact that you say it makes it true? Chapter and Verse, please.
By what authority do St Jerome and Martin Luther claim superior, special knowledge of the "true canon" of scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.
1:07 PM
Well, Jesus Christ gave the book of Revelation to John, and we know that it is the last book of the Good Book (Bible = Biblos = Book).
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John'
Revelation 22:18 - 20
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Yep, Jesus Christ certainly was and is for Sola Scriptura.
Oh, btw, the 27 books of the NT were already decided long before 200 AD. Check yourself!
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
If we were debating this in person before an audience (rather than on a blog) then I would be asking you specific questions - in fact I have done above - and you would be replying, "Um, the organisation whose views I represent is right, so-and-so answered your question in his book such-and-such, and that's that".
Anonymous, the Catholic Church has dealt with heresies since Her inception. As such, there are numerous Catholic experts who have already addressed every question raised thus far on this blog. As you notice, I have linked to different apologetic sites all answering the questions raised here and they all give the SAME ANSWERS. Maybe you think that individual Catholics will contradict each other and have different answers to your questions on faith and morals. Is that why some of you keep asking the same questions hoping to get a different answer if you ask the question enough times? In case you didn't know, the Catholic Church's teaching on faith and morals is consistent. So, if I give you an answer that contradicts Church teaching my answer would be nothing more than my personal opinion and therefore invalid. I realize that Protestantism encourages each Protestant to be his/her own authority in faith and morals, because there is no unity in Protestantism on faith and morals, but - I am not a Protestant!
Anonymous said @ 3:39 AM:
"Ah folks, let us witness the insanity to which Sola Scriptura (worship of a book) leads us."
What does the Bible itelf say about the "word?":
"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." John 1:1
"And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14
Note: Jesus Christ is the WORD ... reject the WORD and you are rejecting Jesus Christ.
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
John 8:47
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I John 5:7
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24
What is "truth?"
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17
All false religious systems have two basic things in common: one, they deny the AUTHORITY of God's word. Two, they all are on a system of religious works that are used in order to gain eternal life, rather than through grace, faithfully accepting Jesus Christ and His authoritative word. By rejecting God's word for the "doctrines of men," you are rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ. You need to repent from this grave sin and turn to the truth as revealed in God's word. The true test of a true Christian is the faithful acceptance of God's word, and not the slavish, legalistic, obedience to a religious system.
To Anonymous @ 5:03 PM:
Just to clarify....
What are the seven deadly sins?
Lust – to have an intense desire or need: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: “for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags” (Proverbs 23:21).
Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more” (Ephesians 4:19).
Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: “The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway” (Proverbs 15:19).
Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1)
Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: “Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Peter 2:1-2).
Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
Many believe that PRIDE is the root of ALL other sin...since, if a person has false pride, he or she would be more likely to lust, over-indulge, be greedy, lazy angry, envious, etc.
Anon@12:16PM,
I agree that those seven sins are all deadly. What I'm saying is that others are also deadly. It is your nosology of sins that gives me concern.
Cathy,
Thank you. I have debated with many Catholics, some of whom are personal friends, and I have looked at many Roman Catholic websites to learn that church's position on various issues. I have two questions I'd like to ask you. I would be grateful for your answer to them. By 'your anwer' I mean simply in your own words; I am not trying to drive a wedge between you and your church. I
am perfectly happy for you, if you wish, simply to summarise official Catholic teaching. But please address the specific questions I am asking.
My questions relate to the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity.
1. Matt 1:25: 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, rather than begin explicit that they never had sex?
2. 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?
3. The earliest hint 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 makes many mistakes about Judaism, in particular claiming that there were consecrated Temple virgins [as in Greek paganism) in Jehovah's Temple at Jerusalem, contrary to the Torah and Talmud. How then can the Catholic church claim that the perpetual virginity claim goes back to the time of Mary and is historically authentic?
May I repeat, for the sake of clarity, that these questions have NOT been dealt with in the websites to which you have referred.
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
My questions relate to the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Anonymous, since this was already addressed on this thread, why are you bringing it up again? If you are convinced you are right, why continue obsessing over what the Catholic Church says? Here are the links again...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/other.htm
Cathy
With all due respect, the links you provided in your last post are either Catholic run or Catholic operated.
What do you expect them to say?
Of course they will support the "Catholic view." Just as I suspect that you would find the same at sites that support the "Protestant view."
I am a former Catholic, but do not consider myself to carry the "Protestant' tag.
I would like to ask you a question. The same one I kept asking myself, which ultimately led me to leave the church.
Do we really need all the extra biblical stuff?
The bible is written so perfectly as God's Word. Why would we need to add to, or infer things that are not clearly there?
I mean, He is God, I'm pretty sure He knew what to write and how to write it. When I read God's Word, I do not see anything that tells me to make Mary any part of my faith or my relationship with Him and His Son.
Is God's Word so imperfect that we need to add doctrines that are not authored by Him?
New post soon. I'm about to go on the air for tonight's show at www.themicroeffect.com. OCCUPY WALL STREET and it's "spiritual side" including the "community altar" will be discussed.
Constance
Wow!Talk about your hot-button issues.
Here's a curveball.
I'm one of the ones who has been
critical of the RCC on a number
of issues.
Last night I watched EWTN and a show
of Catholic apologetics which specifically
dealt with the primacy of Peter as an
Apostle.
For some reason my mind was open.
It's not usually like that...
I was persuaded.
Indeed, the scriptures clearly show his
primacy. In other words, if the apostles
are the chosen ministers of Christ, and
I think they are, then Peter is obviously
the Prime Minister.
Furthermore, it doesn't really make
sense that it would be a one-generation
only thing, wherein Peter's leadership
would end with his life; (The "keys to the
kingdom" and all that )...AND the fact
that all the other apostles recognized
Peter's supremacy, including Paul.
Also what I recently read again, which
wasn't even on this edition of RCC
apologetics, was that Jesus said that
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was,
essentially, the only unforgivable sin,
( He was responding to the charge
by the Pharasees that he had healed
sick people by the power of the devil) ;
_and it really gives me pause to wonder
why I would criticize the one institution
on earth that has consistently upheld
the Gospel through the ages.
Popes are not infallible.
The Vatical has made mistakes.
BUT, I'm through criticizing the RCC,
even though I don't understand a
whole bunch of their traditions.
Also, and this is all I'm going to say
about this, some of the anonymous
defenders of the RCC here, just sound
like they are more concerned about
their traditions than they are about
God:
"Why do you follow the traditions of
men and not the commandments of
God?"
Thankfully the Susanna's and the
Cathy's, et al, have prevailed, in my
mind, ( such as it is ).
I still have a real problem with
anonymous posters and I do believe
that this forum is a target of agents
provocateurs, who would always
post anonymously.
The time left is too short to continue
the debates between the brothers and
sisters in CHRIST the LORD.
Bless the Lord oh my soul.
Let all that is within me bless his
holy name.
Cathy,
I'm bringing it up again because you did not answer those questions last time I put them and neither did the websites you quoted.
Again you have ducked these questions. The websites you now quote don't answer them either. Here's a bit more detail.
The websites go into contortions over the references to Jesus' brothers and sisters in the gospels, but my questions did not refer to those references. The only scripture I quote is Matt 1:25 and the only question I am asking about it is: Why, if Mary remained virgin after Jesus' birth, did Matthew not say so, since it would be unusual - why say only that she remained virgin UNTIL his birth? NB I am not saying that the text logically proves she and Joseph had sex afterwards; I am asking - for the third time - why Matthew wrote it the way he did, if they didn't have sex?
These websites, when referring to church tradition, quote authors substantially later than the gospel/protoevangelium of James, implying that they got it from that document; or they say that this document, which is the earliest trace of the tradition, is authentic. What they didn't say is that this document claims to be written by an elder half-brother of Jesus yet is dated (even by Catholics) at least 100 years too late for that, ie it begins with a deliberate lie; and it asserts ludicrously that there were consecrated virgins in the Temple at Jerusalem (unthinkable in Judaism and not supported by the Talmud, a comprehensive compilation of Jewish tradition of the time). The document is totally untrustworthy.
Are you not answering these questions because you are unable to, without making a nonsense of the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity?
The time left is too short to continue
the debates between the brothers and
sisters in CHRIST the LORD.
Your best post ever, Paul!
Anonymous Catholic
Paul,
I must say I never expected such a statement from you. It was very adult for you to recant your previous positions, in light of what you felt the Lord may have been presenting you with. Particularly to do so publicly.
I believe it is fairly well known here, that while I don't prescribe to a number of Catholic doctrines, I have never agreed with the virulent way discussions about these issues have been handled. Much of it revolving around "whore of Babylon" being tossed out as a powder keg.
Thanks for attempting to be a voice of reason, even as others seem intent to tear each other down.
Thanks JD,
Anonymous Catholic; maybe you're
a Catholic and maybe you're not.
Either way you're a coward and I
don't need your approval.
Thanks JD,
Anonymous Catholic; maybe you're
a Catholic and maybe you're not.
Either way you're a coward and I
don't need your approval.
I never implied that you were seeking my approval. I cannot delete my compliment to you but if I could now, I would.
Regardless of your theology you should work on being more charitable toward people (whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Atheist, whatever). After all the Lord does tell us to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated.
Anonymous Catholic
But "anonymous Catholic",
you're not a person. You're
a divider and an anonymous
provocateur and nothing more;
kind of like Satan himself.
If God were your shield and
your protector you wouldn't
need to be anonymous.
"all the other apostles recognized
Peter's supremacy, including Paul."
Have you read Luke 22:24?
Paul
Come on. That's too much. Because you go by Paul, it makes you any less anonymous?
Paul who? Where do you live? What's your phone number?
I didn't think so.
To "Paul" ... whoever you are:
So now you are "convinced" that Peter was the primary apostle and that even "Paul recognized" this? How is it that Paul rebuked Peter .. and quite severely regarding circumcision (i.e. doctrine)? Where is your biblical evidense that "all the apostles" recognized Peter as the "primary apostle?" Please don't refer to Catholic propaganda on this issue ... back it up with Scripture.
Anonymous said...
Cathy
With all due respect, the links you provided in your last post are either Catholic run or Catholic operated.
What do you expect them to say?
Of course they will support the "Catholic view."
Anonymous, and the 'Catholic view' is not only based on Scripture but also on Tradition. The Catholic 'view' encompasses the tradition handed down from the early Christians who were closest to the historical figures in the Gospel. And, I don't understand how a reasonable person could summarily disregard the testimony of the early Church in favor of their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
The only problem with Occupy Wall Street to be ushers of the new age is it could fizzle out. When you fill something like this with young adults, you run the risk that these protesters will get bored and move on to the next "big thing."
Until something huge comes along to shake enough of the world's nations, OWS will just be a passing fad...maybe. I'm so glad Europe has their act together. I can't see anything going wrong. What's that? Ah, GREECE! Why?
"You see, many forget that those who destroyed the 2nd temple were Syrian (Assyrian ... including part of what is now Turkey) mercenaries hired by Rome, they were not the Romans themselves. So, people make the mistake of thinking a revived Roman empire (EU) would be the place AC comes from because AC will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, yet the AC will come from the region once known as Assyria!"
ridiculous. it was done by them as Roman hirelings, Roman representatives and at Roman direction. It was therefore a Roman act.
That said, I think a revived Roman empire is too simple. And the scarlet woman and the beast may be distinct people from the antichrist. the beast with seven heads is seven hills on which she sits, and she is both a physical city and a mystery, so there is more to this than just a revived Roman empire, though Rome might become overtly old Latin pagan again.
Cathy
When did I attempt to interpret scripture personally?
I believe I stated that God's Word was perfect enough for me. God's WORD, not mine. No add on, no traditions.
Was Peter the first Pope? Did the Apostles recognize Peter as Pope? Is there Scriptural evidence of this?
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
"protoevangelium of James, implying that they got it from that document; or they say that this document, which is the earliest trace of the tradition, is authentic. What they didn't say is that this document claims to be written by an elder half-brother of Jesus yet is dated (even by Catholics) at least 100 years too late for that, ie it begins with a deliberate lie; and it asserts ludicrously that there were consecrated virgins in the Temple at Jerusalem (unthinkable in Judaism and not supported by the Talmud, a comprehensive compilation of Jewish tradition of the time). The document is totally untrustworthy.
Are you not answering these questions because you are unable to, without making a nonsense of the claim of Mary's perpetual virginity?"
while there were no consecrated virgins there, and the protevangelion was anathematized along with other false documents and false gospels by Gelasius I a bishop of Rome, neither would a child have been allowed to scamper into the Holy of Holies, there seem to have been a bunch of children kept to draw the living (running) water from a stream, they went to it on donkeys, lowered buckets, and never touched the ground during their lives at the Temple, living and walking only on stone, which insulated them from the ground. Their mothers gave birth in some special rooms and wore special clothing material that insulated them, like the stone flooring, from the contaminating evil miasma the priesthood felt was everywhere. (part of it would be undocumented and unmarked graves people unknowingly stepped on and would be unknowingly defiled, recall Jesus' reference to this). At puberty they were sent away. Perhaps she was of this group, and if she was in some way very unusual as what would be called now a prayer warrior, she might have been persuaded to take a vow of celibacy being seen as some kind of spiritual military, and the military were to be celibate, no uncleanness and any semen leaving the body defiled it, while on service. That Joseph was much older than her, is shown in that when she and Jesus' brothers, which term in that culture could mean full, half
brother or 1st cousin, came to see Him, His putative father Joseph was not among them. Also Jesus had no one to count on to take care of His mother, so made her the mother of the Apostle John and he her adopted son, "woman behold thy son, and He
said to John, behold thy mother."
I have no opinion, the available material is way too vague. The possibility exists she was ever virgin and only one child, so I am not violating my conscience by dropping the argument as an Orthodox convert. also if by virgin you mean hymen intact, that can happen regardless of how much sex and childbearing happens, if it is very small, a mere semi circle edge, and very elastic. rare, but possible. Like I said, it is impossible to tell from the available information, but the ever virgin and only one child story dates back very early in the Church, and I don't mean that johnny come lately Rome, either. The Eastern Church Rome was once part of. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, so Antioch is equal to Rome. And the five patriarchates all had a direct or indirect Petrine provenance.
Anonymous said...
Cathy
When did I attempt to interpret scripture personally? I believe I stated that God's Word was perfect enough for me. God's WORD, not mine. No add on, no traditions.
Anonymous, God's word sometimes differs from Protestant to Protestant e.g., in the case of the rapture. Can you explain how this is possible? How could God's word to one Protestant contradict His word to another Protestant on the same subject and how do you know which word is authentic?
Will Catholic-Orthodox unity become a reality?
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/archbishop-hilarion-on-christian-unity
Christine said...Peter was first bishop of Antioch, so Antioch is equal to Rome. And the five patriarchates all had a direct or indirect Petrine provenance.
See of Peter is in Rome...
The decisive historical event is that the fisherman of Bethsaida came to Rome and suffered martyrdom in this city...Peter's coming to Rome and his martyrdom here are part of a very ancient tradition expressed in basic historical documents and archeological discoveries regarding devotion to Peter on the site of his tomb, which early on became a place of veneration.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html
The Pope is the successor of Peter...
Orthodox apologists claim that these two commissions are identical. Whatever authority Christ gave to Peter, he gave to all the apostles. If the Orthodox belief is correct, then early Church history should reveal that every bishop, wherever located, exercised the same authority as did the bishop of Rome. Instead, from the first century onward, the successors of Peter exercised authority unlike that of any other bishop.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox
Christine,
If true about the children at the Temple then that's interesting, although their mothers were not virgins (as the protoevangelium of James would claim) because they had given birth. Have you a reference, please?
You go on to refer to the sexual purity required of the Jewish military, but there was no Jewish military in Jesus' day because the Romans had disbanded it a century before. If this is a tale about the Maccabean wars from the Apocrypha then it has no relevance to Jesus' time.
The reason Jesus did not hand his mother to his brothers on the cross is that they did not believe in Him - see John 7:5. That means they believed their own mother was a liar about the miraculous conception of Jesus. It's not surprising he preferred to let John look after her.
It's obvious that God's definition of a virgin is no-sex (see Luke 1:34), and that the state of the hymen is simply an approximate guide to that.
Cathy,
You wrote: "the 'Catholic view' is not only based on Scripture but also on Tradition. The Catholic 'view' encompasses the tradition handed down from the early Christians who were closest to the historical figures in the Gospel."
Not so, for the tradition starts with a document that is dated (by Catholics among others) a century later than the man which the opening lines assert wrote it, and which ludicrously claims that there were consecrated virgins at the Temple in Jerusalem. It is totally unreliable. Its author has a Greek view of the relation between virgins and religion. Did he project that onto Mary too?
There is no statement in scripture of Mary's perpetual virginity. It
is full of references to Jesus' brothers that Rome goes into contortions to explain away. Matt 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph did not have sex until Jesus had been born. Why, if she remained virgin, did Matthew not just say that they had no sex then or later? And if you are told that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding and had no sex with her husband UNTIL the plaster cast was removed, what you you suppose they did next?
Will you duck these questions a fourth time?
To Anonymous @ 7:00 PM
No one is trying to avoid answering your question about 'Mary's perpetual virginity.'
The following link will give you plenty of scriptural references (too many to copy/paste here) as to why we Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/bl
essed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV
(Scroll down and click on IV.)
Anon@5.52am,
Like you I encourage Constance's readers to look at the website you quote. Because if that's the best evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity then it is weak indeed. Most of it is concerned to deny the obvious inference from scripture. Most of its rhetorical questions have been answered. Unlike mine. Why don't you answer them (@5.17am) instead of posting yet another website that doesn't?
To Paul:
At times, the ugliness directed at Catholics on this blog requires a tougher stand than the gentle velvet glove approach, kindness and patience of Catholics like Susanna and Cathy.
Often, it becomes necessary to let the Catholic-bashers on this blog know that we will NOT be intimidated by their animosity.
So, if you insist on 'demonizing' us for shouting 'enough is enough'....well, that's your problem.
We know where our hearts are -- and GOD knows exactly where our hearts are -- and that's all that really matters.
To Anonymous @ 6:13 AM:
Clearly and obviously you are NOT looking for answers - only arguments.
So, if that's the best that you've got...I suggest that you just give it a rest.
We Catholics are NOT on trial here, plus we don't feel that we have to prove anything to anyone.
If Catholics came on this blog day after day 'slicing and dicing' up you Protestants, you all would be in an absolute RAGE demanding that Constance do something!!!
You can certainly dish it out, but you can't take it.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
"You see, many forget that those who destroyed the 2nd temple were Syrian (Assyrian ... including part of what is now Turkey) mercenaries hired by Rome, they were not the Romans themselves. So, people make the mistake of thinking a revived Roman empire (EU) would be the place AC comes from because AC will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, yet the AC will come from the region once known as Assyria!"
"ridiculous. it was done by them as Roman hirelings, Roman representatives and at Roman direction. It was therefore a Roman act."
Not ridiculous at all you thoroughly rude and obtuse individual. I've already said they were Roman mercenaries. Yes, it was an act of Rome and of the Assyrians. The point stands though, that the ACTUAL people that sacked the 2nd temple were Assyrian! Furthermore, this takes away the confusion of why the AC is called the Assyrian. Now if you don't know why, then I suggest you read your Bible more before making such unreasoned and argumentative comments.
P.S., Magog, Tubal, Mesech etc, are places that were situated in what is now modern day Turkey, as is Pergamon/mum. I've not got all day to educate you, you've your own pet prejudices, and where they don't fit in with Holy Scripture you seem quite prepared to carry on anyhow pretending that they do. Deal with it! Get educated and stop feeding off or dismissing others hard work and research, especially when you obviously can't be bothered or are incapable of, or both, doing your own!
Have a good day.
Anon 7:18 Am
Can you give the scripture reference about the Antichrist being Assyrian.
Thanks
Hey Paul,
Are you as consistently rude and abusive to the people in your church as you are at this blog and if so, how's that working out for you?
Anon@8.05am
Antichrist is deescribed in Daniel as the 'King of the North'. That does not narrow it down to Assyria but it certainly helps.
Anon@6.46am,
Indeed you don't have to answer those questions. But the more you complain about being asked them, the more it looks like you CAN'T answer them... and that Mary ceased to be a virgin sometime after Jesus was born... and that Rome is wrong.
A married couple had sex, so what? The obsession here with Mary and Joseph's post-partum sex life is not a protestant one, but a Catholic one.
Anon 8:05
"The Assyrian" is also mentioned in Isaiah and Micah.
To Anonymous @ 8:23 AM:
No, YOU are the one who is clearly obsessed...because YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up...and keeps demanding 'answers' from us!!!
We Catholics are completely at peace with the fact that:
Mary knew she was a virgin.
Jesus knows His mother, Mary was a virgin.
We Catholics KNOW that Mary was a virgin.
So, we don't really care what YOU think or believe...but if you continue to keep this going, you are going to PROVE my point that it is YOU who are obsessed with this subject.
"We Catholics KNOW that Mary was a virgin."
Certainly you are the final arbiter of what you believe. But not of the consistency or rationality of your belief.
If you want these questions to go away then answer them rather than avoid them. The longer this goes on, the more it looks like you CAN'T answer them.
We have already answered those questions (ad nauseum). YOU just didn't like our answers. Maybe getting some long-term therapy can help you with your OBSESSION with Catholics.
"We have already answered those questions (ad nauseum). YOU just didn't like our answers."
Constance's readers will look in vain for those answers on this thread, or in the websites referred to. You have answered other questions - because you didn't like my questions.
Constance's readers will look in vain for those answers on this thread, or in the websites referred to. You have answered other questions - because you didn't like my questions.
________________________________
Maybe you should stop telling people what they think about something, and instead ask them what they think, and listen to them when they tell you.
I am Catholic and I like your question. Mary's perpetual virginity is a doctrine of the Church and because the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals, I believe it to be true. I can't prove it to you any more than I can prove that she conceived her son by the Holy Ghost, but I know both facts to be true.
There are some matters of religion we can know by reason (such as the natural law), but others we only know through God's revelation (the trinity, the existence and nature of angels, etc). These facts about Mary are known through revealed truth, not through reason.
Demanding answers that satisfy your criteria (whatever those criteria may be) regarding Mary's virgnity is about as pointless as an atheist demanding that a Christian prove the resurrection through empirical evidence.
Basically, it's a pointless discussion.
"because the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals"
Oh really?!?!
The Inquisition? The many popes who were evil and corrupt?
And the list goes on and on and on and on and on.
"because the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals"
Oh really?!?!
The Inquisition? The many popes who were evil and corrupt?
___________________________
The Church cannot err in her TEACHING on matterse of faith and morals. Yes, really!!!!
"Maybe you should stop telling people what they think about something, and instead ask them what they think, and listen to them when they tell you."
Asking them what they think is EXACTLY what I've been doing. As for listening when they tell me, I'd love to! But no Catholic has a answered my questions. Here they are:
No scripture asserts Mary's perpetual virginity. Matt 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph did not have sex until Jesus had been born. Why, if she remained virgin, did Matthew not just say that they had no sex then or later? And if you are told that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding and had no sex with her husband UNTIL the plaster cast was removed, what is the normal inference regarding what they did next?
As for tradition, the earliest hint is in the protoevangelium of James, but it claims to be written by an elder half-brother of Jesus yet is dated (even by Catholics) at least 100 years too late for that, ie it begins with a deliberate lie. And it asserts ludicrously that there were consecrated virgins in the Temple at Jerusalem, an idea associated with Greek not Hebrew religion. How then can the Catholic church claim that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity goes back to her and is historically authentic? Is it not more likely that the liar who wrote this 'gospel' and was interested in virginity and religion decided to extend Mary's virginity beyond Christ's birth?
"I can't prove it to you any more than I can prove that she conceived her son by the Holy Ghost, but I know both facts to be true."
Yes, but it's possible to be certain yet wrong. I too believe in the Virgin conception and birth of Jesus, but that's in the scriptures we share. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not; instead it starts from a document written by a liar.
"These facts about Mary are known through revealed truth, not through reason."
There is plenty of reason in the fact that the virgin birth fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah. The 'revelation' of Mary's perpetual virginity is simply that a Pope said so. That dosn't mean it is wrong, of course, but I want to know: on what basis did the Pope say so?
"Demanding answers that satisfy your criteria (whatever those criteria may be) regarding Mary's virgnity is about as pointless as..."
I haven't set out any criteria. I would be grateful for ANY answer. The longer this goes on, the more it looks like evasiveness.
No scripture asserts Mary's perpetual virginity.
_______________________________
You are Protestant and your rule of faith is scripture only (sola scriptura). The Catholic rule of faith is scripture and tradition.
The tradition does not need to satisfy your personal standards. The Catholic Church exercises her authority in these matters because she was given that authority by Jesus Christ.
It is because you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Catholic Church as she understands herself that you are going on and on with demands for evidence, etc. Until you can grasp the Catholic rule of faith and the Catholic view of from whence the Church's authority springs, you will continue as you are, demanding convuluted answers to convuluted questions, which in the end, to our human eyes, are only speculation.
Do you really believe Christ left us to so much speculation, argumentation, and confusion with respect to Truth? I don't.
And oh, you don't need to tell me again that you Catholics are ducking the questions you ask. We already know you you feel that way. Your feelings about these things are really small potatoes though in the grand scheme of things.
You don't like or agree with the Catholic Church? Fine, don't join. The Catholic Church will survive your disapproval.
ME] No scripture asserts Mary's perpetual virginity.
YOU] You are Protestant and your rule of faith is scripture only (sola scriptura). The Catholic rule of faith is scripture and tradition. The tradition does not need to satisfy your personal standards.
Indeed, it doesn't seem to satisfy ANY standards. It started in a document written by a confirmed liar (by Rome's own standards) who was interested in the link between religion and virginity.
"Do you really believe Christ left us to so much speculation, argumentation, and confusion with respect to Truth? I don't."
Neither do I. I think it is perfectly obvious that Joseph and Mary had sex after Christ was born. But it is fruitless and discourteous simply to assert something to people (ie, Catholics) who disagree with it. So I ask questions. What I see in the response is evasion and anger. Just like when someone gets asked the tough questions in court.
"you don't need to tell me again that you Catholics are ducking the questions you ask. We already know you you feel that way. Your feelings about these things are really small potatoes though in the grand scheme of things."
I agree. I am doing this because others are reading; this is a public forum, not a private tete-a-tete.
To Anonymous @ 5:15 PM:
Re: "I am doing this because others are reading; this is a public forum, not a private tete-a-tete."
___________________________________
Yes, and others are reading how you are making a complete FOOL of yourself, too.
First of all, you are both arrogant and obnoxious in assuming that everyone is 'on the same page' with you. This is clearly not the case.
And second, you are admitting that you DO have an 'agenda' here on this blog.
Careful now; your transparency is showing!!!
Anon@11.45pm,
I never denied my agenda. All I am doing is asking Catholics elementary questions which do not contain any premises contrary to Catholic dogma or make any assumption about the nature of the Roman Catholic church. But no Catholic has answered them. If you have good answers, why not give them? Constance's readers may decide for themselves what is going on from the failure to answer and the anger and evasiveness elicited by these questions.
"because the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals"
The Catholic church used to teach as a matter of faith that the sun went round the earth, and threatened Galileo with torture for asserting the opposite. Today it accepts that Galileo as right. Therefore it has erred at least once. Therefore it is not inerrant.
Anon 4:52 AM, I salute your courage, clarity and honesty in your threads. Your reasoning is clearly scripturally, logically and historically supported.
This blog is, however, sadly heavily monitored by the Jesuits and their ilk.
Anon@5.25am,
Thank you. Incidentally I have Catholic friends and would love to be able to share at their Communion rails and have them join in Communions held in my home. We all believe in Jesus Christ, crucified died and risen, man and God, son of the divine Creator. But Rome forbids it. Once in Eastern Europe I asked a Catholic priest if I might partake and he was surprised that I even asked - he said that Catholic and non-Catholic Christians had suffered together under communism for 50 years, and let's keep the unity it forged. I think that he had more wisdom than his superiors. There's nothing like persecution for getting your priorities straight. Someday it will come to Rome. I never tell my Catholic friends to come out of their church, I just make it clear to them that alternatives exist so that if they ever wish to do so, perhaps as Rome gets increasingly New Age, then it is not the end of their faith in Jesus Christ. He is what it is all about, after all.
IF ANYONE WANTS TO VIEW THE FULL TEXT OF THE VATICAN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY PAPER, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD OR READ IT AT LINK BELOW:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/70575115/Vatican-International-Financial-Global-Public-Authority-Paper-Full-Text
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
70575115/Vatican-
International-
Financial-Global-
Public-Authority-
Paper-Full-Text
Anonymous said @ 3:20 PM:
"...because the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals, I believe it to be true."
It is an absolute established fact that the heirarchy (going all the way to the "pope") not only covered up the enormous pedophile-preists scandal, but helped to perpetuate it. How? By transferring KNOWN pedophiles into other diocese where they often continued their perverted behavior. My grandmother grew up in a Catholic orphanage in Vienna, Austria (over 100 years ago) and said the perverted atrocities she and others experienced there were so bad that she "wouldn't even be able to talk about!" This sanctioned evil has been going on forever. Then we have the 600 year history of the Inquisition. It's amazing that anyone in their right mind would claim the catholic church "cannot err in faith and morals." Satan himself has blinded your eyes for you to believe in such nonsense. "Woe unto them that call good evil, and evil good."
"I haven't discussed the Reformation, Anon 12:14 PM [next thread]. I much prefer pre-Reformation Christianity. As a Christian, I protest most vehemently against not only the murderous popes but also the murderous Calvin and Luther as well. That being said, you may find the link below of use.
I agree that political Christianity, Catholic or protestant, is Trinitarian Judaism rather than apostolic Christianity.
To this day, the Council of Trent remains in full force and effect. In over 100 specific edicts, "anathemas" are proclaimed upon bible believing Christians for their various bible-centered beliefs. What is an "anathema?"
"A person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction by an ecclesiastical authority."
The history of the RCC has been one of intense persecution against all that cling to the bible as their only authority for all matters of faith and morals. For centuries (the Dark Ages), Rome enforced strict penalties (often death) for simply owning a bible in one's native tongue! And yet, people still cling to this evil harlot as if it is Christ's authority on earth!
Thank you 1:02 PM
"I agree that political Christianity, Catholic or protestant, is Trinitarian Judaism rather than apostolic Christianity."
We are in full agreement on this.
Absolutely right Ray B at 1:09 PM
Ray B and his ilk either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what "the Catholic Church cannot err in faith and morals" means (even after having it explained numerous times on this blog) or are so driven by hatred that it suppresses their rational faculties.
Ray B: Would you like to return to the times of the Reformation where Catholic priests and those who harbored them illegally were hunted down by the Protestant authorities for sport? Maybe you should get in touch with some of the New Age leadership. I'm sure you could find common cause around your unwavering belief that the Catholic Church is evil and should be destroyed. LOL.
To Anonymous @ 6:17 AM:
Re: your comments this morning.
1) "We all believe in Jesus Christ, crucified died and risen, man and God, son of the divine Creator BUT ROME FORBIDS IT"????
2) "alternatives exist so that if they ever wish to do so, perhaps as Rome gets increasingly New Age"
___________________________________
I don't know WHAT 'Catholic' church you've been going to; but I've been on this Earth for 6 decades...and I can assure you that every Catholic Church that I have ever attended Mass (in several different cities / in several different states) ALL practice and believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins, was risen....and that He is our Divine Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
How dare you make such a lying, slanderous statement that "Rome forbids it"!!!!!!!
2) Also, I suggest that you clarify your last statement and remind Protestants that there will be 'alternatives' for them as well....as the New Age infiltrates ALL religious denominations in the future.
Some of the Protestant Evangelicals on this blog feel that they are somehow IMMUNE to what is happening in the world right now....that it does not apply to THEM....and they couldn't be more wrong!!!
So, just a reminder to those who love to get on this blog and 'bash' Catholics for sport.... when the New Age Movement is finished USING you....one day, it will YOUR turn to be 'bashed' on various blogs.
To Anonymous @ 5:25 AM:
Re: "This blog is, however, sadly heavily monitored by the Jesuits and their ilk."
___________________________________
LOL!!!!!!!
I personally know most of the Catholics who post here on a regular basis...and we are definitely NOT connected with the Jesuits in any way, shape or form.
(Although, I guess that's a 'compliment' for us Catholics....since many of you obviously can't imagine ordinary Catholics being so knowledgeable about our religion.)
Here is a news bulletin for you, Ray B:
There are EVIL atrocities going on everywhere...coming to (or already at) your own neighborhood church.
To Ray B
Way to go!!!
Don't they understand when they make such a BOLD statement that the RCC cannot err in matters of faith and morals, how ridiculous that is?
The RCC has erred more in faith and morals MUCH more than most. And THERE IS historical evidence of such.
To answer all questions regarding the infallibility of the Catholic Church....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
07790a.htm
The whole story surrounding the controversy between the Catholic Church and Galileo....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
06342b.htm
Why do Catholics believe Mary was a virgin throughout her entire life? Doesn't the Bible say Jesus was her "firstborn" and talk about Jesus' "brothers"?
"And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7).
The term "first-born" has great significance in Jewish history, going back to the covenant God made with Moses after leading the Israelites out of Egypt. The Jewish feast of Passover recalls the night the Lord struck down the first-born of the Egyptians, but "passed over" the homes of the Jews who marked their doors with the "blood of the lamb." (Exodus 12:7). Because of this favor, "The Lord told Moses, 'Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.'" (Exodus 13:1-2). The Jewish meaning of "first-born", therefore, does not imply the existence of other children. St. Paul writes, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren." (Romans 8:29). St. Paul, who was a zealous Jew prior to his miraculous conversion, was well aware of the significance of the term "first-born" and used it to indicate Jesus as our brother, through whose merits we become adopted sons of God.
"And his mother and his brethren came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, 'Your mother and your brethren are outside, asking for you.' And he replied, 'Who are my mother and my brethren?' And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brethren! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.'" (Mark 3:31-35).
(Continued....)
The Jews regarded cousins as brothers and sisters. In fact they did not have a separate word for "cousin" as we do. The brethren referred to here were Jesus' cousins, James and Judas of Alpheus, the brother of St. Joseph (see Matthew 13:55 and 27:56). Even Protestants will admit that there is no historical evidence that Mary had other children. Surely this information would have survived history, at least within the tradition of the Catholic Church, and yet no such evidence exists. If indeed Mary did have other children, why did Jesus choose to give her to John from the Cross instead of one of his "brothers"?
"When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25).
The Greek word translated until does not imply anything about what happened after the incident described. Another example of the use of this word is 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Obviously Jesus will still reign after he has subjected his enemies, so we cannot infer anything about Mary and Joseph's relationship from the passage in Matthew.
"For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness" (Wisdom of Solomon 7:25).
"The Church has always professed her belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The most ancient texts, when referring to the conception of Jesus, call Mary simply 'virgin', inferring that they considered this quality a permanent fact with regard to her whole life. The early Christians expressed this conviction of faith in the Greek term aeiparthenos-'ever virgin'-created to describe Mary's person in a unique and effective manner, and to express in a single word the Church's belief in her perpetual virginity" (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, August 28, 1996).
(Exodus 12:7; Exodus 13:1-2; Numbers 3:11-13; Wisdom of Solomon 7:25; Ezekiel 44:2; Romans 8:29; Matthew 1:24-25 with 1 Corinthians 15:25; Mark 3:31-35 with Matthew 13:55 and 27:56; Luke 2:7)[14]
Anon@3.20pm,
I wrote: "I have Catholic friends and would love to be able to share at their Communion rails and have them join in Communions held in my home. We all believe in Jesus Christ, crucified died and risen, man and God, son of the divine Creator. But Rome forbids it."
I meant that Rome forbids me to join my Catholic friends at Catholic Communion rails and forbids my Catholic friends from sharing in the Communions I hold in my house. Never did I mean that Rome forbids belief in Jesus Christ. Peace.
Cathy,
You wrote, in an attempt to defend Catholic inerrancy over the fact that it once supported heliocentricity, that heliocentricity is only a theory.
Well if heliocentricity is only a theory then so is the claim that appples always fall downwards to the earth rather than upwards; so is the claim that the moon orbits the earth rather than vice-versa; so is the claim that man-made satellites orbit the earth rather than vice-versa. All depend on the law of gravity. I suyggeest you talk to some Catholics who are also scientists and solicit their views on whether heliocentricity is only a theory.
Moreover, why did John Paul II make a public apology over the Galileo affair that conceded the point?
Oops, that should have read "in an attempt to defend Catholic inerrancy over the fact that it once REJECTED heliocentricity, that heliocentricity is only a theory."
Anon 3:34 P.M.
Didn't you KNOW???
Constance Cumbey is Temporal Coadjutor General for the Jesuits???
Isn't that right Constance? :-)
Anonymous said @ 2:52 PM:
"Ray B: Would you like to return to the times of the Reformation where Catholic priests and those who harbored them illegally were hunted down by the Protestant authorities for sport?"
Comparing what so called "protestant authorities" did to what RCC's well documented history is, is like comparing a flea to an elephant. The RCC has a history of persecution, torture and murder ... the most famous being the 600 year long Inquisition. Estimates of the number of murdered victims run into the millions. The RCC had, during the entire time they were commiting their crimes against humanity, the blessings of the pope and the hierarchy of the "church." These tortures, murders, etc. were not done by a few renegade, fanatical Catholics ... they were crimes committed by the "church" itself!
Cathy,
How would you distinguish whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth?
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
You wrote, in an attempt to defend Catholic inerrancy over the fact that it once supported heliocentricity, that heliocentricity is only a theory.
Anonymous, the Catholic Church has not declared that geocentrism is an error. Science has not disproved geocentrism and heliocentrism is a theory. If geocentrism is an error, then the Bible which is full of passages supporting geocentrism is in error on this issue and the Catholic Church did not invent the Bible.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
To Anonymous @ 6:41 PM:
I clearly owe you an apology. Obviously, I was in too much of a hurry when I read your comments.
I am very sorry, and I appreciate you clearing that up for me.
Sincerely,
Anonymous @ 3:20PM
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
How would you distinguish whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth?
Anonymous, here's a link with some articles discussing geocentrism. There's a question and answer article linked below as well as other feature articles on the blog.
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/q.html
You cannot even dispute Ray B's last post. The 600 year long inquisition.
That is a VERY LONG time, centuries!!
And you still say the RCC cannot err in areas of faith and morals?
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
You wrote, in an attempt to defend Catholic inerrancy over the fact that it once supported heliocentricity, that heliocentricity is only a theory.
Anonymous, where did you get this idea from?
Ray B. said...
Anonymous said @ 2:52 PM:
"Ray B: Would you like to return to the times of the Reformation where Catholic priests and those who harbored them illegally were hunted down by the Protestant authorities for sport?"
"Comparing what so called "protestant authorities" did to what RCC's well documented history is, is like comparing a flea to an elephant. The RCC has a history of persecution, torture and murder ... the most famous being the 600 year long Inquisition. Estimates of the number of murdered victims run into the millions. The RCC had, during the entire time they were commiting their crimes against humanity, the blessings of the pope and the hierarchy of the "church." These tortures, murders, etc. were not done by a few renegade, fanatical Catholics ... they were crimes committed by the "church" itself!"
7:55 PM
That's very true, Ray B. Also the Ustase murderers were run by the Vatican.
Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
google "USTASE" AND "VATICAN" FOR LOTS OF EVIDENCE.
OF COURSE, THERE'S ALSO FRANZ VON
PAPEN, HITLER AND THE VATICAN TOO! Yes, despite RC propaganda, they were behind the Geman Nazis too as well as the Croatian and Italian ones. Look it up!
Of course, it was that fascist Mussolini that re-established the Vatican in 1929. Lateran Concordat of 1929 - Papal Wound Healed!
biblelight.net/wound.htm
Text of the Lateran Treaty of 1929
www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm
And many, many more!
"Anon 3:34 P.M.
Didn't you KNOW???
Constance Cumbey is Temporal Coadjutor General for the Jesuits???
Isn't that right Constance? :-)"
Well Anon, you do sound like Eric Phelps yourself. He is no doubt a jesuit co-adjutor playing devil's advocate, with his racist and anti-semitic views. Just like the Vatican and its minions as shown in the above information.
Still, just because someone with the vile views of Eric Phelps made the claim about Constance does not mean that this blog is not infiltrated heavily by jesuits. Many reading this blog know the Hegelian dialectic and double dealing of jesuits, and comments like yours only further their suspicions.
Of course, the Nazis were not Christian but surely neither is that upper echelons of the Vatican. The wafer eucharist is circular and held aloft in the mass ceremony representing the sun. Not Christian at all! Look at the iron crosses worn by the Nazis, the same babylonian crosses can be found adorning the pope's long scarves. And lots more!
Are the jesuits agents of the tooth fairy and santa claus?...Does the pope take orders from space aliens who live in tunnels beneath the Vatican?... Catholics are not Christians and nuns can fly...Ha Ha! Catholic conspiracy theories abound and are eagerly gobbled up by the gullible.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick
Nazi persecution of Catholics...
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0229.htm
The Catholic Church and the Holocaust...
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html
I see the revisionist history about the Inquisition is alive and well. You all remind me of the atheists that claim the Nazis were all Christians.
What about the torturers of the Reformation? Clearly they are of no consequence to you, Ray B, because the victims were Catholics.
You and your fellow bigots are useful idiots for the New Age movement.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html
Anon@9.01pm
The claim that Roman Catholicism is the religion of ancient Babylon in disguise goes back to a 19th century book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. A protestant called Ralph Woodrow read it and believed it. Then he started to find holes in the claim. Eventually he withdrew the calim (which he had made publicly) and wrote a short book called "The Babylon Connection?" exposing the claim as nonsense. Its last chapter summarises his present position and criticises the RCC using many of the other arguments found on this thread - but not the Babylon one.
I have read both Hislop and Woodrow and I find Woodrow convincing. Please do the same yourself. Inaccurate criticism - of the RCC or anything else - tarnishes only the critic.
A. PROT
Cathy,
In summary: An Anon wrote above that "the Catholic Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals".
I responded: "The Catholic church used to teach as a matter of faith that the sun went round the earth, and threatened Galileo with torture for asserting the opposite. Today it accepts that Galileo was right. Therefore it has erred at least once. Therefore it is not inerrant."
You responded (on Constance's next thread): "heliocentrism is ONLY a THEORY, and has not been proven as an indisputable FACT".
I brought the discussion back to this thread by asking you some questions, to which you responded, "the Catholic Church has not declared that geocentrism is an error. Science has not disproved geocentrism and heliocentrism is a theory. If geocentrism is an error, then the Bible which is full of passages supporting geocentrism is in error on this issue and the Catholic Church did not invent the Bible." You also referred me to a website purporting to show that Galileo was wrong.
IN REPLY:
Where you find in the Bible statements such as "the sun rose" (eg 2 Sam 23:4) it simply means, as it does in everyday talk, "the sun rose relative to the horizon". That observation implies *relative* movement and does not settle whether the sun moves round the earth or vice-versa.
So, how would you distinguish whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth? I am asking you this question so that I can find out what evidence you would accept; that is a personal matter so I need your personal reply, not a website (although obviously you are free to consult books and websites).
The sun is also observed to rise in exactly the same way on Mars where we have put a lander. If the sun goes uniformly round the earth then it would not be seen to go uniformly round Mars. Nor could lunar eclipses be explained. What is your explanation for that, please? If you refer to a website, please point me to the page where those specific issues (re Mars and lunar eclipses) are addressed.
I urge you to talk to some Catholic astronomers and physicists, who understand the science in depth, and see if they agree with you. I am a research physicist, incidentally.
Moreover, why did John Paul II make a public apology over the Galileo affair in 2000 that conceded the point? He had earlier written: "Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system" - L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992.
I repeat: The Catholic church used to teach as a matter of faith that the sun went round the earth, and threatened Galileo with torture for asserting the opposite. Today it accepts that Galileo was right. Therefore it has erred at least once. Therefore it is not inerrant.
Inaccurate criticism - of the RCC or anything else - tarnishes only the critic.
A. PROT
Eloquently stated.
To the Protestant Physicist:
Here is an article which, although you may reject its conclusions, squarely addresses the issues you raised.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=559
There are and have been a number of Catholic hard scientists, including physicists (Fr. Andrew Pinsent, the late Peter Hodgson, and there are dozens of others including several priest-scientists). You may find their work to be of relevance to your questions as they are most likely your intellectual equals in these matters. I am not a scientist so I cannot argue as one.
Anon@7.30am
I've looked at the Galileo case too. I agree that in publishing, he broke an earlier agreement, but the issue is not Galileo's character. What the website you quote does not mention, incidentally, is that Urban VIII intervened to declare that Galileo was to be interrogated under threat of torture.
The website makes it explicit that Galileo's alleged heresy was heliocentrism. From the definition of heresy this means that the issue was one of faith. Yet heliocentrism is now accepted by all scientists (many Catholic) and by Pope John Paul II in his 1992 essay. Therefore the RCC has erred at least once in matters of faith. Therefore it is not inerrant.
Anonymous said...
Anon@7.30am
The website makes it explicit that Galileo's alleged heresy was heliocentrism. Yet heliocentrism is now accepted by all scientists (many Catholic) and by Pope John Paul II in his 1992 essay. Therefore the RCC has erred at least once in matters of faith. Therefore it is not inerrant.
Anonymous, you apparently seem unable to acknowledge that heliocentrism like geocentrism is a theory. Furthermore, you also seem incapable of acknowledging that the Bible supports geocentrism. Therefore, if heliocentrism is a fact and geocentrism is an error, then the Bible is in error on this issue and if so it must also be wrong on other issues as well. Please provide links where scientists equivocally state that geocentrism is an error and heliocentrism in not a theory but an accepted fact. Also, please provide links showing that the Catholic Church inclucing Pope John Paul II has condemned geocentrism as an error.
Heliocentrism like Evolution is a theory and there are even people who believe humans were created by aliens. Furthermore, until recently anthropogenic global warming was considered a scientific fact and the naysayers were dismissed as idiots. So, considering the tarnished record of modern science and the fact that people no longer buy into the propaganda that scientists are infallible, it is wise to remember that heliocentrism is a theory.
Cathy,
You are ducking questions and ignoring responses again. You ask for a reference to John Paul II but I gave it to you, from L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992. Feel free to Google for further details. And I explained the biblical passages, an explanation you have simply ignored. "The sun rose" is a statement of relative motion.
People who debate in good faith do not ignore counter-arguments and questions that they find difficult. Please respond to my questions to you at 6.52am, where you can find the quote from John Paul II repudiating geocentrism.
To repeat, the most important question is this: how would you distinguish whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth? I need to know what evidence you would accept before framing a reply.
Cathy,
The website of L'Osservatore Romano (a Vatican publication) states that it has not digitized its archives farther back than 1996, but here is the article on another website
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
See paragraph 12 of John Paul's speech for his very clear repudiation of geocentrism in favour of heliocentrism. That paragraph is all over the internet and you can verify it by emailing
L'Osservatore Romano at
archivio@osssrom.va
Anonymous, geocentrism/heliocentrism are theories and the Catholic Church has never denounced geocentrism as a heresy. Can you provide an official Church document/pronouncement declaring geocentrism a heresy? None exists! The fact is that conflicting scientific theories do exist. Is oil abiotic or is oil a fossil fuel? Which theory is correct? Some scientists support the fossil fuel theory which supports the peak oil theory while others say oil is abiotic and therefore the planet is full of oil. So, which theory is right? Is the planet full of oil or are we facing a catastrophic oil shortage in the near future? Is there an agenda involved in supporting one theory over the other? Global Warming is another example - is it man-made and are there too many humans exhaling carbon dioxide or is the sun the major influence on the temperature of the planet? Is there an agenda in supporting anthropogenic global warming?
Is there a connection between heliocentrism, evolution, peak oil, and anthropogenic global warming? Is the materialist view of creation correct? If man is not the center of the universe and is equal to a gorilla and is killing the planet when he exhales carbon dioxide and there are too many people and the world is running out of oil what's next? Global population reduction?
http://www.naturalnews.com/031073_science_tyranny.html
Cathy
You do not debate in good faith. The issue is Newton's theory of gravity as applied to the solar system, not global warming or the origin of oil or any of the other unrelated matters that you attempt to divert into.
OF COURSE the Catholic church has not pronounced geocentrism as a heresy. It began to learn, from the Galileo affair, to confine itself to matters relevant to Christian salvation. But if geocentrism is correct then why did John Paul II (not to mention every educated physicist in the world) contradict it? I have given you the reference.
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
You do not debate in good faith...
Anonymous, frankly, I couldn't care less whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. However, I have to laugh when people claim to have proof that the Catholic Church contradicts itself. I am simply pointing out to you that science is still grappling with many issues and scientists don't all agree on many issues. In fact, scientists contradict each other on many issues. Evolution is another divisive topic amongst scientists. Anonymous, why shouldn't Pope John Paul II reference heliocentrism which is promoted as the currently accepted scientific theory just as evolution, fossil fuel, peak oil and anthropogenic global warming are the current popular scientific theories? Note that in the case of anthropogenic global warming, despite the fact that there is significant disagreement amongst scientists on this issue and despite the climate gate scandal, anthropogenic global warming is still the preferred theory. Also, how many times has the age of the earth changed? Does this illustrate that science is infallible?
Cathy,
Laugh as much as you like but the Roman Catholic church has shifted from geocentrism to heliocentrism. It asserted the former as a matter of faith, because it referred dissenters like Galileo to the Inquisition. It now (rightly) accepts the heliocentric position. So, by its own admission, it erred on a matter of faith. So, despite its own claim, it is is not inerrant over matters of faith, is it?
Anonymous said...
Cathy,
So, despite its own claim, it is is not inerrant over matters of faith, is it?
Anonymous, the Catholic Church has NOT adopted heliocentrism as an article of faith. And, they have not declared heliocentrism as part of the magisterial teaching of the Church. So how are they "inerrant over matters of faith"?
From Jared Israel's commentary (in part) on the Nazi/Vatican Concordat of 1933:
"Put yourself in the position of a 1933 German Catholic as you read the text of the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican, the Reichskonkordat:
"The German Catholic Church has rescinded its ban on joining the Nazi Party. The Catholic Centre party has dissolved itself. [And Articles 31 and 32 prevent any revival of this democratic Catholic party which had opposed the Nazis.] In the Reichskonkordat, the Vatican has promised that German Bishops and their subordinates will be obedient to and honour the Nazi state (Article 16). It has promised that German Catholic educators will teach children patriotic love for the Nazi state (Article 21). It has requested and received the Nazi dictatorship's promise to enforce internal Church decisions (Article 10)." etc., etc.
Official press statement of Spanish dictator, Franco, published following Hitler's death.
"Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory."
Exactly Ray B. Thank you. Many of the Ustase of course, the Croatian Nazis/fascists still walked about in their RC priest uniforms as they committed their WW2 atrocities against the Serb & Greek Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia, and against jews and protestants too. The Ustase ran death camps too, and were deemed good sons of the RCC.
Vatican's Holocaust 1/6 - Nazi Croatia death camps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWGyTPu6UDE&feature=related
Type "Vatican's Holocaust" into
youtube and see what comes up. Lots of well documented Vatican crimes against humanity are to be found in the evidence of these videos.
Cathy:
It's quite obvious from the tone of his posts that Ray B. doesn't really want to engage in a sincere debate with Catholics. All he wants to do is ATTACK...playing right into the New Age Movement's agenda of 'divide and conquer.'
God bless you, Cathy for your sincere attempts to try to educate all of the haters...many of whom prefer to remain in their 'ignorance is bliss' mode.
The website makes it explicit that Galileo's alleged heresy was heliocentrism. From the definition of heresy this means that the issue was one of faith. Yet heliocentrism is now accepted by all scientists (many Catholic) and by Pope John Paul II in his 1992 essay. Therefore the RCC has erred at least once in matters of faith. Therefore it is not inerrant.
I can see you think this, but others who are experts in theology (which you are not) disagree with your conclusions. Moreover, men with scientific intellects no doubt the equal of yours (such as Fr. Pinsent, an Oxford-educated physicist), reject your summary argument.
You are entitled to your views but they are not convincing. I am not even half the intellect of a Robert George, a Peter Kreeft, or Cardinal Newman, et al (to name a few great Roman Catholic minds), but none of these people rejected(ed) the authority of the Catholic Church because of the "Galileo incident."
So if you are waiting for me (or other intelligent Catholics), to concede your "victory" on this point about Magisterial authority, you will be waiting a long time.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree with Protestants on matters such as church authority, where one can rationally hold either side of the argument.
People like some of those on this thread, however, who claim Hitler was Catholic etc., belong on white supremacist sites quoting the Protocols of the Elder of Zion, and should be given no quarter here.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/MAGPAST.HTM
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
Official press statement of Spanish dictator, Franco, published following Hitler's death.
"Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory."
Constance,
This Catholic-baiting is pretty sick stuff, which belongs on a white supremacist site, not on your site.
Perhaps it is time for you to draw a line in the sand.
Anonymous @ 2:59 PM said:
Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory."
Constance,
This Catholic-baiting is pretty sick stuff, which belongs on a white supremacist site, not on your site.
The fact of the matter is that Adolf Hitler, along with Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, Martin Borman, Rudolph Hess, and many, many more of the Nazi hierarchy were all members of the Catholic "church." Not one, then or now, has ever been excommunicated. This fact alone speaks volumes. But then again, being baptised into the "faith" made them all "born again Catholics," due entirely to their infant baptism!
I fail to see how it is that when one points out well documented historical facts that makes that person a "Catholic basher."
Yes, Ray B. @ 3:57 PM:
That's part of the problem here. You 'fail to see' a lot of things which don't point to the 'conclusion' you want and the agenda you are here for!!!
"the Catholic Church has NOT adopted heliocentrism as an article of faith. And, they have not declared heliocentrism as part of the magisterial teaching of the Church."
Certainly not today. But, back in pre-modern times, why were heliocentrists referred to the Inquisition if it was not an article of faith?
"the Catholic Church has NOT adopted heliocentrism as an article of faith. And, they have not declared heliocentrism as part of the magisterial teaching of the Church."
CORRECTION. Certainly not today. But, back in pre-modern times, why were heliocentrists referred to the Inquisition if geocentrism was not an article of faith?
To RAY B:
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE ALLEGED QUOTE ON FRANCO VIS A VIS HITLER, BUT I AM CERTAIN IT WAS FALSELY IMPUTED TO HIM. Franco did more to oppose Hitler's slaying of the Jews than just about anybody else; when the USA nor Canada would do a thing to halt the genocide. Franco gave orders that if a Jew came into a Spanish embassy seeking refuge that they were to be immediately issued a Spanish passport. Tens of thousands gained safe harbor that way. The Simon Weisenthal Holocaust Encyclopedia gives Franco credit for this.
He may have had his faults, but he stood between Hitler and his aspirations to take the Mediterranean and kill the Jews. Franco came into Spain at a time when violent anti-clerical forces had taken over and were burning down churches and monasteries with worshippers and religious within them.
He used pretty rough tactics to be sure, but he was up against pretty ugly forces of evil in and of themselves.
Constance
Constance,
Franco's efforts regarding the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany is debatable. Many reports from that time indicate that, although the Jews were granted passage through Spain as they immigrated to Portugal, etc., they were taken advantage of by the Spanish Government. Bribes were customarily paid in order to aid in their travels.
As far as Franco himself is concerned, he was very much an "unofficial" ally of Hitler up until the time that it was apparent that Hitler had lost the war. He was definitely an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini. It was only after the tide had severely turned against Hitler that Franco made serious overtures to Churchill.
Also, it is an undeniable fact that Franco was a brutal dictator, especially in the early years. He was every bit as brutal as Hitler when it came to brutally crushing anyone that opposed his regime. It's interesting as well, that the dictator Franco officially declared Roman Catholicism to be the state religion.
The quote I provided appeared in all the Spanish newspapers of that time on May 3, 1945, just a few days after Hitler's suicide. The Dictator Franco had complete control of the press and the quote certainly would not have been published had Franco not approved of its content.
Spain has been a committed Roman Catholic nation throughout modern times. This commitment has informed many of Spain's relations with other nations. Internally, while the populace is almost wholly Catholic, there has been much philosophical, social-class, and regional variance over time regarding the position of the church and clergy. These issues have joined other secular ones, some regarding succession to the Crown, to produce a dynamic national political history. Twice the monarchy has given way to a republic—the first from 1873 to 1875, the second from 1931 to 1936. The Second Republic was overthrown in 1936 by a military uprising. Following a bloody civil war, General Francisco Franco, in 1939, established a conservative, Catholic, and fascist dictatorship that lasted until his death in 1975. Franco regarded himself as a regent for a future king and selected the grandson of the last ruler (Alfonso XIII, who left Spain in 1931) as the king to succeed him. Franco died in 1975 and King Juan Carlos I then gained the helm of a constitutional monarchy, which took a democratic Spain into the twenty-first century.
"So if you are waiting for me (or other intelligent Catholics), to concede your "victory" on this point about Magisterial authority, you will be waiting a long time."
Certainly not. What you believe or say is your own affair. But the consistency of your beliefs is a public matter. Galileo was referred to the Inquisition for (among other things, but explicitly) his heliocentricity. Therefore the issue was regarded by Rome as a matter of faith. Today only a tiny minority of cranks, on a par with flat-earthers, believe that the sun goes round the earth rather than vice-versa, and John Paul II has conceded the point. Therefore Rome was formerly in error over a matter of faith. Therefore it is not inerrant, as it claims. If you can live with that, fine. Faith in Jesus Christ is what matters, and He really is inerrant.
To Anonymous @ 2:33 PM:
You are absolutely correct.
Professor Edmond Paris documents the diabolical atrocities in his book "Genocide in Satellite Croatia." Paris grew up a Roman Catholic, but that didn't prevent him from truthfully documenting what the Croatian Nastashi did in the Nazi puppet state from 1939 - 1945.
Per capita, the holocaust in Croatia was the worst of any nation. Estimates run as high as750,000 murdered Serbs - men, women and children along with most of their Orthodox clergymen. All Orthodox churches were closed or destroyed. The Jews, although much less numerous than the Serbs met the same fate. Croatia had some of the most notorious concentration camps in history. What is amazing about this, is the fact that the Nastashi had the blessings of the Croatian Roman Catholic clergy. In fact, many of the RCC clergy were actually members of the Nasashi! Most of the victims were given a choice by the Nastashi; either "convert" to Catholicism, or die. This was nothing other than religious genocide committed against innocent victims. To deny these historical facts is to dishonor the thousands of innocent victims that were murdered by these butchers. What kind of religion sanctions this type of brutality? What does it have in common with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Jesus warned us that we would "know them by their fruits." How can we as Christians not stand against such evil?
Ray: There is no such thing as the Nastashe. You mean the Ustashe.
To Anonymous @ 7:55 PM:
Don't ask me why I typed "Nastashi" instead of "Usthache." Thanks for taking the time to correct my error.
Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism...
Continued on link below.
http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Anonymous @ 1:19 PM
You are 100% correct. It's interesting that so much of the RCC doctrine, practices, symbology, and dogma is rooted in paganism. The title "Pontiff" is a direct take from paganism that was used exclusively for the pagan high priest of Rome (Pontifex Maximus):
pontiff [ˈpɒntɪf] n
(Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) a former title of the pagan high priest at Rome, later used of popes and occasionally of other bishops, and now confined exclusively to the pope
[from French pontife, from Latin pontifex]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
There is quite a bit more; regarding the "pope's" blasphemous title of the "Holy Father." There is only ONE "HOLY FATHER" and that is God Himself. Furthermore, the "pope" usurps Christ by declaring himself to be the head of the church of Christ ... when it is Jesus Christ himself that the bible declares to be the head of his church. (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18)
The "pope" also claims to have the authority regarding the soals of mankind, when it is God alone that has this sovereign authority. (Romans 9 7-23) I could go on but I'll stop here.
Great post Anonymous!
Rev. 16:10 will soon be upon us. Please pray for everyone in Israel and also for the war to end quickly.
www.greenscapular.org
See the 11-2-11 post
Catherine
PS.....Ray B., I'm still offering up my Holy Eucharists for you and Tony Cox . It didn't take very long for us to see the effects on Paul.
Has the Vatican Changed since the Inquisition? plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
Vatican's Holocaust in Croatia!
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/croatia2.html
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/
croatia2.html
After hearing all the anti-Catholic sqabble it made me wonder, what would the 'headlines' have read back in Jesus' day ?? And how would some of you professed Christians have responded to all the SCANDALS of that time. Let's face it, there were problems within the early Church before Jesus even died...Jesus was betrayed by Judas and Peter denied our Lord three times, for starters. However, did any of these problems cause the Church to fall apart and fade away? Did Jesus dismiss and replace Peter as the Rock?
Just as there was a 'Judas' in the beginning, we can expect there to be some 'Judas-like' characters until the end.
Those of us who understand this reality are not shaken in our FAITH. We also know that there will be many baptised and unbaptised alike who will cry, "Lord, Lord" and will not enter the Kingdom.
Jesus the Righteous Judge will know exactly those who are truly His and won't persuaded otherwise.
Catherine
www.thewarningsecondcoming.com
"The Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ's Number 1 Target". Read the entire message in the following posting entitled: "Greatest attack on My Church since My Death on the Cross".....10-28-11, 11:30 pm
"Message to priests, bishops, and cardinals about False prophet"......6-11-11, 3:15 pm
Catherine
Back to the original post of this thread, here is a short video clip of the pope back in 2005 calling for the creation of a new world order in order to "solve" all the world's problems by "uniting" as "one family":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbhRxmA46I&feature=related
This is nothing other than the Tower of Babel being created once again. The only way the world will be "united as one" by sinful mankind will be by totalitarian force. That is precisely what the spirit of the 605 year Inquisition was all about. "Conform (unite) with Mother Church or we will kill you, but before we do, we will torture you in order to help you come to your senses." Anyone that loves individual freedom and thought will HATE the New World Order. In my opinion, the NWO will not be possible without the help of the "leader" of one billion devout (blind) followers of the RCC.
Pope John Paul II called for a "New World Order" to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRX-KEXBvYY&feature=related
Pope Benedict called for a "One World Financial Order" back in 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6mVTDFwlPI&feature=related
The Pope not only called for a new Global Financial Authority, he called for the "redistribution of wealth" and a "Global TAX!":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YLngaw60lE&feature=related
Catherine
Don't know if you will see this - I appreciate your remark regarding the holy eucharist. I am sure that you are a sincere person and mean well.
I participated in the eucharist for many years. I was an altar boy for 8 years. I attended catholic school for 12 years. I once defended catholic doctrine as vehemently as you. I am more than familiar with RCC doctrine.
So, while I appreciate your remark - I left the church because of the man made traditions and conflicts with doctrinal issues that are at odds with the bible.
God Bless.
Tony Cox,
Thank you for your kind words, too.
I'm going to keep praying for you and everyone else on Connie's blog because we've got some rough times ahead of us. We need to pray for, and encourage one another as the Bible says.
Don't be surprised, Tony, if you find yourself back in the RCC before too long. I think God might be having you do a 'Jeff Cavins' thing. God sometimes has a really funny sense of humor, especially in His use of detours.
Catherine
P.S. Have you read any Stephen Ray?
Nike Free Cheap free shipping australia|Nike Free Run Womens Cheap shoes store
Post a Comment