‘Pope’ Claims Mary Was Conceived ‘Without Original Sin’ During Feast of Immaculate Conception

PopeROME — In one of the feasts and celebrations marked on the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar leading up to Christmas, Catholics around the world observed the Feast of Immaculate Conception on Monday, a day in which those who follow the religion commemorate their belief that Mary was born without sin.

The pontiff known as Pope Francis led Catholics in the annual observance of the holiday, delivering an Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square.

“Oh Mary, our mother, today the people of God in celebration venerates you, the immaculate, preserved from the contagion of sin from the beginning,” he prayed. “Accept the gift I offer on behalf of the church in Rome and throughout the whole world.”

“In this time that leads us to the feast of the birth of Jesus, teach us to go against the tide,” Francis continued. “The power of God’s love, which has preserved you from original sin, freed all of humanity through your intercession from every spiritual and material slavery and made the designs of God’s salvation victorious within hearts and events.”

According to the National Catholic Register, he also declared to the crowds gathered that in Mary “there was no room for sin,” because “God had chosen her to be the mother of Jesus,” which resulted in her being preserved from “original sin.”

The pontiff later venerated the Statue of the Immaculate Conception in Rome’s Piazza di Spagna and invited others to join him. The statue was created in 1857 as a mark of the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was conceived without sin.

“I ask you to spiritually unite yourselves to me in this pilgrimage, which expresses filial devotion to our heavenly mother,” he said.

  • Connect with Christian News

Francis also visited the Basilica of St. Mary Major, where he venerated the statue known as the Salus Populi Romani.

The concept of the “immaculate conception” was declared by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1844, who issued a proclamation stating, “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

But some state that the Roman Catholic holiday is unbiblical as there is no Scriptural basis to state that Mary was sinless, which is also noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“We know from Scripture that Mary must have known she was a sinner who needed a Savior when she said, ‘My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior’ (Luke 1:47),” Mike Gendron of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries told Christian News Network. “The infallible word of God declares that ‘all of sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23). Mary was no exception. God’s word tells us that sin entered the world through Adam, ‘and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Rom. 5:12).”

Gendron
Gendron

“The doctrine of Mary’s pure conception without sin is pure heresy,” he continued, adding that Catholic doctrine not only teaches that Mary was sinless, but that she has power to save. “[The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)] teaches ‘Mary did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.’ (CCC, para. 969). ‘The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things. In giving birth, you kept your virginity. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.’ (CCC, para. 966).”

Gendron said that the CCC also instructs that Mary is ” to be praised with special devotion (CCC, para, 971) and that “[s]he was the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race (CCC, para. 494).”

“The Catholic Church promises that all those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity,” he stated.

Gendron, a former Roman Catholic who now leads a ministry to evangelize Catholics, stated that these teachings are unbiblical as the Scriptures give no veneration to Mary throughout her earthly life.

“These doctrines have robbed God of His glory and have resulted in Catholics showing greater devotion to Mary than to the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “When she appears with the other believers on the day of Pentecost, she’s not an object of worship or even a leader in the early church. There are no occasions of anyone ever praying to her, honoring her or venerating her. She is never mentioned in any presentation of the Gospel.”

“Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer, Deliverer, Mediator and Advocate. He alone is to be worshiped, adored, honored and praised now and throughout all eternity!” Gendron declared. “May Catholics comes to their senses through repentance and faith in the only sinless Mediator!”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Thomas Collins Jr June

    I’m Catholic and find this disturbing of the Pope, God is the one we worship and his Son Christ the one we find our salvation from and the Holy Spirit to help guide us in worship of the Father, God. What the Pope suggests is unbiblical. God Bless.

    • Jennifer Pruitt

      I’m not Catholic, but I agree this is blasphemy! Scripture clearly states ALL have fallen short of the Glory of God and Mary is no exception. Only Jesus is the exception. Mary was chosen to be the vessel so that Jesus can come into our world and redeem us. So she has a VERY important role in all this. But still she was human.

      • BarkingDawg

        Jesus was human also.

      • MarcAlcan

        Mary was chosen to be the vessel so that Jesus can come into our world

        That is a very ill thought argument.
        God is God. He could come into the world in whatever way He wants. He did after all start from scratch with Adam and Eve. So this argument of yours is nonsense.
        It was God’s will (I repeat GOD’S WILL) that He should come into the earth by being born a human being as a human being normally has been – by being conceived by a woman and born of a woman. In short by having a Mother.
        God CHOSE, WILLLED, DECIDED to HAVE a mother.
        Mary is the Mother of God.

        If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with God’s will.

        • Joseph Essien-Obot

          Maybe you don’t realise it but God speaks to mankind always in all the events of the world. Jesus came into the world through a woman, what kind of woman tells us how he comes into the world… through our ‘yes’ to him. Mary’s ‘yes’ was so complete that God became a physical being in Jesus.

          How do you propose to make God present today? By saying something other than ‘yes’ to God?

          Our ‘yes’ is our COMPLETE submission to his will, yes, without the slightest of resistance, that’s what makes Mary the Mother of God, not that she created God but that she made God a physical reality in the world by her fiat.

          Paul said, “All have sinned”, did he mean that babies have sinned too or that adults who have grown up with severe developmental conditions are sinners too. Since Jesus was human also maybe he had also sinned.

          • James Foard

            “Mary’s ‘yes’ was so complete that God became a physical being in Jesus”? That is giving Mary nearly God-like power. Mary merely received God’s marvelous grace, as do we all. You are turning Mary’s “yes” into the initiating act, into a divine fiat, as if she had God like power and she were the active agent and God the Holy Ghost was the passive recipient, when the opposite is the case. Mary was a chosen vessel, but ultimately it was God in His sovereignty who chose the time and place of His birth. You have greatly erred. She humbly acknowledged that God had looked down on the lowly estate of His handmaid and she was awestruck.
            You have made the same mistake with Mary that Protestant faith preachers do when they try to wrest God’s sovereignty from Him with their “Word of Faith” healing and prosperity meetings.
            To HIM and Him alone be the kingdom and the power, and the honor and the glory, now and forevermore. Amen and amen.

          • MarcAlcan

            “Mary’s ‘yes’ was so complete that God became a physical being in Jesus”? That is giving Mary nearly God-like power.

            Indeed. A God-like power that God bestowed? Isn’t that precisely what grace is? You have an issue with God giving men God-like powers. He does them all the time when they give them the gift to heal, to forgive, etc.

            Mary merely received God’s marvelous grace,as do we all

            Indeed. But Mary acted on it sooooo completely because the Bible says she is FULL OF GRACE. There is no nook or crany in her soul that is not permeated by grace. Hence her yes is different to our yes. We say feeble yesses, yesses that we take back and make a No. But her yes is a completely, total abandonment to God.

            Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel, but ultimately it was God in His sovereignty who chose the time and place of His birth.

            Totally absurd. Do you say to your mother, you are nothing more than a vessel for me to come into this world?

            Mary IS the MOTHER OF GOD by GOD’S OWN CHOICE. BY GOD’S OWN WILL.

            “I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other gods beside Me.”

            And who said that Mary is another god beside God?

            If Mary had not yielded in obedience and faith to God, God could have and would have (He is sovereign) chosen someone else to carry out His plan.

            But she didn’t did she? Because she as specifically chosen by God. He made her extra special by making her FULL OF GRACE.

          • James Foard

            Mary was the Christotokos, not the Theotokos. He did not derive His Godhood from her. He did derive His humanity and His human nature from her. During the monophysite controversy the western church in opposing Nestorius erred too much in the other direction by declaring Mary to be the Mother of God; and over the centuries the Catholic church has made her the fourth member of the Triune Godhead, That, along with pedophilia and the endorsement of evolution will eventually, over the next few centuries of this millennium spell the demise of the Catholic church. It will go the way of the extinct churches in Turkey mentioned in Revelation; Laodicia, Pergamos, Ephesus, etc., they are all gone, and the Catholic church will join them, probably falling victim to an Islamic invasion of Europe, but Christ’s true church, from all tongues and nations, both those true believers inside of and outside of the doomed Roman church, will survive until He comes, for the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

          • MarcAlcan

            Mary was the Christotokos, not the Theotokos

            She is both. Mary is the one who bore God in her womb.

            During the monophysite controversy the western church in opposing Nestorius erred too much in the other direction by declaring Mary to be the Mother of God

            Erred? Who are you to declare that the council Fathers erred in that declaration?

            and over the centuries the Catholic church has made her the fourth member of the Triune Godhead

            This is a stupid assertion which does not bear one iota of support. Quite an ignorant assertion in fact.

            That, along with pedophilia and the endorsement of evolution will eventually, over the next few centuries of this millennium spell the demise of the Catholic church

            Really? You mean as compared to the ever dividing Protestantism. By the way, people have been making that assertion for so may years (in fact during her entire 2000 year history). And yet here she still is. It would be absurd to state that for by implication you are saying that either Jesus lied or Jesus is not God when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

            It will go the way of the extinct churches in Turkey mentioned in Revelation; Laodicia, Pergamos, Ephesus, etc

            Extinct Churches? These Churches are all part of the Catholic Church.

            As for your Church whatever denomination that may be that started 1600 years after Christ established His Church. Your church that was established by man will definitely become extinct. Anything man made does.

            And one more thing, leave my mother out of this.

            Why should I? If Mary was just a vessel, so is your mother. So which part of you is your mother a mother?

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            “If Mary had not yielded in obedience and faith to God, God could have and would have (He is sovereign) chosen someone else to carry out His plan.”

            I think you have answered your objection quite well!

            Before one can say ‘yes’ to anything shouldn’t there first be a proposal? God’s proposal is ever present to us mankind. Have you said your ‘yes’ today? Have offered yourself to bear Jesus in the world today? Now? That is Mary. The more perfect our ‘yes’ the more Mary we are, spouses of almighty God, sharers in the divine love of God. That ‘yes’ is Jesus in whom our salvation is.

            We are totally and utterly at the mercy of God in all this I just can’t see how God’s sovereignty is in question talk less of challenged.

          • April Sheridan

            Correct. “Mother” worship is Harlot worship (deception) Father worship through the doorway Jesus Christ and the only ones we are to turn to… period.

          • Conor Maher

            Right…..thats why we ask her to “pray” for us not have “mercy” on us. She is with God but we do not worship her as God. Not Catholic believes she is equivalent with God.

        • Joseph Essien-Obot

          Sorry @MarcAlcan:disqus my comment was meant for Jennifer above. Thanks.

      • James Grimes

        You are being stalked. Just ignore him.

      • Joseph Essien-Obot

        I mistakenly put my response to you @MarcAlcan:disqus just below. It should answer one or two things for you. Thanks.

      • Conor Maher

        We agree she is fully human. Just conceived without sin so as to be the perfect vessel to hold the Savior of the world.

    • Gary

      Don’t Catholics consider the Pope to be infallible?

      • Demopublicrat

        The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. For example, Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two “infallible” councils.

        • aleks

          The devil will not destroy evil. It will always destroy the true church. So now and then there will always come out as the evil pope, but then the true church can never be destroyed.

          • Demopublicrat

            The catholic church is not the true church.

          • patriot

            Yes it is. And you exist outside of it as a heretic

          • Demopublicrat

            The catholic church is based on the traditions of men and ignores scripture, it is NOT the true church, the true church is the body of believers.

        • James Grimes

          Excellent presentation here. I hope that the naysayers will read this. Have a blessed day.

      • pax2u

        only on statements of faith or morals which I think in 2000 years has happened 7 times

        Matt 16

        “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”…

        • Gary

          Peter was not the first pope. I know you think he was, but he was not.

          • Neiman

            Gary I have gone through this with them many times. I have shown biblically and historically why this is false; but, they will never hear the truth, they are blinded by the lies of the RCC. I am glad you stand against their errors, but just know it will go nowhere.

          • pax2u

            on this we disagree
            I have my beliefs and you have your beliefs,
            I may disagree with your beliefs, but it would be wrong for me to say that your beliefs are “lies”

          • Neiman

            It is not about what you believe or I believe, it is what God’s Word says about any matter under the Sun. All truth must be found in Jesus or it be not truth at all. It is dangerous and foolish to say I believe this or that without being able to stand on God’s Word even when your frail belief seems shaken.

            When it comes to Peter, you stand on one passage and the RCC’s interpretation of that passage, ignoring all other Scripture. (a) Does scripture ever call Peter the Pope? (b) Does Peter ever make any claim to be Christ’s Vicar on earth? (c) Do the other Apostles recognize Peter as a chief among the Apostles? For instance, who made the decision about what to say to the churches when the Jewish Christians tried to bring them under submission to the Law of Moses? Wasn’t it James? Wasn’t James recognized among the Apostles as being the Leader in Jerusalem? (d) What about Paul reproving Peter for his actions in living like a Jew among the Gentile Christians? Was Paul correcting a man he thought was the Pope?

            Well I could go on and on, but the point is before you buy into Peter being the first Pope, surely you should find more than a single passage to hang your spiritual hat upon. Let the truth be upheld by the testimony in Scripture by two or more clear witnesses or we dare not think it truth all.

            So no, if you are a disciple of Christ you do not have a right to believe anything you want, as you can impact the lives of immature Christians an lead them astray thereby.

          • pax2u

            a Catholic is asked for spriture,

            a Catholic provides scripture

            then when if it disagrees with the original question

            the Catholic is told that it is out of context

            I appreciate you opinion, and I accept your beliefs, and I am sorry if I do not agree with you, and by not agreeing with you that I am leading others astray,

            I stand on one passage,

            John 3:16

            “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

          • Neiman

            If you cannot support your beliefs solely by God’s Word, what good is that belief? It is false, it endangers your soul.

            If you lead anyone to believe in things like Mary being without sin, or Peter being the first Pope, or the Catholic Church as being God’s Church or any other of the many errors of Roman Catholicism, while not meaning to, you are surely leading them away from pure devotion to Christ and therein is everything that is anti-Christ.

            John 3:16 is God’s Word, but what does “believe” mean? The Devil and demons believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believe that anyone that do not have Him as their Savior and that they will not gain eternal life, they do believe and shudder in fear. What good does their belief do for them? They are just as surely condemned. No, you have to know what that “believe” means, it is not mere assent to Him being the Son of God. It is not just saying you believe Him to be your Savior. No, it is much more than that and until you know what belief means, from God’s Word, it is an empty thing.

          • pax2u

            I am sorry that I disagree with you and that makes everything that I believe anti Christ

          • Neiman

            I am sorry to and I am saddened that you cannot see that anyone or anything that comes between us and Christ, any devotion to anyone or anything else, any submission or surrender to anything or anyone else, is by definition, anti-Christ. It denies Him the full, absolute devotion, worship, honor, praise, thanksgiving and glory that is His alone. Even calling the Pope Holy Father is obscene in the extreme.

          • pax2u

            I understand,
            There will be many that will hate my faith and lie about my beliefs, no one comes between me and Jesus Christ, there will be some who will say that is not true, but they do not speak for me, or my beliefs,
            Many will hate and lie about my Christian faith, and I will forgive and pray for them
            There hatred and anger of my Christian beliefs are their burden and not mine
            and I understand why they belong to no Christian Church

          • Neiman

            Ah, the old pax2u, raise his ugly head again.

            I have answered this fully in two posts. Only the Holy Spirit can help you and only if you are truly converted from idols, born again of His Spirit. I am sorry, you have many other loves beside Christ and that is anti-Christ.

          • pax2u

            you can hate me, and call me names,
            I may disagree with you, but I will not say that your beliefs are anti Christ
            if you believe that I worship Idols, which I do not, that is your opinion
            I Love Jesus Christ and only worship Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is not an idol, for a Christian, and pray that you also worship Jesus Christ too

            I wish you well, in the name of my personal Savior, Lord, God, and Redeemer Jesus Christ, amen

          • Neiman

            You remain in serious error and that to the detriment of your soul. You are unteachable.

          • pax2u

            what does your denomination teach?
            you can hate me, and I will forgive you
            blessings to you

          • Neiman

            Go to the Bible, to God’s Word – that is my denomination. Try God’s Word sometime and stop being so fixated on denominations.

          • pax2u

            I read the Bible each day and have fellowship will Christians,
            I respect your beliefs, even though I may not agree with your beliefs, and I would never consider your beliefs as anti Christ, that would be hateful and wrong
            blessings to you

          • Neiman

            Satan and many a wicked minister know the Bible backwards and forwards, mostly backwards. Many an atheist scholar can put most of us to shame in quoting Scripture. Although God tells us clearly that spiritual truth is ONLY spiritually discerned and that means the Holy Spirit indwelling each believer. While babes in Christ need guidance until they learn to walk by the Spirit, we not only do not need men to tell us what God’s Word means, they can often mislead us into error.

            I did not accuse you of anything, I pointed out that the many beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are anti-Christ, anything they teach which lead souls astray from pure devotion to Christ; and if you teach those things to others, even if that is not in your heart, you are in league with the spirit of the anti-Christ. For the last time: Jesus demands He be everything in our lives from a-z, alpha to omega, first to last, beginning to end, He must be our all-in-all, He must have, He demands absolute supremacy. Thus, anything taught which does not begin and end with Him, which takes our focus off of Christ IS anti-Christ. Most of what the Catholic Church teaches are not centered on Jesus.

          • pax2u

            I realize that you have no denomination and that your beliefs are your opinion,
            some will say that my beliefs are anti Christ, and have no denominational theology other that to hate mine
            if their theology is based on hating mine, then that is their concern
            I would not say that your theological doctrine is anti Christ, since you have no denomination
            I realize that discussing theology, with someone who has no theological denomination is futile,
            I wish you well, in the name of my personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen

          • Neiman

            My beliefs are all based solely on God’s Word, NOT my opinion. That is something you simply cannot understand. The idea of looking to God through His Word alone is anathema to you, it is contrary to everything you have been taught. It amazes me that anyone calling themselves Christian could possibly want any other basis for their beliefs. I find it incomprehensible that anyone calling themselves Christian would allow anyone or anything from men to come between them and Christ. I will never understand that!

            God hates evil, if a true Christian expresses what you think, falsely, is hate; it is for “the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,” because Christians love everyone in the Catholic Church and want to see them escape such terrible error, as all these false teachings lead souls away from salvation and away from devotion to Christ alone.

            Our discussions are indeed futile in many ways, but it is not about my refusal to belong to organizations created by men; it is this clear: (a) Everything I believe is based on God’s Word alone and that everything must be centered on Christ alone; (b) while everything you believe has been filtered through the Roman Catholic Church, not based on God’s Word and is not Christ centered.

          • Rosavera

            There is more devotion to our Lord Jesus in the Catholic church than you can imagine. The mass is all about Christ… the prayers are all about Christ… teachings are all about Christ. Catholics love and adore and worship the Lord…

          • Neiman

            It is too bad that for the most part it is not the Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible. It is too bad with your adoration of Mary, turning to her as your intercessor, penance, sacraments, the Eucharist, purgatory and many other things, there is ample evidence that you cannot possibly have pure devotion to Christ and you make a mockery of His sacrifice for the full payment of our sins. But, that is your Roman Catholic Church, not really Christ centered at all.

          • Rosavera

            i really feel sorry for you Neiman… have seen your answers before and have seen how you banter your hate for anyone other than yourself. To go and explain to you that the same sacraments you demonize were given by our Lord is lost on you.

          • Neiman

            Hate is one of those words people like you use to try and silence all opposition. It is untrue, although like God I do hate sin.

            Those sacraments were were not given by the Lord, other than an encouragement to partake in communion solely to remember His sacrifice for our redemption.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            There is no biblical or historical precedent before the Radical Reformation to consider the Eucharist to be a memorial only.

          • Neiman

            I know you are not to bright, but Jesus said to do that “in remembrance of Him,” not as a literal eating His Body and literally drinking His blood. So, you are wrong again, as usual.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Speaking of insulting the intelligence, you probably should not use that tactic when you cannot even spell “too” correctly. The rest is just the equivalent of “you are wrong because I say so.”

          • Neiman

            It was an error in typing too fast!

            As usual you are in error: I Corinthians 11: “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Luke 22: “”This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

            That is not “because I say so,” it is God’s Word:

            Jesus was clearly, in context, saying: “eat this bread in remembrance of my love to you, and in commemoration of my body being offered up for you. Observe this ordinance in the manner I now institute it, in time to come, in memory of what I am about to do for you; for this direction does not only regard the present time and action, but is intended as a rule to be observed by the churches of Christ in all ages, to his second coming: and it is to be observed, that the Lord’s supper is not a reiteration, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ.”

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The appearance of the translated words “remembrance” and “memory” in the text does not mean that the authors (nor early Christians) viewed the Eucharist in a strict memorialist fashion.

            This is a presupposition you are reading back into the text because of the influence of the Radical Reformation’s interpretation on whatever exegetical tradition you grew up with or are inculcated with now without critical evaluation.

          • Neiman

            First, you have absolutely no evidence that the early Church ever thought the bread was the literal flesh/body of Christ nor that the wine was transformed into His literal blood. You are forcing something into the text you cannot substantiate.

            Remembrance: anamnesis – literally means a recollection of something. Thus it means to do this to recall to their own hearts the sacrifice of Jesus on their behalf/.

            What are Christians, cannibals that literally eat Jesus actual flesh? If according to Catholic doctrine Jesus is sacrificed anew in each occasion when we partake of the Eucharist, then Jesus did not die once, for all, but like the old Temple sacrifices, has to be sacrificed again and again untold millions of time. That makes a mockery of Calvary.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I told you before, you are conflating the concept of the Real Presence with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Since you will not acknowledge the distinction, it appear you are doing so for apologetical purposes.

          • Kristina

            http://youtu.be/NDVLBUK5FGw You might learn something.

          • patriot

            Its in the bible. Once again you are showing your ignorance. Did not many disciples abandon The Lord when he would not backdown about the eating of his flesh? Did not The Lord intensify his language to chew his flesh? Did not The Lord say my flesh is TRUE food and my blood TRUE drink? These things you deny from the bible. Didn’t paul get furious with the Corinthians when he found out they were treating the Eucharist with disrespect and allowing the dogs to eat the crumbs which were holy? You SAY you follow the bible. But you only follow yourself.

          • Neiman

            Tell me, was Jesus suggesting cannibalism? Was Jesus suggesting a literal eating of his human body? Surely, if that were true considering the untold millions of times that you Catholics claim you are eating his body in the Eucharist, he couldn’t have any flesh and blood body left by now.

            Remember, this passage below referred to, was before Communion was instituted.

            “To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that
            Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them:”

            I would also suggest that when Paul spoke about partaking of the elements of communion unworthily, he was speaking of those who had not been converted to Christ, that were committing blasphemy by participating therein. Warning them that they should search their own hearts first, making sure they had been truly converted, otherwise they would be bringing condemnation upon themselves.

          • Annette Costas Bissinger

            John 6:53″Jesus said to them, I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourself. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day. For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink…..The living Father sent me and because of him I live also. In the same way whoever eats me will live because of me….Many of his followers heard this and said,”this teaching is too hard. Who can listen to it?”….Jesus said,” The words I have spoken to you bring God’s life-giving Spirit. Yet some of you do not believe…..” because of this, many turned back and would not go with him any more. So he asked the twelve,”And you-would you also like to leave?”

          • wackyt

            Just a remembrance? If it is only in memory of then why would anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord?

          • wackyt

            “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” 1Corinthians 11:27-32

          • Neiman

            “The bread and cup are called the bread and cup of the Lord; because ate and drank in remembrance of him, being symbols of his body and of his blood, though not they themselves; these may be eaten and drank “unworthily”, when they are eaten and drank by unworthy persons, in an unworthy manner, and to unworthy ends and purposes. The Lord’s supper may be taken unworthily, when it is partook of by unworthy persons. This sense is confirmed by the Syriac version, which renders it “and is not fit for it”, or is unworthy of it, and so the Ethiopic version; now such are all unregenerate persons, for they have no spiritual life in them, and therefore cannot eat and drink in a spiritual sense; they have no spiritual light, and therefore cannot discern the Lord’s body; they have no spiritual taste and relish, no spiritual hungerings and thirstings, nor any spiritual appetite, and can receive no spiritual nourishment, or have any spiritual communion with Christ: and so are all such persons, who, though they may profess to be penitent ones, and believers in Christ, and to have knowledge of him, and love to him; and yet they have not true repentance, neither do they bring forth fruits meet for it, and so as they are improper subjects of baptism, they are unworthy of the Lord’s table; nor have they faith in Christ, at least only an historical one, and so cannot by faith eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of God, nor perform the ordinance in a way well pleasing to God; nor have they any spiritual knowledge of
            Christ, only what is speculative and notional, and so cannot discern the Lord’s body; nor any real love to him, and therefore very improper persons to feed on a feast of love; nor can they affectionately remember Christ, or do what they do from a principle of love to him, and therefore must be unworthy receivers: as likewise are all such professors, whose lives and conversations are not as become the Gospel of Christ; such crucify Christ afresh, and put him to open shame, and are therefore unfit to show forth his crucifixion and death; they bring a reproach on the Gospel and ordinances of Christ, and cause his name, and ways, and truths to be blasphemed, and grieve the members of the churches of Christ, and therefore ought not to be admitted to the table of the Lord:”

          • wackyt

            So why didn’t Jesus just call those who left him and say I only meant it as a symbol?

          • Neiman

            Don’t you recall how often Jesus told His disciples that He spoke in such a way that only those that had ears to hear would understand and that most people never would?

            “…9His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. 10And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.”

            It is that way today, most people even after reading God’s Word and sitting under strong scriptural teaching never understand, they are looking with natural eyes and cannot discern spiritual things. That is why so many even calling themselves Christian are in reality practical atheists, just keeping pews warm and why so many drift away, not wanting to understand, because it requires they change their lives.

          • wackyt

            So you are saying that John 6 is just a parable???

          • Neiman

            No, I am saying that by Jesus own words He most often spoke in ways that only the spiritually discerning could understand and all of those then or today, taking these words literally, would be among those that had/have no spiritual discernment.

          • wackyt

            I also wonder why I should take this explanation of it being a remembrance only. This explanation is not in the Bible so how do I know that it is authentic teaching from Christ??

          • Neiman

            In each case the word remembrance, meaning to recall or in memory of. Jesus was asking thanks to the Father that He sent Jesus to suffer and die for the sins of the world. There is no way that this can honestly be read, as meaning anything but thanking God for the gift and asking His disciples to do it often, even daily in remembrance of His sacrifice.

            19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do thisin remembrance of Me.” Luke 22

            “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” I Corinthians 11:24

            “this is not to be understood of any consecration of the bread by a certain form of words, changing its nature and property, and converting it into the body of Christ; but either of asking a blessing of his Father upon it, that whilst his disciples were caring of it, their faith might be led to him, the bread of life, and to his broken body, and spiritually feed and live on him, and receive spiritual nourishment from him; or else of giving thanks to his Father for what was signified by it, for the true bread he gave unto his people, meaning himself; and for that great love he showed in the gift and mission of him; and for the great work of redemption, and all the benefits of it he had sent him to procure,. . .”

          • wackyt

            I find it odd that you do not use Scripture to defend your position. When Catholics use something outside of the Bible non-Catholics will charge that they must find it in the Bible and when they do use Scripture it is charged that is not what that means. So my question is where is your authority to interpret Scripture? What if someone else who is non-Catholic has a different interpretation of Scripture who is correct? God bless.

          • Neiman

            I did use scripture and highlighted in bold the key word – remembrance

            Then I offered the words of John Gill, from his highly respected, albeit non-Catholic, commentary as a more expert opinion.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Of course you did. Gill was a Calvinist whose Eucharistic theology was firmly in line with the tradition of the Radical Reformation of Zwingli.

          • Neiman

            Of course I did what?

            I did offer scripture, challenging the assertion that I did not.

            I offered my own comments.

            Then I offered the words of Gill and I do so only when I believe they in line with God’s Word, I compare them to Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke and others, if his analysis seems to bear up well with my own thoughts on Scripture and is better stated, I use his words to bring clarity to the matter and avoid making my opinion the only response.

            If you do not like it – tough. I will answer as I choose not you and let the devil (you) take the hindmost.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Calling me “the devil” must be another example of how you do not show hatred towards Catholics and those whom you perceive to be Catholic.

          • Neiman

            I know this is beyond your intellectual capacity and your general ignorance of God’s Word; but, Jesus called your falsely called first Pope Satan – as Peter was then, on that one occasion, as you often are, in league with the Devil. Fortunately, Peter thus reproved repented by changing direction and getting in line with God’s Will.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            When all else fails, make devil allusions. *yawn*

          • pax2u

            Neiman if the Catholic Church proclaims the Christian Trinity and that Jesus Christ is the Savior, Redeemer, and God

            and you believe that the Catholic Church is Pagan

            then unless you are a Pagan, you can not believe in the Christian Trinity, or that Jesus Christ is the Savior, Redeemer or that Jesus Christ is God

            otherwise you are a hypocrite

          • Neiman

            I have answered this in detail many times, I am tired of you ignoring what I write, never mounting an intelligent challenge and just repeating your asinine charges over and over again.

          • pax2u

            you can hate me, you can hate my faith
            you can lie about me, you can lie about my faith

            but I will continue to believe that you are a Christian, even when you do not believe that I am your Christian brother

            I wish you well, and forgive you your hatred against me

            Merry Christmass

          • Neiman

            A. If I hated you, I would not waste my time with your childish games.
            B. I have never lied about you – never.
            C. I have never lied about the Catholic Faith.
            D. I have made no determination your Christian faith.
            E. I do not need your forgiveness, I have not sinned against you.

          • pax2u

            as you hate me I will forgive you

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The hubris is strong in this one.

          • Neiman

            You do realize I don’t care what you think about anything, right?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You seem to care since you cannot respond to me without flying off the hook and resorting to playground name-calling.

          • pax2u

            he considers himself to be a Christian

            but filled with so much anger and hatred

            I am finding any attempt of a theological doctrine with someone like him who has no denominational doctrine, and a theology of hating Catholics futile

          • pax2u

            as is his hatred of Christians

          • pax2u

            Catholics do not worship Mary as God.
            When someone states that pray to Mary as a God it is a lie

            I ask you to pray for me, but I am not worshiping you as God, sorry but you are not God

            “I have made no determination your Christian faith”

            are you trying to say that you have made no determination ABOUT my Christian faith?

            but you post this

            “I hate the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church”

            oh noes, that is not making a determination

            I do forgive you

          • Neiman

            Luke 4: “It is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'”

            This below is both prayer to and worship of Mary:

            “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou
            amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

            As I have not sinned against you, there is nothing to forgive.

            I have made a determination about the false teachings of the Catholic Church – the TEACHINGS! It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian personally. It is sad you are so ignorant that you cannot tell the difference.

          • pax2u

            “D. I have made no determination your Christian faith.”

            and you post “Jesus called your falsely called first Pope Satan – as Peter was then, on that one occasion, as you often are, in league with the Devil.”

          • Neiman

            We are all, like Peter, on occasion more in harmony with Satan than with God, but it does not mean we are not God’s children, just that we all get into the flesh and oppose God on occasion – yes your holiness, that includes you. I have made no secret of my opposition to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, it says nothing about determining whether or not an individual Catholic is saved.

            I have a denomination, I am a Born Again Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, the only true Church. Your continuing to lie and accuse me of hating Catholics speaks more of a deficit in your character and your judgmental spirit, than it says about me.

            Why, since I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Roman Catholic and do not attend Mass and have asked you to stop wishing that I have a good Mass, do you keep doing it?

          • pax2u

            I for give you

            Merry Christmass

          • wackyt

            Oh, I see. So if I, as a Catholic, were to give you an interpretation of some belief from a highly respected theologian you would accept it even though it does not use Scripture to defend the position???

          • Neiman

            I hate dishonesty!

            You know that:(1) I gave two scriptural passages with highlights.(2) I opened with my own comments on those passages. (3) I then offered the comments of a respected theologian.scholar only to give supporting commentary to my own interpretations, to show that I was not speaking from left field.

            So, you know I did not rely solely on this theologian/scholar. His comments were under bold text from the actual passage.

          • wackyt

            St. Ignatius:

            “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

            “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

          • wackyt

            S. Justin Martyr

            “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

            “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

          • wackyt

            St. Cyprian

            “The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”,

            Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

          • wackyt

            The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

            “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred'”.

            -Ch. 9:5

            “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'”

          • Neiman

            First, let me say that I cannot find any scriptural support for any man or organization of men conveying special sainthood on anyone. I do see where all believers are referred to as being saints. So, you will pardon me if I do not see this man as any special saint deserving of that title.

            While it is alleged that Ignatius was a contemporary of the Apostle John and I am not saying that is not true, that does not mean he could not be wrong, overzealous or have later been corrupted in his understandings.

            “After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine.

            “And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26-29).

            After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), he said, “But
            I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was his literal blood? He called it wine. [Will He drink His own literal blood and ingest His own literal flesh in Heaven?]

            “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the breador drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (1 Cor. 11:23-28).

            If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ?

            The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the
            participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

            “Foras for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.” (Lev. 17:14).

            Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.”

            I would encourage you to read the whole article here: http://carm.org/transubstantiation

            Then see how good you can do in refuting what is taught here.

          • wackyt

            ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

            St. Ignatius (A.D. 110) was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John.

            Ignatius was bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajen (98-117), an unyielding persecutor of the Christian Church. Behind the Apostles, St. Ignatius is perhaps the most famous name associated with the early Church. However, little is known about his life or his career as bishop. What we do know of him stems from his writings, in particular the seven epistles Ignatius wrote on his way to his death. At around the year 110 A.D., Trajen sentenced Ignatius to death by exposure to the wild beasts in the arena.

            During his journey from Antioch to Rome for his martyrdom, Ignatius wrote seven letters addressed to the Christians in the communities of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, all of which were along the journey’s path. These seven letters tell little of his life, but do reveal his love of the Church, his desire for Church unity, his hatred of schism and heresy, and his desire for martyrdom for the sake of Christ.

            In his letter to the Romans, Ignatius writes: “I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beast, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.” (Ch. 4)

            St. Ignatius was the first to use the term “Catholic Church”. For Ignatius, a Church without the episcopacy was impossible. His letters present a clear view of the hierarchical and monarchical structure of the Church: “Where the bishop is, there let the people be, as were Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. The letters of Ignatius are filled with warnings against false doctrines and false teachers. In particular, he wrote out against the Docetists, who denied the humanity of Christ and ascribed to Him a phantom body.

            Ignatius passionately affirmed both the humanity and divinity of Christ and proclaimed that if Christ died only in appearance, then his suffering and his willingness to give up his own life for the glory of Christ would have no meaning. Flowing from this passion for unity and Truth in proclaiming the humanity and divinity of Christ, Ignatius commented extensively on the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist offered to all through His suffering, death and resurrection.

            In his Eucharistic teachings, Ignatius emphasizes the need for unity in the belief in the True Presence of Christ, reveals that the early church believed the Eucharistic celebration was a true sacrifice, and that a valid Eucharist if conferred by a priest under the authority of the bishop. Through these important writings, St. Ignatius left a powerful proclamation and extensive history of early Church dogma and history

          • wackyt

            “Foras for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.” (Lev. 17:14).

            This is precisely why the disciples left Jesus for His teaching on “eating His body and drinking His blood.”

          • Neiman

            So you admit you cannot refute the arguments offered against your Church’s interpretation of the Eucharist. So, you mount a wholly different defense based on your falsely called Saint Ignatius.

            There was no Roman Catholic Church until 350-500 years after the Resurrection of Christ.

          • wackyt

            History shows that the early church was Catholic and partook of the Eucharist. If there was no Catholic Church until 350-500 years after the Resurrection how do you account for these men testifying to the authority of the Catholic Church? And my other reply must not have shown up but the whole reason why the disciples left Jesus was because of Leviticus.

          • Neiman

            If that is all you have, you have nothing.

            The word catholic meant universal, it did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church which did not exist. It did not come into being until at the earliest A.D. 325 under Constantine. But, that is not the subject, it is the Eucharist, which you cannot defend.

          • wackyt

            You are correct. The word catholic does mean universal and is representative of the Catholic church. The same Mass that every Catholic participates in is the same world-wide. I can go to a Mass in Hong Kong and it would be the same Mass here in the U.S.

            If the Catholic Church did not exist before 325 how do you explain the many Fathers of the Church that history records as bishops, & priests some even being taught by the Apostles themselves? Their writings that I gave to you teach on following the Bishop and on the Eucharist among other things. Shall I list them again?

          • Neiman

            Bishops. elders, deacons did not mean robed priests with vestments and holding a mass, they were leaders in the local assemblies to which people could appeal to settle disputes, to lay hands on the sick and generally keep order. They were not connected to some greater church organization, only in their local communities.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I guess that leaves out the Southern Baptist Convention, too.

          • Neiman

            Liar! I simply said you could not connect those early bishops, etc to the Roman catholic Church.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” This is not first grade and we are not arguing on the playground. If your assertion was to hold any water, the SBC would be counted among the umbrella organizations that are left out.

          • Neiman

            When you lie about what I have written, I will call you out as a liar. Don’t like it, leave me alone or stop lying.

            You were trying to connect these early bishops to the Roman Catholic Church. I simply told you they were not those kind of bishops, they were not priestly royalty. Like your priests wearing special clothing and vestments and jewels nor lording it over the people like your Pope being treated like royalty, when Jesus did none of these things and he said you would not find His ministers lording it over the people or seeking to be seen and called father or rabbi, but humble, poor servants of the people. Not their lords, not demanding obedience to them, but washing their feet so to speak.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Neiman: “You were trying to connect these early bishops to the Roman Catholic Church.”

            How was I trying to connect them to the Roman Catholic Church? In your zeal to one-up me, you totally disregarded the fact that I criticized your smearing of St. Ignatius simply because you associate him with Catholicism and do not agree with canonization. How is lying about whom now?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Neiman: “I simply told you they were not those kind of bishops, they were not priestly royalty. Like your priests wearing special clothing and vestments and jewels nor lording it over the people like your Pope being treated like royalty…”

            This is further failure to address the specifics of my replies because you conflate everything I say into the anti-Catholic strawman that you think is easier to knock off. I said nothing like this about bishops or priests. Nor did I say anything about the Pope or associate him with my beliefs regarding church leadership.

          • wackyt

            “Let no one do anything relating to the Church, except in dependence on the bishop. Let only that eucharist be regarded as legitimate that is celebrated under the presidency of the bishop or someone the bishop appoints. Wherever the bishop is, there let the community be, just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. Only in dependence on the bishop is it permitted for anyone to baptize or celebrate the agape; whatever he approves is also pleasing to God” St. Ignatius

          • wackyt

            For Ignatius, the bishop is the exemplar of the imitation and identity of Christ. With the exception of the church of Rome, Ignatius admonishes every church to remain in union and solidarity with their respective bishop.Not only is the Christian to imitate Christ, but is strive to resemble also their bishop. In fact, Ignatius sees the bishop as bearing in his own person Christ himself: “Therefore it is clear that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself” For Ignatius, the office of bishop serves as a symbol of unity and the guarantor of the sacrificial presence of Christ in the church.

          • wackyt

            St. Augustine says: This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head..Such is the sacrifice of Christians: “we who are many are one Body in Christ.” The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered.”

          • Neiman

            He was wrong.

            Was he an apostle? Where is his gospel or epistle in the canon of scripture? If he was not an eyewitness to Christ from the beginning of His ministry until His appearances after the Resurrection, he has no authority*. Lastly, there was no Roman Catholic Church or such organization, so catholic had to mean universal Christian Church and not the RCC.

            * The exception was Luke who investigated all the matters relating to Christ from direct eyewitnesses and having it all confirmed by living Apostles.

          • wackyt

            Was not the faith handed down to others?? St. Ignatius (A.D. 110) was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John.
            This is the early church.

          • Neiman

            This is all Catholic Church tradition, not documented historical fact. It was created out of the attempts of Rome to make the Catholic Church appear to be linked to Peter, It is not objective, documented fact.

          • wackyt

            Sorry, you are wrong. Look it up. The early Church Fathers were real and what they said was real….they believed in the real Presence of the Eucharist and they passed this belief on. Will you be one of the disciples that left Jesus for only a symbol?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Even more evidence that you cannot consider church history or its various figures apart from your polemical opposition to Roman Catholicism.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Then why not approach church history and the church fathers with the understanding that “catholic” refers to the universal, undivided church?

            Despite your protestations about it not referring to Roman Catholicism, you keep conflating it with the RCC in order to carry on your anti-Catholic apologetics. Don’t you see the irony in that?

          • wackyt

            I am sure you are tired of talking about this as am I, but I wanted to point out that when I made the statement referring to the Early Church and Apostolic Church Fathers who were only maybe 100 years removed from Christ and some were taught by the Apostle John you chided me as not to have any evidence of such people even though these are recorded historic letters written to the Christians at the time. However, you feel perfectly fine in giving me a discourse written by a man some 2000 years removed from Christ on HIS opinion about the Eucharist. That is the hypocrisy of those on these boards trying to convince Catholics they are wrong….any scripture verse we use is wrong and any commentary we use is not useful because it isn’t from the Bible. Where does your authority come from? YOU have become your own pope and your own church.

            Have a peaceful rest of Advent as we await the coming of Christ.
            Maranatha!

          • Neiman

            I will continue to think the Roman Catholic Church is apostate and harmful, I have not stated anything against their teachings that I know to be untrue. I will continue to look to brothers in Christ whom I think have God’s Wisdom as sources of knowledge I can trust, for encouragement and prayer, while my only guide in all things spiritual is God’s Word alone.

            I do not need a Pope or priest – I have Jesus Christ living in me by His Spirit and in Him I have direct access to my Heavenly Father, wherein He can answer all my needs for Wisdom and Knowledge. I have His Word and the Spirit of Christ as my Counselor, Teacher, Guide, source of Divine Wisdom; and, He can through His Word guide me into all Truth. I need no mere mortals, who are just as frail, just as sinful, just as weak as am I. So pardon me if I look to NO man nor organization, but only look to God for everything needful for life here and now and for all eternity. I have no need for penance, the sacraments, the Mass or anything or anyone but Christ Jesus, I am already saved, already in Spirit seated in heavenly places in Christ, already forgiven for every sin and when I lean to the flesh, an all-powerful advocate before God in Christ Jesus.

          • wackyt

            And I will continue to know and believe in the One, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church founded on Jesus Christ handed down throughout the ages from the Apostles and I will continue to be fed by His Holy Body and Blood that He has given us (in the Bible). Altar call?? Yes!! We have the ultimate altar call each time we go forward to the altar of the Lord to receive Him in the Eucharist. Sinner’s prayer? (which is not found in the Bible). Yes!! We confess our sins which IS found in the Bible (John 20:22).

            “So pardon me if I look to NO man” But you do and stated it above so don’t be misleading.

          • Neiman

            Please educate me and tell me what man I look to?

          • pax2u

            Christians pray for Neiman

          • wackyt

            I am pretty sure that you do not only look at Scripture and no where else to come up with your beliefs, because you quoted a Calvanist, Gill, to back up your claim about the Eucharist. ( I would rather listen to a follower of Jesus, himself than someone from this time period) I am sure you look to other commentators to reinforce your own belief. So how is that Sola Scriptura? (which isn’t in the bible) But you will not allow a Catholic to have other resources to back up their claims. That is hypocrisy. You are not the only one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ for No one can call Jesus Lord with out having the Holy Spirit within him. No one is challenging your faith so why do you feel you the need to challenge a Catholic? The One, Holy and apostolic Catholic Church has survived for 2000 years because the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail” and it will survive the likes of you. Have a blessed day!

          • Neiman

            I have my beliefs from God’s Word and I do not refer to the work of others unless they are in harmony with what I have gleaned directly from God’s Word and by my trusting in the Holy Spirit. It is scripture alone, but surely others of greater knowledge can better express what I already believe and that is not trusting them for the truth, just better ways of explaining what I already believe. When anyone like Gill strays from what I already know to be the Truth, I do not use their work.

            I never said Catholics cannot use the works of others, I just have a right to reject them when I believe they are not in harmony with God’s Word.

            “No one can call Jesus Lord with out having the Holy Spirit within him. What about Jim Jones? What about demons that recognize Jesus as the Lord, not their Lord, but the Lord?

            I will not argue any more about your Roman Catholic Church, I reject them as being a very heterodox Church in their teachings.

          • wackyt

            “What about Jim Jones” I am sure you will have an interpretation for the Scripture (“No can call Jesus Lord…) even though in 2Peter1:20 it says: “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.” and in Acts 8:26-32 the Ethiopian eunuch needed someone to help him understand scripture and to Phillip he responds: “…how can I unless someone instructs me?”

            You continue to call Christ’s Church as false. In Luke11:14-23 Jesus says to those who believe he is of Satan: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste and house will fall against house. And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand….” The Catholic Church has stood against time for over 2000 years and has been the forefront to the legal system in the U.S., has built charities, hospitals, universities , and missions throughout the world. The Catholic Church has given us the Bible and the first to print the Bible. And yes, the Sacraments that were instituted by Christ to give grace:

            “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:20-22)

            “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.” I ask you, are you doing God’s will by persecuting His church?

            Peace to you during this Holy Advent Season.

          • Neiman

            Jim Jones called Jesus the Lord, but he led 900 people into hell. So, simply confessing Him is not enough, there has to be an accompanying conversion to Christ from idols and a new birth in His Spirit. So, just calling Jesus Lord is not proof of salvation, He has to be Lord in truth..

            I have no private or personal interpretation of Scripture. I rely on God’s Word.

            Yes, I deny everything you said about the Roman Catholic Church.

            Water baptism? Then the good thief was not saved, Jesus lied, as He promised the good thief he would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day. So, there must be more to these words than your church would insist is true. I am not against water baptism.

            I am not persecuting His Church, he tells us His Church is the Body of Christ, made up of every born again child of God, His Church is Spiritual, not of this earth, it is not any man-made ecclesiastical organization. I am a part of His true Church, His Body, by virtue of my new birth in Christ, which has NOTHING to do with the Roman Catholic organization.

          • wackyt

            Yes, I know that Jim Jones had the Spirit of Satan in him. I was not disputing that. What I am disputing is YOUR interpretation of scripture. “relying on God’s Word” is that not interpretating?

            The eunuch needed help in understanding Scripture and the APOSTLE Phillip helped him to understand. You may be a very well read man, but you are not an Apostle. That authority has been passed down to Christ’s Church. It had to be, because just like in any family there are divisions and Christ pleaded before He died that they will all be one. In John 14:26 Jesus promises us: “…the Advocate will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”

            How else do you explain so many divisions in the Christian Church. There are huge differences between them. How does this entice others to become a Christian when there is so much division?

            You still have not explained how after over 2000 years the Catholic Church remains. If it was Satan it could not proclaim the Gospel or anything else. You deny historical evidence of the Catholic Church existing right after the Ascension? There are written documents showing to that affect which I gave you earlier. These are real men who were Bishops, priests and popes proclaiming the Gospel and also baptizing in Jesus’ Name as was instructed by Jesus to do in the Great Commission Mark 16:14-18

            The reason it remains strong is that She is the One, True, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church that Christ instituted. Why else would in Acts 2:20-26 after Judas killed himself they needed to “…another take his office.” These “offices” continue to this day.

            The thief on the cross was baptized…with desire. There are three kinds of Baptism: by water, by blood, and/or by desire. If you truly believe in Jesus Christ and want to be baptized but something happens and you die before you do then you are saved. God knows the heart.

            And one final note. If Jesus was against any organized religion why did he not tell his followers to stay way from the Jewish religion. But, Jesus practiced it himself. In fact, instead of telling them not to follow the scribes and Pharisees he said instead in Matt 23:3 “The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example….”The seat of Moses is authority. In Isaiah 22 it explains more of the binding and loosing that was given to those in authority. Did the seat of Moses just disappear? It was handed down to the Pope.

            Have a blessed day as we prepare for the coming of The Christ Child once again this Christmas time.

          • Neiman

            Believe whatever you want, stay with Roman Catholicism, no amount of arguing will ever change your mind. You will answer to God and not to me or my beliefs.

            I will try and make this quick:

            1. No relying on God’s Word is not interpreting anything. II Peter 1: “…20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” If we cannot by meditating on God’s Word and dependence upon the Holy Spirit come to an understanding of Divine Truth as His children, we dare not trust any man to do it for us, as all men are sinners, frail, finite and whatever they say, it will be corrupted by the flesh. If the Word and the Spirit are not sufficient, then Christianity is a lie, as God is impotent.

            2. John 14:26 speaks of the Holy Spirit, not any man nor any ecclesiastical organization. Phillip was taught by Christ and was empowered by the Holy Spirit, it is the Spirit that gave him the knowledge and wisdom. All true believers have that same Holy Spirit, that Advocate living within them and this word from Christ is for all believers, not just the Apostles: John 16: “13”But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…”

            3. The reason why there are so many differences is because men, just like in the Roman Catholic Church, not leaning on the Holy Spirit think they have hold of the Truth alone, it is the vanity of the flesh. But, two other things apply: (1) When it comes to the fundamentals of the faith, the Gospel of Salvation, every member of the only true Church – being the Body of Christ, are in perfect harmony. (2) Jesus said few would come into the Kingdom, that the mass of men would reject Him. But, to suggest even one soul that is intended for salvation will not see the Truth and gain salvation is to deny the Power of Christ to bring all His sheep into the sheepfold. Again, that says Jesus lacks the Power to get His Word to every soul predestined for salvation and again, that says Christianity is a lie.

            4. The Roman Catholic Church has not been in existence for 2000 years. It did not come into being until about 350-500 years after the Resurrection. The self serving history as created and written by the Roman Catholic Church is false. There is no connection to Peter or the early Church at all. The early church was referred to as universal (catholic) not an organization, but in Spirit.

            5. There were 12 Apostles, the requirement as Peter pointed out is that from Psalms that only the office of Judas be filled (Maybe the Pope is a Judas) and the requirement for such an Apostle was “21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,” Let me note that no Pope ever accompanied the Apostles from the time that Jesus was ministering among them in the Flesh. I will also point out that when we see Heaven, in Revelations, there are thrones for the 12 Patriarchs and the 12 Apostles – all Jews. No Pope has been a Jew and further, if each Pope succeeded Peter as an Apostle of the Lord, then there would be many, many more thrones.

            6. About the good thief, who was not good by the way, he also at first hurled insults at Jesus and was a gross, self confessed sinner. He was not baptized in water and thus it cannot be a requirement for salvation, albeit I am certainly not against water baptism solely as a public confession of an inner faith.

            7. You and most Christians, certainly all non-Christians, cannot separate Judaism and Christianity, nor understand that Jesus was fulfilling the Law for us and that He was the end of the Law. Romans 10: “. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” They and you do not understand that Jesus was mostly dealing with the Jews, showing them by most every word, the utter impossibility of gaining salvation through the Law. When He spoke of Jews obeying the Jewish religious leaders, it is part of God’s order that we obey those in authority over us, whether religious or civil, but only as is fitting in the Lord.

          • wackyt

            You are correct, I will stay with the One True Faith that Christ instituted and has been practiced for over 2000 years. Which, by the way, did not fall because of being of Satan as some have suggested. It will remain until the end of these ages. And you will follow yourself who may be very sincere in your beliefs, but they are still only your beliefs along with the other thousands and thousands of other denominations who do have great differences in their doctrine. You do not have the authority to interpret Scripture. We are all given the Holy Spirit to allow us to understand things but not to make doctrine.

            Have a blessed day!

          • Neiman

            One things is true – as our beliefs about Christ and Salvation so completely oppose each other, one of us cannot be saved. That is the Truth!

          • wackyt

            Hmmm,… You have the mind of Christ? You know the state of souls in others? I think I would think long and hard before stating that because how you judge others will be measured out and given to you. I will pray for you.

          • Neiman

            No you are being emotional.

            We both believe entirely different about the way to salvation, is there more than one way? Yes, I forgot, your Pope said even good atheists will get to heaven without Christ. Anyway, if we both see the way to salvation differently, one of us has to be wrong and then that person cannot possibly be saved. It is not judging any particular person, it is stating the truth, Jesus did not offer more than one way to salvation. So, whichever of us is wrong, we cannot be saved.

            I am not asking for your prayers.

          • wackyt

            See, there you go twisting what the pope said. We do not know what happens at the time of death. You are not God even though you seem to think so. And, no, I am not emotional. I am completely even keel and you need prayers.

          • pax2u

            we all pray for your eternal soul

            Merry Christmass

          • pax2u

            poor Neiman has decided who will be saved

            Neiman to pax2u 2 days ago
            ” when I say you pray to Mary and worship her and give evidence and make an argument, a reply of just no you don’t is not an argument. ”
            so to deny a lie is not an argument? what?

            Neiman refuses to understand the difference between to honor and to worship

          • pax2u

            do not dare pray for Neiman or wish him a merry Christmass,

            since he attended a seminary, which he will not name the denomination, and wrote a dissertation which he can not reference, and has no denominational doctrine and a theology that only consists of hating the Catholic Church, only he knows who will be saved, not Jesus, but Neiman

          • wackyt

            I think the amount of persecution the Church receives is further proof of her authenticity and there is plenty of persecuting going on these days.

          • pax2u

            bless you for your kindness to Neiman

            he has decided that he is saved and Catholics can not be saved, so very sad, he is filled with hatred

            watch out if you wish him a merry Christmas, his mr scrooge rage with appear

          • pax2u

            Merry Christmass to you

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Neiman,
            What if I showed you that limiting your sole guide on God’s Word is not found in the Sacred Scriptures?

            Saint Paul said that the Church was “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (cf. 1Tim.3:15), not the Bible.
            He also told the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (cf. 2Thess.2:15). So, the early Church had traditions, and, they were not all written down.
            Finally, he said, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (cf. 2Tim.3:16-17).

            Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible, says that the Bible is our sole authority when it comes to God.
            Your brother in Christ, Nick

          • Neiman

            The Church
            Ephesains 5“23 For cthe husband is the head of the wife even as dChrist is the head of the church, his body, and is ehimself its Savior.”

            Ephesians 1“22 And dhe put all things under his feet and gave him as ehead over all things to the church, 23 fwhich is his body, gthe fullness of him hwho fills iall in all.”

            It is a common and most grievous error among Christians that they so often confuse the term “church,” with a building or an ecclesiastical organization or a particular group of Christians. It is not, the Church is the Body of Christ, it is Spiritual, it is not a place or entity on earth, it is the sum total of all members of His Body, all true believers. Yes, true believers, those born again in Christ, may gather together and where they are, small or large in number, they represent the Church, but “the Church” is all the members of His Spirit Body.

            Thus the Body of Christ, the mystical Church, is pillar and ground of all Truth, not any man made entity.

            The traditions (paradosis – teachings/doctrines)
            Means the truths of the Gospel delivered by the Apostles, which may be called traditions, as they were delivered from person one to another; the Gospel was first delivered by God the Father to Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and by him to his apostles, and by them to the various local congregations of Christians; whence it is called
            the form of doctrine delivered to them, and the faith once delivered to the saints: and also the ordinances of the Gospel which the apostles received from Christ, and as they received them faithfully delivered them, such as baptism and the Lord’s supper; as well as rules of conduct and behavior we are called to observe both in the church, and in the world, even all the commandments of Christ, which he ordered his apostles to teach.

            Most of the traditions observed in the many congregations and organized ecclesiastical organizations are in fact pagan and/or man made, most of them not finding any warrant in the Word of God. Just think about it, anyone can start something and after a time it becomes a tradition. Can’t you see that unless that tradition or teaching is not clearly taught in the Bible, God’s Word, it can never be trusted when taught by any man on earth, as all men are sinners, all corrupt, all frail, finite and subject to error?

            So, yours and the Roman Catholic Church definition of the Church is wrong, it is not a building or any ecclesiastical organization, it can only be the Body of Christ, wherever such members may be found, on earth or in Heaven and subject to only one Head, which Is Jesus Christ the Lord. Further, these traditions are first and foremost the Gospel of Jesus as our Savior and Lord, then only those teachings by Him or the Apostles within the written word in the Gospels or Epistles which were then passed on becoming traditions in that sense, but only as they are clearly found in God’s Word – it can never originate outside God’s Word. As Jesus is the Word (Head and Body) and traditions can only be based on the written Word of God held in the New Testament – oops, I was right, we can only depend on God’s Word, the Living Word which is Christ and the written Word which is the Gospels and Epistles.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I answered this reply in a new thread, too.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Neiman,
            Were you able to find my replies? I hope that you’re able to respond. God Bless!

          • Neiman

            No I did not.

          • pax2u

            I apologize to you that you do not believe that I am a Christian

            I forgive you

            Merry Christmass

          • pax2u

            Merry Christmass

          • pax2u

            are you Once Saved Always Saved?

          • pax2u

            I am glad that you had the opportunity to attend your denomination’s religious service today, TOO bad that you can not recall any Bible readings, oh well

          • Neiman

            Grow up!

          • pax2u

            I pray that you may some day become a Christian
            Merry Christmass

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            “Falsely called Saint Ignatius?” Please explain your reasons for saying he is falsely called saint. Just because he mentions the archbishop of Rome, and you happen to hate what you perceive to be “Roman Catholic” with every fiber of your being, does not mean that he is falsely called saint or is not a saint.

          • Neiman

            I did, I cannot help your abysmal reading comprehension problems.

            There is no passage of Scripture which teaches that any man or organization of men have any right to elevate any human being to special saint status. In scripture, every believer is called a saint.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Nah, you are just dumping on him because you associate him with Roman Catholicism and its practice of canonizing saints.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, poo-pooing Transubstantiation is all fine and dandy, but you have demonstrated before that you have no idea what the difference between that, the Real Presence, and strict memorialism is.

            You assume memorialism is the only correct understanding because A) “remembrance” and cognate words appear in the English text; and B) you have accepted uncritically the radical Protestant tradition concerning the Eucharist.

          • Neiman

            You are wrong!

            Go to the link, read the whole article, refute it or go on with your cannibalism Eucharist. When Jesus instituted communion, did He rip off pieces of His flesh and bleed Himself? Remember He was not yet crucified.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Again, predictably you launch into an anti-Catholic screed that ignores the problems I brought up and simply conflates Transubstantiation with all other concepts of the Eucharist.

          • pax2u

            I am happy that you hate

            dishonesty

            Catholics do not worship Mary, those who say that they do are dishonest

          • Neiman

            “Hail Mary full of grace, etc” on your knees, repeated over and over in a posture of prayer and it is not worship. That strains all credibility.

            I hate no one and you cannot prove any dishonesty on my part – so you just keep lying.

          • pax2u

            Luke 1:28

            …27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.…

          • Neiman

            Was Elizabeth kneeling in a posture or prayer? Did she repeat these phrases over and over again in worship of Mary? Is the Lord is with you comparable to “Hail Mary mother of God?” Or was it the “Lord” a title for their savior, rather than Mary giving birth to deity? It is hardly the same thing, sorry.

          • pax2u

            the Angel of God spoke to Mary

            Neiman,

            you can hate me, you can hate my faith
            you can lie about me, and you can lie about my faith

            I will still forgive you, and I will still pray for you

            Merry Christmass

          • pax2u

            I pray for you Neiman, but not to you Neiman, you are not God, sorry but you really are not God, maybe you think that you are a god, but you are not THE GOD

            Merry Christmass

          • Neiman

            I do not want your prayers nor your wishes that I have a merry Catholic Mass.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Wow, such charitable words for a fellow Christian who worships the same God and magnifies the same Christ as you.

          • pax2u

            I will pray to the Christian God Jesus Christ to forgive you your hatred and lies of Christians, amen

            Merry Christmass

          • Neiman

            A) You constantly lie about what I have said and I should think prayers are of any value?

            B) Even though I have said I am not now nor will ever be a Roman Catholic and do not believe in the Mass and have asked you to stop, you think your prayers are of any value to me?

            You have shown your hate by your lies and so pardon me, but I have no idea what god you pray to, no matter what names you pretend to use and thus have no desire for your prayers.

          • pax2u

            sorry, too late, you can hate me and call me a son of Satan, and I will forgive you and say that you are a child of God

            Merry Christmass

          • pax2u

            I am sorry mr scrooge

          • Neiman

            It is not being a scrooge to not want the prayers of a liar and one who offends me by wishing me a merry Mass, when I have asked you to stop.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Good grief, one would think, by your reaction, that he wished you a merry Ramadan or Satan’s Day!

          • Neiman

            When people lie about what I say, twist my every word, attack me and deliberately offend me like both of you do and send dozens of posts each day; why should I desire their prayers, as Jesus would never act like that towards anyone.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Again, that is only your rhetorical reconfiguration of what I have said. It can be consistently documented that you react towards people questioning your assumptions and interpretations by acting like a victim and saying they are attacking you. Then you proceed to denigrate their intelligence and mental status.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I’m sorry, Neiman, but that is not how 1st Century, A.D., Jews would have understood “do this in remembrance of Me.” Especially, in the context of Pasch (Passover meal).
            The Passover meal was a re-living of that night in Egypt, when the LORD smote the first-born of Egypt, passing over those who sprinkled the blood of the lamb on their doorposts (with a hyssop branch, cf. John 19:29).
            And, what did they have to do with the lamb?
            They had to…EAT the Lamb. Which is why Saint John refers to Christ as the Lamb of God in his Gospel.

            Also, it’s not cannibalism because we receive Christ’s Glorified, Resurrected Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Which is why it remains under the appearance of mere bread and wine. It is spiritual food, like the manna in the desert (cf. 1Cor.10:1-4); not the physical body of Christ before His Resurrection. Christ’s Glorified Body was both physical (He showed the Apostles His wounds (Jn.20:20) and ate fish (Lk.24:43)); and, spiritual (He appeared through walls and they thought He was a ghost (Lk.24:36ff)).
            God Bless!

          • Neiman

            To continue this debate, in my opinion, not just with you but everyone here, has descended into a vain disputation that is dishonoring to Christ and I am not free of guilt. I believe that I have more than proven my case against many Roman Catholic teachings; and, of course, you will disagree with that conclusion. We can go on and on comparing Scripture to Scripture, offering our own opinions on what those passages actually mean and we will never agree, not on the slightest point. Further, as I tried to present my case in defense of Christ, no matter how I desire it otherwise it only serves to offend Roman Catholics and that to no positive end.

            While I will continue to believe that the Roman Catholic Church has mixed in paganism and many false teachings, liberally salted with Scripture and that to the temporal an eternal harm of their congregants. To me it remains the age old problem that began with Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan when speaking to Eve truly spoke God’s word about the tree of life, that Adam and Eve were not to “eat” any of the fruit from the tree of life. Satan then, with a simple question be beguiled Eve by adding the words “shall not touch it” and when she gave way to that small lie and ate and tempted Adam, death came upon the whole world. Now I say all of this to simply to say that is how I see what the Catholic Church has done, they have mixed in with God’s true word small things which are lies and have corrupted the true Christian faith. Yes I know you will disagree, I’m only telling you how I see the matter.

            All of this being said, there is only one eternally crucial question. It involves how we gain the victory over death and eternal life with God. If we are wrong on that question, on judgment day whether we had gained eternal life or not, it will not rest on our membership in any ecclesiastical organization, he will not accept Roman Catholics and kick out Protestants. It will not depend on whether or not we have followed the teachings of such an organization, I assure you it will have absolutely nothing to do with any works of the flesh. It will all depend upon what we did concerning Christ. Did we accept salvation as an unconditional free gift of God’s grace by faith in the propitiation of Christ or not? We will either be saved in this life, we will either have entered into new spiritual life in Christ in the here and now, by being born again of his spirit or we will be everlastingly lost and suffer without end.

            Most Christians are confused and become distracted by all of these arguments. It is a most Divine Truth about Jesus, our life in Him and His life in us by the Holy Spirit, Jesus being our all – in – all, our beginning to end, our Alpha to Omega, our First to Last, Him having absolute supremacy in everything in this life and eternity should be the only focus of our lives and any of our debates. How does this or that thing glorify Christ, how does this thing or that thing bring us closer to Christ, what must we do to surrender our lives to the indwelling spirit of Christ? If in everything you believe, if it does not start with Jesus, if it is not wholly focused on Jesus and it does not culminate in Jesus as our Savior and Lord, it is not worth our time or energy.

            The Christian faith must rest only on Jesus, by our new birth in Jesus we have God the Spirit living in us and by that same birth in Jesus we have access to God the Father. There is nothing else that compares to this truth, all else corrupts that faith life and is anti-Christ.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            You have not proven anything, but simply repeated your assumptions about Catholicism and deflect from answering any tough questions about those and your own beliefs.

          • pax2u

            poor Neiman, if you wish him a merry Christmass, his hatred soars

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Neiman,
            I’m sorry if your interactions with my fellow Catholics have resulted in acrimony. Unfortunately, this happens too often between Catholics and Protestants in blog comboxes. I, myself, have not been immune to falling for this temptation. As Christians, we should embrace what unites us, not constantly focus on what divides us.

            I’m not interested in debate, or, trying to win an argument with you. I only want to share the Gospel of Christ and explain what the Catholic Church really teaches. I do not question your fidelity to Christ. I’m sure that your beliefs about my Church are sincere, and that you fear for the salvation of all Catholic’s souls.
            But, it has been my experience that most people who detest the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church do not fully understand them, and why the Church holds to them. There is a lot of false information out there.
            So, I was only attempting to share with you the Jewish understanding of remembrance and why consum the Eucharist is not cannibalism

          • Neiman

            Yet, you really want to keep the argument going, by your continued defense of Roman Catholicism. Then, knowing I choose not to debate it, think you have won the debate and that is the truth.

            If we do not agree about the way unto Salvation, one of us has to be wrong and that one in danger of hell. There is only one way unto salvation, there is no other. While many Catholics, despite the many false teachings of your Church have come to Christ by God’s Grace alone, by faith in Him alone – even that faith a gift from God; and that faith in the propitiation of Jesus on our behalf, and are my brothers and sisters in Christ, in my experience and, most Catholics will say something like that and then immediately they look away from Christ, focus on their own works of penance, the sacraments, the Eucharist, the Mass and the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, as the means of salvation, which means they did not really come to Him by Grace and through Faith alone, but they are trying to get there by their own self-efforts. More proof? Even after thinking they are saved by Grace, they would say they cannot know they are saved until they die and even then it may require millions of years in limbo or purgatory or whatever you call it today. So, they claim and sincerely believe they saved in one breath and deny their being saved in the next and don’t even know they are doing it.

          • pax2u

            if someone does not accept your hatred of the Catholic Church is it an argument to you?

          • pax2u

            do you attack the Nativity Displays at your town?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, I am Catholic, after all. Of course I’m going to defend my faith. I’m just following God’s Word:
            Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence […] (1Pet.3:15).

            Catholics do not believe that if you disagree about the way unto Salvation, you are in danger of the damnation of Gehenna. The Catholic Church teaches that She is the best way to attain Salvation, not the only way. If, through no fault of his own, a man doesn’t know the full Truth of Christ, he is not condemned to the fires of Hell. What about all the people in the Americas, who, for 15 centuries, never heard the Good News? Are they all condemned?

            So, just because you disagree with my Faith, Neiman, I don’t think you are going to Hell for it.
            (By the way, “faith alone” is not found in God’s Word, except in Saint James’ epistle: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Jam.2:24)

            God Bless!

          • Neiman

            First, I guess you already know that outside the Catholic Faith, most, not all, Christians disagree with your interpretation of Jame 2:24. Before we get to that, I take it you agree with the RCC that it is with Salvation by Grace + Works? Yet, surely if salvation is a free gift from God at all, if we are required to do anything to earn that gift, surely it cannot be a gift, but it is a reward or wage as Paul calls it, in return for our efforts, then we must play a role in our own salvation, being our own co-redeemers with Christ. If it is a free gift from God and you just keep it by works, again how can it be a gift at all, wouldn’t it be a gift with strings attached. Lastly, it seems to me that if Jesus didn’t, as He says, save us to the uttermost, it was a pretty poor salvation, it was a kind of salvation with conditions. Plus it means the Holy Spirit in Paul and in James contradicts Himself, is that possible?

            For myself and many, many Christians the right interpretation of James 2:24 is this: (a) James and Paul were by the same Spirit in perfect harmony. (b) Works have nothing to do with the Law as that has to be wholly contrary to Grace.(c) Works are not things like Catholics believe, sacraments, etc., but “good works” of love towards the brethren, the widows, orphans etc., yet it surely extends to everyone in need of comfort or help, as we are led by the Lord. (d) Salvation is neither obtained or maintained by those “good works,” if one is genuinely saved, the Holy Spirit would indwell them and those good works should become evidence of His presence in them; or, if not increasingly evident, then one of two things are true: 1. That person did not have saving faith, but were deceived and are not saved at all. 2. Their faith and thus their salvation, as to being of any benefit to people in this world is a dead or useless faith.

            Now, as to two different ways unto salvation. If the Roman Catholic Church is right about adding works to grace, then those that seek Christ by grace alone cannot possibly be saved, as they do not trust in works. Thus the Catholic expression they too can be saved, is just plain wrong. On the other hand, if we Protestants are right that one is saved by Grace alone, then adding works to earn or maintain that salvation is a rejection of Grace and they cannot possibly be saved. Thus, as I believe both cannot possibly be right, one of these groups cannot be saved at all.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I am going to post my reply in a new thread. If you select “newest” it will be there, okay?
            For some reason disqus messes up when I open a bunch of replies, making it harder to reply.

          • pax2u

            Neiman and the Muslims terrorists untied to hate Christmass

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Pax2u,
            We are supposed to show hope and love, agape love, to even our enemies. We must practice Christian charity when sharing the Faith with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.
            Merry Christmas and God Bless!

          • pax2u

            you are correct, but sometimes it is difficult being told that the Catholic Church is pagan, false, satanic, and that Catholics worship the Pope and Mary, usually by those with out a denominational doctrine or only having a theology of hating Catholics

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Pax2u,
            I know how difficult it can be. Trust me! I’ve succumbed to severe snarkiness & sarcasm, too many times, in the past.
            We just have to remember that many of our separated brothers & sisters in Christ are just ill-informed and ignorant of what the Church actually teaches. They are being fed the same libel and slander from two and three centuries ago, only repackaged by people like Jack Chick.
            We must pray for those who hate us, so, certainly we must pray for those who disagree with us based on faulty information, right?
            Also, try to remember not to assume the worst about those who attack the Catholic Church. Some of them think that they are imitating Christ, when He blasted the scribes and Pharisees, in Matt. 23.
            God Bless!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Here is a link that explains the Jewish understanding of remembrance well:
            http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/passover-in-judaism-past-events-become.html

          • pax2u

            it is “too bright”

            The Difference between Two, Too and To is frequently confused in English, sometimes even for native speakers.

            Sometimes To, Too and Two can all be used in the same sentence. While they all sound the same, it is in the context that you can understand the meaning.

            Examples:

            It was too late to buy two bottles of wine for the party.

            Don’t take too long as there are two other people who want to use the internet.

          • Neiman

            So your holiness, you never make keyboard input mistakes? If I consistently use it incorrectly then you may instruct me and it would help if in the meantime you took remedial reading courses, learned how to diagram sentences and stopped being dishonest.

          • pax2u

            as you attack others with this

            “I know you are not to bright,”

            you should be more “Christian”

          • Neiman

            Your idea of Christian? A Catholic Christian?

          • pax2u

            I see that Neiman is confused by the English Language,

            his post

            “I know you are not to bright”

            it is “too bright”

            The Difference between Two, Too and To is frequently confused in English, sometimes even for native speakers.

            Sometimes To, Too and Two can all be used in the same sentence. While they all sound the same, it is in the context that you can understand the meaning.

            Examples:

            It was too late to buy two bottles of wine for the party.

            Don’t take too long as there are two other people who want to use the internet.

            and his scholarly response

            So your holiness, you never make keyboard input mistakes? If I consistently use it incorrectly then you may instruct me and it would help if in the meantime you took remedial reading courses, learned how to diagram sentences and stopped being dishonest.

          • Annette Costas Bissinger

            You keep referring to God’s Word. I will assume that you mean the bible. The bible was put together in the 4th century after Jesus died. It was commissioned by the Catholic Church. Up to that point, it was sacred tradition that the first Christians followed since there was no bible. After, the bible was finalized, it was Catholic monks that kept this sacred scripture together, hand copying it until in 1517, Luther rewrote parts, took out parts he didn’t like, added the word “only” in front of “by Grace we are saved” and decided that Tobit, The Macabees, the Wisdom of Sirach and others would have their own separate section called the Apocryphal texts because Luther felt they were not scriptural enough but still were worth reading. He almost deleted James from the bible but then decided to keep it and proceeded to print this new bible with the Guttenberg printing press starting the first wave of schisms from what used to be the only Christian church. Then the next set of protestants decided the apocryphal texts weren’t necessary and took them out of sacred scripture. I am still wondering where they got the authority to decide what to keep and what to take out from sacred scripture. It seems new churches spring up, all claiming to have the fullness of Thruth and thumping their bibles at Catholics without so much as a thank you for the fact that if it wasn’t for the Catholic faith, they wouldn’t have a bible to thump.

          • Neiman

            Unfortunately, you have swallowed false Roman Catholic narratives whole.

            1. The canon, what is the Holy Bible, was in existence at least 350-500 years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence. The Old Testament was already in existence for thousands of years, the New Testament books/letters were in existence, well circulated and generally recognized by the early Church. The Roman Catholic Church did compile them and agree with the early Church to their belonging in the canon, but they did not give us the Bible.

            2. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 350-500 years after the resurrection, the word catholic, meaning the universal Christian Church did exist, but had no organization, was not part of any Roman Church. Later, a few bishops in Rome decided, under the Roman Emperor to seize control of the scattered very small and local Christian assemblies, as a power grab for them and for Rome, wherein the immediately mixed the already existing Bible with pagan beliefs.

            3. When they met to bring the many gospels and epistles together, the majority of the leaders and Jerome who did the major translations, opposed incliuding the Deuteronical/Apocharphyl texts, but Rome overruled them. They never belonged in the canon.

          • pax2u

            “if a true Christian expresses”
            that is much like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy
            I am trying to be nice to you Nieman, but you do not speak for “all true Christians”
            it is true that this discussion is futile, I have a Church and a theology, and you have no denomination and appear to base your theology on hating my faith
            I forgive you

          • Neiman

            I do not seek nor desire your forgiveness, as I have done nothing against you for which I feel a need to repent.

          • pax2u

            forgiving you is for me, not for you
            you are free to hate me and what I believe, and for that I forgive you

          • patriot

            It’s based on what you have interpreted the bible to mean. All hail pope neiman

          • Rosavera

            Again, your opinion, again your judgment and your biased hate for Catholics… you are actually calling Catholics as anti-Christs and devils… shame on you !

          • Neiman

            No shame on you!

            You need remedial education in reading comprehension, your skills are pretty bad. I am shocked at your abysmal reading comprehension.

            It is always a mistake jumping into a conversation late. I don’t hate Catholics, I do hate the many false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which teachings are mostly anti-Christ.

          • Rosavera

            my reading skills are quite well… Protestants hate Catholics because since they broke away from the original church of Christ… now you are all justifying your break-away. You say you are non-denominational but i bet you go somewhere to worship, somewhere you go and kneel and pray to our Lord, or do you just stay home …?

          • Neiman

            No, your skills and comprehension are abysmal or you could not possibly make the asinine assertions you do make.

            Yes, I worship with others, I just do not join them or submit to their rules and regulations if I think they are unscriptural.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I wonder if he is one of those lonewolf Christians?

          • Spoob

            Actually there are no false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, brother. You have been deceived.

          • pax2u

            first Catholics are told that they do not read the Bible
            when a Catholic responds that I do read the Bible, now the response is so does Satan? wow
            Jesus Christ is the Center of the Catholic Church
            Many will hate Catholics and the Catholic Church and as Christians, Catholics are commanded to forgive them.
            I pray that you will be able to put Jesus Christ in your heart.
            I would hope that your theology would be based on the love of Jesus Christ,
            As I said before it is futile to discuss theology with someone who has no demoninational doctrine and a theology of hating my faith.

          • Neiman

            I am losing patience with your nonsense, as your replies are mostly patently dishonest.

            No one says Catholics do not read the Bible, but the charge is that you folk do not rely solely on God’s Word as the standard for your beliefs, rather your highest authority is the Roman Catholic Church.

            If you are so incredibly obtuse as to not understand that just reading the Bible is not sufficient, as one needs the indwelling Spirit to guide believers into all truth – look it up; and, you cannot understand or appreciate the examples I offered of those that know the Bible better than you, but are already condemned, then quite frankly you are so ignorant and so unable to reason, there is no hope you can ever carry on a rational discussion.

            For the most part, no one here express any hatred for Catholics, only hatred for the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That comment only confirms your inability to reason, because we love Catholics and want them to come out from that evil organization and find liberty and life in Christ..

            Your interpretation of the love of Christ being all saccharine sweet and which tolerates sin, is contrary to Scripture. God hates sin, get used to the idea. You interpretation of love is wrong, the real love of Christ sends Jesus and His children into the territory of the enemy of our souls (world) to oppose/expose sin, calling people to repentance and salvation in Christ and if we are following Christ, we will be hated for doing so, persecuted and even killed and THAT is the true love of Christ for ever human being.

            I have no apology for using God’s Word alone as my doctrine for Christian living and my theology is being born again in Christ. It is not hating YOUR anything, like God it does call us to hate sin and contend for lost souls.

          • pax2u

            I am sorry, and I am trying to be polite, but your statement that Catholic’s do not rely soly on God’s Word is to be kind, not correct.

            The Catholic Church is based on the word of God and on Jesus Christ

            Matt 16

            17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18″I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19″I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”…
            you can hate me, hate my faith, and speak un truths about my faith, and I will forgive you

          • Neiman

            That is a wholly false interpretation of that passage by a wholly false Church and false Prophet calling Himself “Holy Father,” which is just what Lucifer did, trying to seat himself on God’s Throne, making himself a god.

          • pax2u

            you can hate me and my faith, and I will still forgive you and pray for you

          • Neiman

            No one hates you and your forgiveness in the absence of any evidence I have ever sinned against you is worthless.

          • pax2u

            you can lie about me and my faith and I will forgive you

          • patriot

            You bear false witness against us. You’ve broken a commandment.

          • Neiman

            I regret to say that you don’t even understand what “bearing false witness” really means. It is really a legal or civil offense which causes material costs to the offended party or tends to damage the reputation in the conduct of their business or public affairs.

            “Neither publicly in a court of judicature, by laying things to his
            charge that are false, and swearing to them, to his hurt and damage; nor privately, by whispering, tale bearing, backbiting, slandering, by telling lies of him, traducing his character by innuendos, sly insinuations, and evil suggestions, whereby he may suffer in his character, credit, and reputation, and in his trade and business; Aben Ezra thinks the words describe the character of the person that is not to bear witness in any court, and to be read thus, “thou shall not answer who art a false witness”: or, “O thou false witness”: meaning that such an one should not be admitted an evidence in court, who had been convicted already of being a false witness; his word and oath are not to be taken, nor should any questions be put to him, or he suffered to answer to any; his depositions should have no weight with those before whom they were made, nay, even they should not be taken, nor such a person be allowed to make any; but this is to put this precept in a quite different form from all the rest, and without any necessity, since the word may as well be taken for a testimony bore, as for the person that bears it: this is the ninth commandment.”

            By the way, if you are going to make that charge, you are required to state the exact offense and the damage it caused. If in a legal sense to bring charges in court or if of the same faith, to bring the charge to the elders.

          • Louis Cypher

            That only counts if one believes in your magical thinking.

            Hahaha

          • patriot

            The apostle Paul calls himself father many times. And we are all called to holiness. Holy father is a reasonable term. I thought you’ve read the bible?

          • Neiman

            In Matthew 23:9 Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you
            have one Father, who is in heaven.”

            Was Jesus wrong? Are we free to ignore His command here? If Paul refers to himself as the father of those dear souls he brought to Christ, is he in disobedience to God? What must we do to harmonize these passages?

            First, might I suggest that when Paul speaks of his being a father to early Christians” (a) Did he ask to be called their father? (b) Is there any record of anyone referring to Paul as their father? (c) Were any of the apostles called father or Peter the Holy Father? (d) Did Paul only mean “like” a father to them in the sense he brought them to Christ?

            “It seem best to conclude that the sense Jesus is using is for men to reject all such names and titles, as are used to signify an
            authoritative power over men’s consciences, in matters of faith and
            obedience; in which, God and Christ are only to be attended to. Christ’s
            sense is, that he would have his disciples not to be fond of any titles of
            honor at all; and much less assume an authority over men, as if they
            were to depend on them, as the founders of the Christian religion, the
            authors of its doctrines and ordinances; and to take that honor to
            themselves, which did not belong to them; nor even choose to be called
            by such names, as would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of
            them, and take off of their dependence on God the Father.”

            Christ was also upbraiding religious leaders for seeking such titles and honors above other men, like Rabbi or to wear special robes and ornaments that would elevate them over other men, when they should be lowly servants of them. That is, IMO, exactly what the Catholic Priests do, they seek to wear special clothing and have titles like father that they might lord it over average believers and cause others to see them as the means of their salvation or at least in securing that salvation.

            The Pope taking on and accepting the title Holy Father, which belongs to God alone, is blasphemous in the extreme and is in imitation of Lucifer in assuming spiritual power and authority over men. He wears special clothes, bears lofty titles, sits upon and is carried about on thrones and he accepts men bowing down to him, something that even the Angel of the Lord commanded John not to do, insisting they were mere servants of God. Men are expected to kiss the Popes ring and honor him as Christ’s supreme representative on earth, while Jesus left His glory, humbled Himself and became a lowly servant.

            No my friend, I realize the Catholic Church goes through long and fanciful arguments to defend the Imperial Pope, to defend Him being “the” Holy Father, but I must disagree and call it and him anything but holy.

          • pax2u

            Matthew 22:36-40

            36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

            37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

          • aleks

            So what is islam for you?

          • pax2u

            a religion based on Muhammed

          • patriot

            You don’t even have the full bible. You have edited scraps

          • Demopublicrat

            QUEEN OF HEAVEN ‑- God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. (Catechism 966) She is to be praised with special devotion. (Catechism 971, 2675)

            “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, YEA RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke 11:27-28)

          • pax2u

            true God did exalt Mary as she gave birth to baby Jesus, and she was with Jesus at the cross

          • Demopublicrat

            No, if he had she would have figured prominently after the gospels in the New Testament, she does not. She is only mentioned at all in a historical sense.

          • pax2u

            Mary was there from the begining to the end

          • Demopublicrat

            Take the book of Romans and do show just where she was.

          • pax2u

            was Mary at the birth, was she at the cross?

          • Demopublicrat

            B o o k of R-O-M-A-N-S.

          • pax2u

            so was Mary with Jesus at his birth and at his death on the cross?

          • Demopublicrat

            So were many others, your point? You forgot to include the reference in the book of Romans for that.

          • Kristina

            Mary as queen- Luke 1:32-33.
            “31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
            32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
            33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
            Jewish context: in the Davidic kingdom, the queens were the mother of the King.
            If your a devout young Jewish girl like Mary, you would realize that if you were to bear a son who will be given the throne of David, it would mean that son would be a King, which makes you queen of His kingdom. Which is why Luke 1:46-55 makes such perfect sense. No one has to exalt Mary, God already did.

          • Demopublicrat

            More catholic heresy, Jesus as a man was not a king, Jesus as God was – mary was not the mother of Jesus as God – he existed long before she was born.

            “No one has to exalt Mary, God already did.” Not one word in that passage stated that, in addition to that, mary as the mother of a king would have meant that she was married to God – she was not.

          • Kristina

            Please see the OT for reference. In the Davidic Kingdom, the MOTHERS of the KING were queen.

          • Demopublicrat

            Did Jesus the Man sit upon a throne or is it Jesus as God who sits upon the throne? Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, not Jesus as God.

          • Kristina

            Jesus’ kingdom was heavenly, Mary was given the heavenly role of queen.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Mary was given the heavenly role of queen.” According to some sinful man, not God’s word.

          • Kristina

            Not one word?

            Luke 1:46-55 “He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
            and has exalted the lowly.”

            Yes, God exalted a young Jewish girl to queen of His Kingdom, because in the Davidic Kingdom the mothers of the King were queen. Generations will (and do) call her blessed.

          • Demopublicrat

            That passage could be referring to the lowly being anyone, saying that it talks about mary is so far out there it doesn’t even qualify as a stretch.

            “Yes, God exalted a young Jewish girl to queen of His Kingdom, because in the Davidic Kingdom the mothers of the King were queen.” – tradition of man.

            “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:5

          • Kristina

            Oh yes, it could be talking about anyone, anyone BUT Mary!!! It CAN’T be talking about Mary…. Right?

          • Demopublicrat

            I’m quite sure that unless it was a blanket statement (as it is) that mary would have been specifically mentioned (which she was not) – especially if she was actually as important as you mary-worshipers claim, but she is not.

          • Kristina

            Why was she so “troubled” by the Angel’s “Greeting” then? It doesn’t say she was troubled at the Angel’s appearance itself, but the greeting.

          • Demopublicrat

            Relevance?

          • Kristina

            Must have been quite the unique greeting!

          • Demopublicrat

            Still, relevance?

          • Kristina

            “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, YEA RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke 11:27-28)

            It was a perfect opportunity to show WHY Mary was “blessed among women”. Mary had free will, she could have doubted, she could have said no. She didn’t. She obeyed the Will of God. The OT was about the flesh, the NT is about the Spirit; doing the Will of God. The woman was thinking with her fleshly mind, Jesus wanted her to think with her spirit.

          • Demopublicrat

            Mary obeyed God, people do that every day. The OT is about the law and how we need a savior, the NT is about the savior taking on our sin and fulfilling the law.

            “The woman was thinking with her fleshly mind, Jesus wanted her to think with her spirit.” Beyond a stretch, Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God. According to the Bible, the world was created through Jesus. This was long before Mary was born, she was a vessel, nothing more.

          • Kristina

            Please show me the verse where Mary is a “vessel”, “tool” or “used”

          • Demopublicrat

            It is notable that John, who took Mary into his home after Jesus was crucified, does not mention her in his epistles, and he only mentions her on two occasions in his Gospel (the wedding at Cana and the crucifixion of Jesus). John mentions Mary Magdalene more than he mentions Jesus’ mother, if she was anything more than a vessel he (or anyone else in the Bible) would have mentioned it.

          • Kristina

            So how many times your mentioned in how Bible = importance. Not passing the smell test for me.

          • Demopublicrat

            Why were you going to build a shrine to me? Make a graven image of me and worship it? Call me “king of heaven”? Say 50 “hail Demopublicrats”?

          • Kristina

            Speaking of the Gospel of John,

            Take a look at the beginning of Genesis and then take a look at the beginning of the book of John. “In the beginning”(Genesis 1.1), “In the beginning”(John1.1). The Jews of the day would have recalled the book of Genesis; it’s a deliberate echo. Day 1 – John mentions the Messiah; Day 2-4 “The next day”… (John 1:29,1:34, 1:43), etc. When then the Gospel of John jumps ahead to the 7th day. (The third day) and we have the wedding of Cana. “Woman” Jesus calls Mary at this “wedding” signaling a covenant; a new covenant. As the first Eve prompts Adam to commit his first sinful act, the new Eve, (Mary) prompts the new Adam (Jesus) to preform His first miraculous act. Also notice that Mary acts as an intercessor for the family of the wedding, concerned for their reputation and she placed their problem at the foot of her Son. He does not refuse her. As the “gebhirah” she places the needs of the people before the King . As we see in (1 Kings 2:20).
            As Mary was there on the “seventh” day with Jesus as He performed His first sign in the Gospel of John, there she is again at the foot of the cross on His last sign in the Gospel of John, where again she is addressed as “woman”. John knew that he was not only a “beloved” disciple of Jesus but also a symbol for all of His “beloved” disciples because we are ALL called to suffer with Jesus and Mary at the foot of the cross (tree of life). We beloved disciples of Jesus are a new creation in Him. If we aren’t supposed to consider Mary, why then did He give her as our Mother at the foot of the cross? (Tree of life). This signals that she is now Mother to His beloved disciples. If Jesus is called my Brother in scripture, then surely Mary is also my mother.

          • Demopublicrat

            When I cut through the embellishments, there is pretty much nothing there – she is still only mention in two occasions which is quite odd if mary were actually the “gebhirah” or even relevant at all beside her being a willing vessel. The fact is that Jesus the man did not sit on a throne, that cancels out any “mary is queen” fairytales, Jesus as God does, but mary has nothing to do with that.

          • Kristina

            We are to rightly divide the Word. 2 Timothy 2:15. Ask God for wisdom.

          • Demopublicrat

            We are to rightly divide the Word of God, not the vain traditions of men.

            “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8
            “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Matthew 15:9
            “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Mark 7:7

            God’s wisdom.

          • Kristina

            The early church knew how to rightly divide the Word. They saw how the NT was prefigured in the Old and how the Old was fulfilled in the NT.

            All those Christians in Iraq who have been raped, murdered and their 2,000 year old churches burnt down; are you willing to look them in the face and tell them they have been “doing it wrong” all these years? Sorry, you faith has been handed to you by the apostles but you’ve got it wrong?

            So, which is more likely here?
            1. The Church that compiled the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of the authority granted it by Christ Himself is misinterpreting the Bible, or
            2. People who tore books out of the Bible 500 years ago and divorced it from its historical and institutional context are misinterpreting the Bible.
            Not a hard call.

          • Demopublicrat

            Your basing your argument on the fallacy of the RCC being “The Church”, it is not, it flies in the face of God’s Word time and again.

            “their 2,000 year old churches” Seriously? More catholic embellishment.

          • Kristina

            My apologies, it was an 1,800 year old Church and the tomb of the prophet Jonah was also destroyed in the same area. http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-torches-1800-year-old-church-in-mosul-priest-says-city-is-now-empty-of-christians-123632/

          • Demopublicrat

            A catholic site? Nice.

          • Kristina
          • Demopublicrat

            I’m quite sure the priest who is quoted is a catholic at the least.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Again, what does “unteachable” mean?

            For all than anyone can tell, when compared to your other comments to people who question your assumptions, it simply means that you are ticked because they are just as passionate about their beliefs as you are and will not cave in.

          • Neiman

            Your opinion isn’t worth anything to me, peddle it to pas2u and your other worshippers here.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            The point is not whether it is worth anything to you, but if it accurately describes your practice in these discussions. I think it does, and it can be consistently identified.

          • sixstar

            Pax2u, I am reading this conversation and I do believe that you BELIEVE and you LOVE GOD. However, you FOLLOW the Catholic Church. If your love is FIRST for God, then get a Bible (not one with added books the Catholics use). Then, bare your heart to God each and every day asking Him for His guidance to understand the Holy Scriptures. These books of the Bible were not written by Catholics, but by Jews. Salvation came from the Jews through our Jewish Messiah, Yeshua. Humble yourself to God to let Him speak and to hear His voice. NEVER follow teachings of men. Then, read the Bible each and every day. Dig into it to understand what God has spoken through it. This is critical. Do not take this lightly. You must understand God’s word yourself. Jesus is getting ready to return for His church and you must found waiting for Him, unblemished by the world. I, too, grew up in the Catholic Church. Much of what they teach is unbiblical. Reading the true scriptures for myself and praying directly to God – not rote, recited prayers, but the outpouring of my heart – saved me. I will not get into a debate here. I am just telling you that if your love is for GOD FIRST, you will do this.

          • pax2u

            sorry, but I follow Jesus Christ, I attend and am Baptised in the Catholic Church
            I have several Bibles and read them regularly, but now I am told the Satan also knows the Bible

          • pax2u

            I hope you know that the Catholic Church did not add to the Bible, the Bible was cannonized for well over a 1.000 years when Martin Luther removed 7 Jewish books from the old Testamtent
            I am not surprised that Luther removed the Jewish books to justify his new religion, Martin Luther hated the Jews and wrote his horrible book “on the Jews and the Lies”

          • pax2u

            Is the “our Father” a rote recited prayer that is not an out pouring of the heart?

          • James Grimes

            This is excellent advice. He will not follow it; will make excuses, and start accusing you of not having a denomination, being alone, being unchristian, and a hater of Jews and Christians. I have dealt with this clown for too long now.

          • wackyt

            The thing is that those who read the Word of God and interprets it himself has actually become his own pope and church. You deem yourself what is essential in believing. Throwing out John 6 as symbolic when those who followed Jesus Christ either continued to follow him or left because it was “too hard.” The early Church is clear that the Holy Eucharist was essential as was baptism. Following the Bishop was mentioned many times in the early Church. Read the early Church Fathers as well as the Bible which is a Catholic Book. Peace!

          • Demopublicrat

            “Ah, the old pax2u, raise his ugly head again.”
            LOL, it is good that you and Jack Chick are alone with no false god to worship.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Neiman,
            If you switch the “Sort by” to “Newest” you will find my replies towards the top of the comments. The “Sort by” button is just below the number of comments, at the beginning of the comment section.
            God Bless!

          • Rosavera

            Quick to judge Neiman and blind to the truth.
            Are you actually calling Catholics devils…? Be careful how you accuse others and what judgment you make on others that you have no idea at all what their heart is…

          • Neiman

            Try learning to read, sometimes it helps if your read aloud; because you sure did not read very well the first time.

          • Rosavera

            what did i miss in your statements…

          • James Grimes

            The person you are responding to puts out a lot of nonsense. I do admire you for trying to engage with him. However, you are wasting your time. Anyway, best wishes for a blessed day.

          • Kristina

            Peter the “Rock”

            Every time there is a name change in the Bible, God is assigning a new role for that person. Peter = Rock. Its the first time in the Bible anyone is called Peter and it is the first time Peter is called, well Peter. Some may object and say in the Greek Peter/”Petrus”= Stone, pebble, and the second rock /”Petra”=Rock. “Petra” is a greek feminine form word and would not be appropriate to apply to a Male, hence the Greek masculine form “Petros” was used. Additionally, Jesus spoke to his apostles in Aramaic where “Kepa”=Rock. Secondly, we have the keys, from Isaiah 22:22 We have the following: “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.” We know from Isaiah the key was a symbol of authority; in the verses preceding we learn Hezekiah was choosing Eliakim to be his prime minister of the royal household of Israel (Kingdom). This “seat” was successive. Matthew’s Gospel is focused on a Jewish audience by the way it starts; tracing Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to King David and then says, ‘Jesus son of David’. If I am a Jew and I know scripture and I hear Jesus speak these words to Peter, I would be reminded of Isaiah 22:22 and what the ‘Keys” represent. It should also be noted that in the original Greek it is clear that the keys are being only given to Peter as the singular is used, but the binding and loosening is applied to all of the disciples in the plural. Anyone notice that whenever the apostles are listed in the Bible, Peter’s name is ALWAYS first? Then we have scripture that shows that the apostles (Peter obviously included) are to be the “foundation” – Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Jesus made Peter prime minister of His Kingdom, Jesus is still the KING!!! Taking Ephesians 2:20 in mind when reading Matthew 16:18 – “Built ON the foundation of..” / “..and ON this rock I will build..” Jesus also commissions Peter alone the “feeding of the sheep” in John 21:15-17. Its clear Peter was chosen by our Lord to lead and shepard. The bible also shows us how people reacted to Peter, In Acts 5:15 we read, “to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them.” His shadow…

          • Neiman

            I admire and appreciate the hard work you went to in order to make your case for Peter being given the keys to the kingdom. Whether a person is a true believer, having been converted to Christ, a carnal believer, a practical atheist or a scholar, we all have a common failure when we try to make our appeals to Scripture, in our defining words, in seeking historical context and on and on, to support our beliefs. Like the religious scholars during Jesus’ earthly ministry, while thinking ourselves wise, we are really blind to spiritual truth, we stumble and grope and we never get anywhere close to the truth.

            If we are to have any hope of finding the truth about God’s Word, there are two essential elements involved. (1) God’s word tells us that without His Spirit, His indwelling Spirit, it is impossible to discern Spiritual Truth. so all of our hard work, our reason, our logic and credentials are useless. (2) Once we have the presence of the Holy Spirit, it is absolutely essential that we always, in every case place Jesus at the beginning, the middle and the end of our quest for truth. Jesus tells us that he must be everything from a – c, the beginning and the ending, the first to the last, He must be the all – in all, He must have absolute supremacy, he must be preeminent in all things.

            So in this passage about building His church, we know that Jesus will have ascended on high and He tells us in these passages that He will build his church, we also know when talking about rocks, Jesus declares himself to be the chief cornerstone, Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Peter like all of us are lively stones, meaning smaller rocks that rest upon Jesus – the cornerstone. Well you say, even though the passage does not use this term or even hint at it, that Peter becomes His prime minister on earth and in that role he will build the church for Jesus and his successor’s will follow him, the various Popes will continue his work. While that seems to make sense, as Jesus as aforementioned has ascended on high and thus why wouldn’t he anoint some human instrument to do his work on earth?

            But wait a minute, the Holy Spirit also referred to as the Spirit of Christ is here on earth, He is indwelling every believer. So while in one sense Jesus has ascended on high, surely he and he alone as the chief cornerstone remains on earth by his Spirit and so why would he surrender his Headship to man versus doing all of his work directly by his Spirit? Would Christ as the Head of his Spirit Body allow frail, finite, sinful men to build His Body the Church? Why would he trust mortals with a task that can only be accomplished by God himself?

            I will leave the following quotation and the link for your meditation:

            The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

            The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter’s being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full
            agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html#ixzz3Le9i0c5y

          • Kristina

            Thank you for your cordial reply. 🙂

            I take some “fleshly” offense to your insinuation that I am not filled with the Holy Spirit, yet I am encouraged that you are not my judge, and God sees inwardly to my heart.

            I would have to question your insinuation though because it would seem that we have so many denominations, we even have thousands of “non-denominationals” teaching different teachings! Surely this is not of God, for God is not a God of division and choas.

            Even the angels have order, look at creation; there is order in Gods design.

            Which is why it is no surprise to me that Jesus, our Eternal high priest and Cornerstone would leave and build His Church in orderly fashion.

            Why give the keys only to Peter? Look at the original Greek, the first you in that sentence is singular; the second you in the sentence is plural. He only gave the keys to Peter.

            The deliberate echo from the OT? The OT prefigured the new, the old is fulfilled in the New.

          • Neiman

            So Jesus trusted Peter more than His Own Spirit to build His Church? Jesus gave His Body into the control of frail, sinful, finite men? I can trust Christ, I can Trust my Heavenly Father, I would never trust Peter that Jesus called at one point Satan and that denied Christ and had to be rebuked by Paul for his failures. I cannot trust a succesion of pretend Peter’s that were often prolific fornicators, murderers, war mongers and even pedophiles.

            No, either I have direct access to Christ and can place all my trust in Him, Who said I can do nothing without Him. I can trust Jesus Who said that through Him nothing was impossible. I can trust Him as my advocate before Heaven’s Court. I cannot trust anyone that calls Himself the Holy Father, like Lucifer sitting in God’s Throne. No, it is Jesus or nothing for me. But hey, that’s just me, I am crazy about Jesus.

          • Kristina

            Apostolic succession and authority is no joke.
            Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
            Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).
            Luke 9:1; 10:19 – Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).
            Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.
            Luke 22:29 – the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.
            Num 16:28 – the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.
            John 5:30 – similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.
            John 7:16-17 – Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.
            John 8:28 – Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.
            John 12:49 – The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.
            John 13:20 – Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.
            John 14:10 – Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.
            John 16:14-15 – what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

          • Kristina

            I’m crazy about my LORD Jesus Christ too! Crazy enough to believe Him when he says that when He’s going to build a Church; He’a going to build a Church! And when He says the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; guess what I believe that the gates of hell won’t stand against it! Crazy! Huh!

          • patriot

            James affirmed first what Peter declared. A declaration of authority exhibited by his arising from his seat, and then the arguing by ceasing. James then made a pastoral decision according to peters decree. This is plain to see in scripture. Peter is always mentioned first. This is according to Jewish custom to name the important one first. Peter alone was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Just as it is written in Isaiah 2:22. This is an ancient text that all Jews would have understood as a transmission of authority. Did Jesus not know the implications of what he said?

          • Neiman

            While in Acts it did say Peter spoke of him being used of God to take the Gospel first to the Gentiles, while it does not speak of superiority in position. After Peter spoke about Gentiles being accepted by God, we read that James said, “19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Who’s judgment? James stood out as the leader in the presence of them all, he made the judgment, not Peter and Peter did not object to James having the authority over them all where the Apostles sat.

            “Keys are used to lock or unlock doors. The specific doors Jesus has in mind in this passage are the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is laying the foundation of His church (Ephesians 2:20). The disciples will be the leaders of this new institution, and Jesus is giving them the authority to, as it were, open the doors to heaven and invite the world to enter. At this point it is important to understand how, biblically speaking, one enters the Kingdom of Heaven.”

            So yes, Peter did open the doors to the Gospel to the Jews, the Samaritans and the Gentiles, he preached it first to these three groups. Yet, the other Apostles, mostly Paul, took those same keys of the Gospel of salvation, which open the door to salvation to the Gentiles. So, while Peter first used the keys of the Gospel of Salvation, they were not his exclusive possession, that is clear. It is also clear that among the Apostles Peter had no superior position, he was never referred to as the chief among the apostles, he was never given that title or the submission of other apostles. He wrote none of the Gospels, the majority of the Epistles were written by Paul, not Peter. Peter recognized Paul’s writings as being Scripture. Other than Matthias filling Judas empty seat among the Apostles, there is not the slightest hint of apostolic succession. There is no objective, documentary evidence that Peter was ever in Rome or recognized as the first Pope nor that he had any affiliation at all with the Church in Rome.

            None of this will change your mind, Catholics are devoted to their Church and their Pope and will not be shaken loose. I close by saying your reference to Isaiah 2:22, sounds like a perfect warning for you about the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope:

            “Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?”

          • pax2u

            not in the Baptist Church
            but in the Universal Church and after 2000 years the gates of hades shall not prevail

          • Rosavera

            and what proof do you have that Peter was no the first Pope… but it seems that most non-Christians forget what Peter represented to the first Christians and what the Pope represents to all Catholics. Peter was the one that our Lord specifically told to ”feed my sheep, tend my lambs, feed my lambs”… and that is what all other Popes since Peter have done.

        • Demopublicrat

          Guess what, there is a lot more to the Bible than the mary-worshipers favorite passage they twist up.

          • Spoob

            Catholics do not worship Mary.

          • Demopublicrat

            If you want to see what a person’s real priorities are, then watch what they do when their life, or the life of a loved one, is in danger. When Pope John Paul II was shot, while the ambulance was rushing him to the hospital, the Pope was not praying to God or calling on the name of Jesus. He kept saying, over and over, “Mary, my mother!” Polish pilgrims placed a picture of Our Lady of Czestochowa on the throne where the Pope normally sat. People gathered around the picture. Vatican loudspeakers broadcasted the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life, and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her.

          • Spoob

            Catholics do not worship Mary.

          • Demopublicrat

            If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. You already do.

            Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.” – Worship.

          • Spoob

            I have been a Catholic my whole life and neither I nor any Catholic I know has ever worshipped Mary, you must be mistaken. I am not lying and know very well what I do and what I do not do.

          • Demopublicrat

            Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear your denial.
            Vast sums of money are spent on some special graven images of mary. For example, the statue of our lady of the pillar in Saragossa, Spain has a crown made of 25 pounds of gold and diamonds, with so many diamonds that you can hardly see the gold. In addition, it has six other crowns of gold, diamonds and emeralds. It has 365 mantles which are embroidered with gold and covered with roses of diamonds and other precious stones. It has 365 necklaces made of pearls and diamonds, and six chains of gold set with diamonds. Shrines with these graven images are built all over the world with people bowing to them, kissing them, praying to them, laying offerings at the feet of them, etc.
            I’ve posted scripture in which Christ himself has said no to the worshiping, or honoring or venerating, or whatever synonym you choose, of mary.

          • Spoob

            It appears to me that you are confused about the difference between simple respect and honor versus worship. But more to the point you are attacking your fellow Christians by the actions they choose to do and I think you are missing the bigger picture of the importance of unity among Christians in what we believe. Isn’t what unites us more important than our differences? Why are the posts I read here against Catholics so hateful? They don’t hate you just because they disagree with you.

          • Demopublicrat

            It appears to me that you are confused about the difference between simple respect and honor versus worship. Unity? As long as we all worship mary right?

            “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Ephesians 5:11

          • Spoob

            OK, are you seriously suggesting that giving appropriate respect due the mother of Jesus Christ are “unfruitful works of darkness” – if so I would ask if you are a Christian at all. Can you see into the hearts of others to know that worship is taking place? And how can you presume to know what so many people are doing? This is a very simple act of respect, and you have elevated it in your own head to worship. Unless you are JESUS himself, I don’t know how you can do this.

          • Demopublicrat

            “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” Luke 11:27-28
            Christ created mary, she was a vessel nothing more. I would ask if you are a Christian at all, only a fool would see what catholics do in regard to mary and NOT know exactly what is going on – worship. But just in case do show chapter and verse in scripture that specifically says mary is do any kind of (insert worship synonym here) _________ from Christians.

          • Spoob

            This is the thing with fundamentalism – you are terrified about doing things that would only give Christ great pleasure, such as bestowing honor on Mary which she surely deserves. Salvation is given by Christ, and we turn to Him for such, but this does not mean we should hate Mary as you do. And once again, you are telling me what I believe and telling me what my actions are but you cannot possibly know them. I must wonder at this point if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you since you seem to repeatedly believe what you want to in the face of all the facts being presented to you, including what I do and what I believe.

          • Demopublicrat

            That’s the thing with catholocism – you only care about promoting you precious man-made traditions, that the Bible and the commands of God become a nuisance.

            “…bestowing honor on Mary which she surely deserves.” Again show me chapter and verse in scripture backing that heresy up.

            “And once again, you are telling me what I believe and telling me what my actions are but you cannot possibly know them.” When your actions tell me what you believe, you denials become null and void, you seem to repeatedly believe what you want to in the face of all the facts being presented to you.

          • Spoob

            Your responses are getting more and more obnoxious, but one thing doesn’t change, and that is that you constantly accuse me of things I don’t do and have never done. I’m going to say this one more time. I DON’T WORSHIP MARY. So whatever my “actions” you claim you see are, your information is wrong. Flat out wrong. I don’t worship Mary. Now that we have that straight, are you going to continue to tell me I do?

            And Catholic traditions are from God, not man. Finally, you really need to stop asking Christians who are not “Bible-only” for Biblical citations.

          • Demopublicrat

            Christians who are not “Bible-only” – an oxymoron of sorts.

            “Why do we as Catholics honor, love and venerate her so deeply?” – love being catholic
            “Related to VENERATE
            Synonymsadore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship” – merriam-webster.comOh look Worship AND deify are synonymous with venerate, (which catholics say they do).What I would like to know is why in all of the letters from the apostles talking about the Christian life, venerating (since you like that form of worship better) mary is never once mentioned? It’s never mentioned in the entire Bible!

          • Spoob

            The difference is we are not asking Mary for salvation.

          • Demopublicrat

            Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

          • Spoob

            How nice for him. He likely meant that as an intercessor to CHRIST.

          • Demopublicrat

            Is not the pope infallible according to the RCC? Is not his word to be taken literally?

            “Who can worthily thank thee and adequately praise thee, oh Blessed Virgin, who by thy fiat has saved a lost world.” St. Augustine worshiping mary.

          • Spoob

            There have been bad popes in the past. No one would argue that. I still think he’s implying respect to the mother of Jesus.

          • Demopublicrat

            Backpeddle alert. According to the RCC the pope is infallible – period.

          • Spoob

            Well, that is wrong, too. They only claim infallibility when he sits ex cathedra. Which I think historically is less than 10 times.

          • Demopublicrat

            I think that “10 minutes” was included when popes were found to be heretics by other popes and councils if that is indeed the case.

          • Spoob

            Once again, you can play this “where is this or that in the Bible” game as much as you like, but only a small percentage of Christians are Bible-only. But to suggest that something not being in the Bible automatically makes it bad, I would ask you where is your car in the Bible? Or your computer? The word “Bible” isn’t even in the Bible, so I guess it must be bad? That is called an Argument from Silence and is what is known as a logical fallacy…feel free to go look it up. The point is it is intellectually dishonest for you to say things not in the Bible mean they are disapproved of.

            As for worship, Catholics worship Jesus and honor Mary. It is that simple. There is a difference.

          • Demopublicrat

            “…only a small percentage of Christians are Bible-only.” Your opinion.

            “I would ask you where is your car in the Bible?” Has my car or my computer become an official church doctrine or is it an inanimate object like a stone?

            “That is called an Argument from Silence and is what is known as a logical fallacy…feel free to go look it up.” Only if you were to ignore passages like Proverbs 30:6 – feel free to look that up.

            “The point is it is intellectually dishonest for you to say things not in the Bible mean they are disapproved of.” The Bible clearly states it has ALL we need to be what God wants us to be, why on earth would he leave it open for mere sinful men to make up whatever they choose?

            “As for worship, Catholics worship Jesus and honor Mary. It is that simple. There is a difference.” Only in verbiage, honor, venerate, deify, are all synonymous with worship. Building a shrine is most definitely worship, bowing to a graven image (against God’s commandment) is most definitely worship – idol worship, it’s that simple.

          • Spoob

            No, it’s a fact that you are in the minority. There are 1.2 billion Catholics alone on earth, without factoring in all the others, your number has already been completely dwarfed.

            The point is there are many things not mentioned in the Bible that are relevant. If someone wants to implore Mary to pray for them, you have no leg to stand on to say they can’t. Just saying it’s not in the Bible means nothing.

            And no, the Bible does not support sola scriptura. It says nothing about being all we require.

            No men are making anything up. These are church teachings and traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.

            Creating a shrine, temple, building, house, is not worship. I built a house for my mother several years ago. Is that worship?

            Do you have proof for any of the things you charge? What sources do tou have?

          • Demopublicrat

            “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. ” Matthew 7:13 Douay-Rheims Bible

          • Spoob

            “Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven’t got: a diploma.”

            – The Wizard of Oz

          • Demopublicrat

            So now the wizard of oz is your god? No wonder you mary-worshipers are clueless.

          • Spoob

            If you’re going to post walls of text with no obvious relevance, expect the same in return, evolution denier.

          • Demopublicrat

            “There are 1.2 billion Catholics alone on earth, without factoring in all the others, your number has already been completely dwarfed.” “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. ” Matthew 7:13 Douay-Rheims Bible
            Must I break out the crayons for you, creation denier? I’m curious, how do you deny something that never happened, like your second religion – evolution?

          • Spoob

            LOL! Yes, I do walk around denying things that science has proven decades ago.

          • Demopublicrat

            Correction, religious evolutionary zeolots have CLAIMED to have proven, yet nobody has ever seen it. Carry on God denier.

          • Spoob

            So it’s “God denier” now, eh? Too funny. Just keep those blinders on, Mary-hater, and try to forget that you’ve got the big man to answer to at the end of the day, who’s really going to want to know why you turned His word into a hate fest.

          • Demopublicrat

            You brought up more of your “proven science” fallacy and instead of defending it, which you can’t, you call me a mary hater. and try to forget that you’ve got God to answer to at the end of the day, the same God who said: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them…”
            You know like this:

          • Spoob

            LOL! What is the “proven science fallacy”? I see no reference to that anywhere online. WHEREAS, you keep abusing the RECOGNIZED logical fallacies on a regular basis. I haven’t been keeping score, but I’ve seen at least two No True Scotsman fallacies from you and at least three Arguments from Silence.

            God and I are good. He knows I don’t worship rocks. He also knows you’ve got them aplenty in your head.

            What is a picture of two people praying to God supposed to convince me of?

          • Demopublicrat

            You brought up more of your “proven science” fallacy and instead of defending it, which you can’t, you call me a mary hater.

            “What is a picture of two people praying to God supposed to convince me of?” Mary is God now?

          • Spoob

            Proving science is easy. What would you like me to prove? And it’s of course completely acceptable for you to call me a Mary worshiper even after I’ve told you a million times that I am not? Did you ask the people in the picture who they were praying to? There’s you’re litmus test right there. Your problem is you assume far too many things.

          • Demopublicrat

            Prove evolution is not a religion.
            I could tell you a million times I am Batman, but the fact remains I am not.

          • Spoob

            Really?

            Belief in religious ideas is based on faith, and religion deals with topics beyond the realm of the natural world. Acceptance of scientific ideas (like evolution) is based on evidence from the natural world, and science is limited to studying the phenomena and processes of the natural world. Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Belief in religious ideas is based on faith” faith that anything, as bill Nye put it, “somehow, probably” changed from one thing to another without any proof that it is even possible.

            “science is limited” Yup.

            “Supreme Court and other Federal court decisions clearly differentiate science from religion and do not permit the advocacy of religious doctrine in science (or other public school) classes.” they missed some, but then the courts cannot legislate, and are opinion based.

          • Spoob

            Christianity is a religion. It was a religion long before you tried to turn it into a “relationship with your best friend Jesus” – only a fundamentalist could have come up with the idea of a personal Jesus. “Jesus is MINE, you hear? Hands off. Mine and mine only.” Funny, growing up in my awful Mary-worshiping cult, I learned that Jesus was for everyone. Anyway, belief in religious ideas is what you have, which is why you have a religion. Evolution is not a religious idea.

            “Science is limited yup” – wow. Context really means nothing to you, does it?
            Here’s the whole sentence before you can “yup” it again:
            “Science is limited to studying the phenomena and processes of the natural world.”

            “They missed some, but then the courts cannot legislate, and are opinion based” – No. No opinion, fact. You cannot teach religion in a science class. But you CAN, and DO, teach evolution in a science class.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Jesus is MINE, you hear? Hands off. Mine and mine only.” nice asinine comment mary-worshiper.
            “Science is limited to studying the phenomena and processes of the natural world.” I’m pretty sure that means science is limited.
            Which religion are you blindy following again? popery or evolutionism?

            “You cannot teach religion in a science class. But you CAN, and DO, teach evolution in a science class.” Contradiction, evolution is a religion based on faith in an exploding dot.

          • Spoob

            Are you at all concerned that you resemble the comment above, Mary-hater?
            I can’t believe you’re not getting this, but the comment “Science is limited to studying the phenomena and processes of the natural world” means that it doesn’t try to delve into the supernatural, giving it one MORE reason (as if you needed more) about why evolution is not a religion.

            I am a Catholic, the pope is the leader of the Catholic church, just as your own church has a human leader. I DEFY you to tell me it doesn’t. That would be a lie. And your human leader is no different than the pope, except that the amount of members in your church is microscopic compared to 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide.

            And yes, I believe in evolution, although it’s not a religion. Most Catholics do. In fact, one of the foremost experts on evolution is a Catholic named Ken Miller.

            Evolution is not a religion, and it is not based on “faith in an exploding dot.” Still beating the hell out of that strawman I see. Maybe you should start with a definition of evolution, since you clearly do not understand what it is. Try out one of those 6 bazillion science links I sent you. Read slowly and attempt to understand and learn. It won’t hurt you.

          • Demopublicrat

            Mary-hater? I give mary her due.

            Evolution is a religion, there is no proof, it has to be taken on faith, God-hater.

            “…amount of members in your church is microscopic compared to 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide.” “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:” Matthew 7:13

            “And yes, I believe in evolution, although it’s not a religion. Most Catholics do.” Shows the blind following of the pope and the distain for scripture by the same. Evolution IS a religion -THERE IS NO PROOF, it HAS to be taken on faith, period.

            “you clearly do not understand what it is.” Evolutionist-speak for no proof.

            “Try out one of those 6 bazillion science links I sent you.” Instead of trying to bury me in BS, and since you understand it far more than I, give me some specific proof – or just be content in your religious belief.

          • Demopublicrat

            “And no, the Bible does not support sola scriptura. It says nothing about being all we require.” It sure does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Proverbs 30:6

            “No men are making anything up. These are church teachings and traditions that go all the way back to the beginning.” To the beginning of man making crap up and calling it “Christian”.

            “Creating a shrine, temple, building, house, is not worship. I built a house for my mother several years ago. Is that worship?” Do you have graven images of your mother about the house that you bow to, kiss, at place gifts at the feet? Or does she live there?

            “Do you have proof for any of the things you charge? What sources do tou[sic] have?” The Bible, your catechism, visual confirmation, the admittance of reformed catholics, etc.

          • Spoob

            2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Proverbs 30:6 do not say that the text of the Bible is all you need. And in fact there’s no way they COULD be saying that since those books were just single books at that time, not yet compiled into what the Bible would later become (when it was compiled by the Catholics).

            “Man making it up and calling it Christian” – no, you’re thinking of the fundamentalists, unless you’d like to provide scriptural basis for the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, etc.

            “Do you have graven images of your mother about the house that you bow to, kiss, at place gifts at the feet? Or does she live there?” No, she’s dead – but I certainly have pictures of her, just as I have pictures of Mary. And I treat both the same way – respectfully.

            So, you have no proof then. The Bible provides no proof, nor the catechism (both examples you cited are your own shortcomings and misunderstandings) – visual confirmation which we have established is impossible for you to have without speaking to the person. Ex Catholics – who never properly understood what they were doing, only to be sucked in by the fundamentalists? I call that nothing. How about a reputable source?

          • Demopublicrat

            “(when it was compiled by the Catholics).” That’s funny, but not true.
            “2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Proverbs 30:6 do not say that the text of the Bible is all you need.”
            “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I’m pretty sure (along with the majority of fifth-graders) that is exactly what it says. Then we have: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” I’m pretty sure that says not to add anything to His words, like vain traditions of men.

            “…no, you’re thinking of the fundamentalists” What do you think fundamentalist means there genius? When was my last alter call, I forget – or maybe it was a figment of your imagination in a ever so desperate attempt to shift the focus.

            “And I treat both the same way – respectfully.” Do you have graven images of your mother that you bow to, kiss, at place gifts at the feet? Did you build her a shrine? Call her holy? tell everyone she is a perpetual virgin? Maybe you pray to her as well – a couple of “hail mom’s”?
            “The Bible provides no proof” Only to the illiterate, the text is quite clear and you’re running out of denial real-estate. I do understand why you would think your own catechism isn’t reputable, but it’s all you’ve got.

            Ex Catholics – who never properly understood what they were doing” They DID understand, why do you think they’re EX-catholics.

          • Spoob

            http://listverse.com/2009/07/13/top-10-misconceptions-about-the-catholic-church/

            Here you are. From a non-Catholic source yet, and all the proof you need. Hope you have your fundamentalist crying
            towel handy, you’re going to need it.

            Nice try yet again with your scripture, but as I’ve already
            pointed out to you, any “book” of the Bible that talks about text refers only to itself, not to the Bible, since those books didn’t know they were going to be compiled with all the others. The books to be included were not even CHOSEN yet.

            And here’s something REALLY interesting about what you’ve
            quoted: Yet again, it DOES NOT support sola scriptura. What a surprise! You’re wanting the Bible to be all there is, but they say nothing about the co-existing church teachings and sacred traditions.

            Here’s another link for you that confirms that the Bible
            does not support sola scriptura:

            http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT

            Ooh! A hit straight to the solar plexus! Sorry, Satan made me
            do it (as I’m sure you’ll say).

            What do I think fundamentalist means? Once again, we have to speak contextually. The first dictionary definition I call up
            says “A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles,
            by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by
            intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.” If you want to wear this definition, it’s OK with me, because you’re certainly one of the most intolerant people I have ever
            encountered on a forum. You’re also swallowing every stupid and hateful lie I’ve ever seen hook, line and sinker. If you want to be defined by that that’s OK with me too. Personally
            it’s a word I would run away from at full speed, but that’s me. Altar calls? OK, we can forget those for now, if you think it means I’m shifting focus. Although I would have thought you’d
            be grateful for the diversion, since your behavior’s squarely in the spotlight now and I’m enjoying watching you answer for it.

            I don’t have images of my mother which I bow to, no. May have kissed it, not sure. No to gifts, no to shrine. What point is it you think you’re making? Because I can easily point out to you that lots of those gestures are also CULTURAL. In other words you’re zeroing in on what people in Catholic countries like Mexico and the Philippines might do. I’m not comfortable speaking about the traditions and cultures of people that I haven’t studied. ARE YOU? Giving gifts to me sounds like a respectful enough gesture – I wouldn’t call it worship, but that’s because I’m a reasonable human being.

            No, I stand by my original statement about the Bible providing no proof of what you’re trying to make fly here, little man. I see what you fundamentalists do with the words of the Bible, trying to twist them to match your own angry beliefs and I reject it. You guys don’t FOOL me. You might have hoodwinked a few weak Catholics into coming over to the dark side but generally speaking I think an ex-Catholic is like an ex-Gay – they were never straight in the first place, and the ex-Catholic was never Catholic in the first place either. You’re welcome to people like that.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Here you are. From a non-Catholic source yet, and all the proof you need. Hope you have your fundamentalist crying
            towel handy, you’re going to need it.” A towel to mop up the BS, why don’t go to Comedy Central and use “Southpark” as a source. EWTN the rosary channel, seriously? Why don’t I show you in the quran how islam is true.

            “Ooh! A hit straight to the solar plexus!” And the random guy you hit wasn’t amused, you missed here by a long shot.

            Tolerance of other views, so where does Ephesians 5:11 fit in? Oh that’s right, the Word of God is meaningless to you mary-worshipers (excuse me: “venerators”).

            “You’re also swallowing every stupid and hateful lie I’ve ever seen hook, line and sinker.” No surprise you call scripture a stupid and hateful lie, what I don’t understand is why you marians call yourselves “Christian” when that is far from your focal point.
            You enjoy your pagan cult of ignorance, but don’t try and insult my intelligence with false claims of it being even remotely Christian, creation denier.

          • Spoob

            That is very rich coming from someone who learned about Christianity from Jack Chick comix. I actually gave you a non-biased, historically accurate source there. Are you afraid to read it? Afraid of historical fact? Afraid to refute that vicious pack of truth?

            I think a little tolerance would go a long way with you personally, since you’re very keen on hating what you refuse to understand or even read about, Mary-hater. You’re the one who joined a fundie hate cult, what I have is tried and tested and 2000 years old. Your belief system hasn’t even got 100 years under its belt yet.

          • Demopublicrat

            Why do you catholics all seem to have Jack Chick fetishes? Even though I would sooner trust him then the pope, I don’t get Christianity from man – I’m not catholic remember?

            “Afraid to refute that vicious pack of truth?” I didn’t see any, sorry.

            “what I have is tried and tested and 2000 years old” Some other forms of paganism are much older, maybe you should follow them.

            “Your belief system hasn’t even got 100 years under its belt yet.” More tales from catholic fantasyland, since catholicism centers so heavily around mary, why isn’t the “veneration” fallicy mentioned at all in the Bible? Seems odd that the Apostle Paul never made a pilgrimage to some shrine or another, or ever mentioned so much as one “hail mary”.

          • Spoob

            Jack Chick? Maybe because every stupid thing you say can be traced back to one of his little hate-bombs. Of COURSE you would trust him before the Pope – the Pope is no fun because he tells you you shouldn’t hate stuff.

            Here again is the truth you keep pretending not to see:
            http://listverse.com/2009/07/13/top-10-misconceptions-about-the-catholic-church/

            Is it a sport of yours to take anything you happen not to like and call it pagan, even though kindergarteners know it’s not? Like Christmas? Like Catholicism? Like the pope? Like Jesus Christ? Like Mary?

            You fundies haven’t been around long, you are the new loud snotty kid on the block, I promise. Bible literalism has barely been around 100 years. I doubt most fundies even know this.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

          • Demopublicrat

            Jack Chick didn’t write scripture.

            I post bible passages, and you quote from The Onion – pathetic.

            I guarantee the apostles were “fundies”.
            Wikipedia, ROFL – that’s a good one.
            “Bible literalism has barely been around 100 years.” Who do you think the catholics were butchering up after the Roman Empire collapsed?

            “From the birth of popery to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty million of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors,–an average of more than 40,000 religious murders for every year of the existence of popery to the present day. Of course the average number of victims yearly, was vastly greater, during those gloomy ages when popery was in her glory and reigned despot of the world; and it has been much less since the power of the popes has diminished to tyrannize over the nations, and to compel the princes of the earth, by the terrors of excommunication, interdiction, and deposition, to butcher their heretical subjects.”–John Dowling, The History of Romanism, pp. 541-542. Talk about hate.

          • Spoob

            “Jack Chick didn’t write scripture?” Yeah, you’re damn RIGHT he didn’t, although I’m sure he thinks he did, so why does every word out of your mouth sound exactly like Jack Chick’s playbook, right down to the derogatory comments you can’t resist making? Every stupid, ridiculous, inane, idiotic charge you make against Catholics is pure unadulterated crap, er, I mean Chick.

            What the hell are you talking about, quoting from “The Onion”? Where has your mind traveled to this time?

            Wikipedia – yep, it’s better than a good one. You should try reading something that wasn’t endorsed by fundies for a change. Might do you the world of good.

            I have no idea who the Catholics were butchering, why don’t you tell me? You do realize there were only CHRISTIANS in those days, and no denominations?

            http://www.lovingspirituality.com/how-evangelical-christians-are-destroying-christianity/

          • Demopublicrat

            Seek help for you Jack Chick obsession.

            http://www.lovingspirituality…. – textbook straw man.

          • Spoob

            Physician, heal thyself.

          • Demopublicrat

            Get on it then.

          • Spoob

            After you, Mr. Chick.

          • Spoob

            ..

          • Demopublicrat

            Psychobabble, doesn’t change the observed fact, by many people, of mary-worship.

          • Spoob

            Which is not what is going on, as you have been repeatedly told, and not just by me.

          • Demopublicrat

            Told one thing while doing another. Tell me how erecting a very expensive shrine isn’t worship. With all of the things you catholics do in regard to mary, if that’s not worship, then worship doesn’t exist at all.

          • Spoob

            OK, that’s easy. Building a shrine isn’t worship. Worship is worship. Praising, lauding, extolling, all those sorts of things are worship. You certainly have some strange ideas.

          • Demopublicrat

            Praising, lauding, extolling, all those sorts of things are worship.
            You mean like this: “Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

            At Fatima, Portugal, crowds of over a million people gather on the anniversary of the apparition of our lady of fatima. The celebration includes a procession of a million people following a statue of Mary and singing her praises, and worshiping her.

          • Spoob

            You are electing to believe what you want, and it is not factual in the least. And you are not being truthful – at no point in the Bible did Christ ever say we should not honour Mary.

          • Demopublicrat

            “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, YEA RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke 11:27-28) Do show the scripture that specifically says we are to “honor” mary, or venerate her, or worship her, or…

          • Spoob

            Why do you ask for scripture when you know full well I am not a Bible-only Christian?

          • Demopublicrat

            Because catholic traditions are not God inspired, they have changed over the years and in many instances contradict the Word of God, therefore are unreliable at best. If your beliefs were truly Christian, the Bible would back you up.

          • Spoob

            Well you happen to be wrong about that, there is nothing about Catholic traditions that go against God in any way. You have been lied to and misled by people with no understanding of church history. So don’t request scripture anymore or you will be told the same thing.

          • Demopublicrat

            Try this on for starters: “For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary.” Pope Pius IX

            Catholic tradition: Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life. (Catechism 411, 493)

            The Bible: Revelation 15:4 – “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou ONLY art holy”. Romans 3:23 – “For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”.

            “You have been lied to and misled by people with no understanding of church history.” Catechism has no understanding of church history? You seem to be having a really hard time with this, but the simple fact is you do not know me. You don’t know what I do and what I don’t do. You have never met me and you cannot possibly know or guess any of my actions.

          • Spoob

            Pius IX is expressing his own opinion and love for Mary. He is not making a formal doctrinal pronouncement.

            Mary was sinless. How could Jesus come from a human being who wasn’t sinless?

            “Thou only art holy” – no argument, I don’t see what point you’re making, no one turns to Mary for salvation.

            You have presented excerpts from the Catechism, but also exposed your grave misunderstandings of it.

            I don’t claim to know you, what you do or don’t do, don’t anticipate meeting you and have no interested in your actions, so I really don’t know why you included all that irrelevant drivel – it pertains entirely to you, not to me.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Pius IX is expressing his own opinion and love for Mary. He is not making a formal doctrinal pronouncement.” “For this is His will: ” You seriously expect me to believe that?

            “Mary was sinless. How could Jesus come from a human being who wasn’t sinless?” I believe the Bible covers that, he existed long before mary.

            ““Thou only art holy” – no argument, I don’t see what point you’re making…” Of course you don’t – official RCC catechism states that mary is holy, she is not, nor was she ever, that’s the point.

            “You have presented excerpts from the Catechism, but also exposed your grave misunderstandings of it.” So saying mary is holy really means she isn’t? Or are you trying to cover your BS with perfume?

          • Spoob

            “You seriously expect me to believe that?” Couldn’t care less.

            “I believe the Bible covers that, he existed long before mary.” Chapter and verse please.

            No, Mary was holy. You are wrong. The only BS I’m smelling is your own.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Couldn’t care less.” Don’t lie, you do to care, or you wouldn’t keep posting your delusions.
            “Chapter and verse please.” Hebrews 1:1-2, Colossians 1:16-17, John 8:58, John 1:3.

            “No, Mary was holy.” In the Book of Revelation, when they were searching for someone who was worthy to break the seals and open the scroll, the only person who was found to be worthy was Jesus. Nobody else in Heaven or on earth (including Mary) was worthy to open the scroll or even look inside it. (Revelation 5:1-5) Or YOU could show me chapter and verse.

          • Spoob

            Don’t post BS and put a fundamentalist spin on it, like the quote from Pius, completely out of context.
            Those verses say nothing about Mary giving birth to Jesus, nor about her being sinful. Nice try.
            Mary was holy.

          • Demopublicrat

            I quote scripture, you send me to some website, and make nonsensical statements like: “Nice try yet again with your scripture, but as I’ve already pointed out to you, any “book” of the Bible that talks about text refers only to itself, not to the Bible (just ignore the scripture Christ himself quoted, or the fact that God breathed the scriptures, and being outside of time KNEW full well what the Bible would be since the beginning).

            Those verses say nothing about Mary giving birth to Jesus, nor about her being holy. Nice try. Mary was as sinful as any of us, (just ignore the passages that says there was only one sinless person ever to walk the earth). But keep on with your idolatrous mary-worship.

          • Spoob

            Quoting scripture alone is useless when you take it out of context, which you do constantly. I think every single verse of the Bible translates into carte blanche for you to hate on someone who disagrees with you.

            Are you telling me that you ACTUALLY think verses in the Bible referring to scripture refer to the entire Bible? Have you got ROCKS in your head? How could this be possible when the books were written as individual books and didn’t know they’d one day be compiled into what is now called the Bible? God “breathed” something he new was going to be VOTED on by a council? And you wonder why people here think you’re nuts?

            Keep up with my idolatrous Mary-worship, eh? I can play this game too, all day long, illiterate fundie Mary-hater.

          • Demopublicrat

            “take it out of context” I see the English language still escapes you. I suppose everything you disagree with is “out of context” even thought the wording is plain to see.

            ” God ‘breathed’ something he new [sic] was going to be VOTED on by a council?” Which he guided with his spirit.

            Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”
            Oh I know, I took that out of context, he was really talking about getting some Chinese take-out.

          • Spoob

            Not everything is as simply as quoting scripture as you do. The meaning of the words is affected by many things, and you never consider this for a moment.

            No, God did not “breathe” something that hadn’t happened yet and guide it with his spirit. You could use a line like that to put God’s face on anything you like. Did God “guide” Jack Chick to write hate literature which isn’t even permitted in several countries? Did God “guide” the Westboro Loonies to protest the funerals of dead soldiers to protest homosexuality, when the soldiers were not even homosexual? God isn’t “guided” to do all the things you happen to like. That’s very convenient for you and anyway you aren’t God so you don’t know.

            Psalm 12:6-7 – thanks for providing such an excellent example of the CONTEXT I was talking about. That is a simple statement that God’s words are holy and pure. So what point are you trying to use them to make?

          • Demopublicrat

            “Not everything is as simply as quoting scripture as you do. ” the truth is.

            “No, God did not “breathe” something that hadn’t happened yet and guide it with his spirit.” Heresy.

            Jack Chick did not write scripture, neither did anyone else you mention, you can keep your Jack Chick obsession to yourself, it is not relevant here.

            “That is a simple statement that God’s words are holy and pure.”
            “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” you missed something – again.

          • Spoob

            You do not possess a monopoly on the truth. In fact I think you haven’t
            got the foggiest idea what the truth is. Truth is absolute, not
            subjective. And we both know that scripture can be twisted and bent to a
            person’s individual use and interpretation.

            It is not heresy to suggest that God wrote about events that had not happened, it’s common sense.

            Jack
            Chick and you are two peas in a pod, as long as you sound like you’re
            parroting his every word then yes, he’s going to be relevant to this
            discussion, although the man is utterly irrelevant to me as a human
            being. Both you and Chick have taken a good and holy thing, the Bible,
            and turned it into a weapon of destruction of those you disagree with.

            Looks
            like I DID miss something, you’re right. When you quote scripture you
            could at least make your point ahead of time. I still don’t know what
            you’re rambling about.

          • Demopublicrat

            I never claimed a monopoly on the truth, simply that the Bible is truth.

            “It is not heresy to suggest that God wrote about events that had not happened, it’s common sense.” This is what you said: “No, God did not “breathe” something that hadn’t happened yet and guide it with his spirit.” Heresy.

            Jack Chick – http://www.wikihow.com/Get-over-an-Obsession

            “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
            1 Corinthians 1:18

          • Spoob

            The Bible is truth. What you haven’t grasped is that it is not the ONLY truth. And you have tried, and failed, to make your own ideas Biblical ones.

            I stand by my statement that it is not a heresy to suggest God does not predict the future regarding books that the church has not yet compiled into the Bible. How ridiculous. Do YOU know how the Bible was compiled? Do enlighten me.

            Jack Chick – http://introducedrat.com/evil.htm

            “All right, I’ll go in there for Dorothy. Wicked Witch or no Wicked Witch, guards or no guards, I’ll tear them apart. I may not come out alive, but I’m going in there. There’s only one thing I want you fellows to do.” – The Wizard of Oz

          • Demopublicrat

            The Bible is truth. What you haven’t grasped is that it is not the ONLY truth. And you have tried, and failed, to make your own ideas Biblical ones.

            “I stand by my statement that it is not a heresy to suggest God does not predict the future regarding books that the church has not yet compiled into the Bible.” God is all-knowing, omniscient, your statement is heresy.

            You Jack Chick obsession and your little website are quite telling, enjoy your mary-worshiping pagan cult.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ_PHzWE0jk

          • Spoob

            The Bible is truth. What you haven’t grasped is that it is not the ONLY truth. And you have tried, and failed, to make your own ideas Biblical ones. Such as us not celebrating Christmas, such as us hating the mother of Christ, such as claiming sola scriptura as Biblical.

            God is all-knowing, omniscient, yet for some reason doesn’t predict the future. Your statement is stupidity.

            Your Jack Chick worship and your learning disability are quite telling, enjoy your Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, ignorance-embracing hate cult.

          • Demopublicrat

            The Bible is truth, anything the contradicts it is not – like catholic man-made tradition.

            “God is all-knowing, omniscient, yet for some reason doesn’t predict the future.” your statement not mine, and it is stupidity.

            Your Jack Chick obsession and your learning disability are quite telling, enjoy your Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, ignorance-embracing pagan hate cult.

          • Spoob

            Nothing in the Catholic faith contradicts the Bible. If you’ve been taught a pack or vicious hate regarding the church, it’s your own fault for believing it. And, as it’s already been pointed out, your Bible is man-made too, and subject to change and disagreements.
            Heresy and stupidity? No, it’s heresy and stupidity to say God magically predicts which books will end up being in a Bible centuries before it is compiled. And if you actually believe that to be true, then your brain problem is worse than I thought.

            I’m sorry you don’t like being compared to Jack Chick (and I wouldn’t either), but if you’d drop the lies, hatred, wild conspiracy theories and utter ridiculousness, it wouldn’t happen anymore, but my suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, ignorance-embracing hate cult. You’re nothing short of a menace to society.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Nothing in the Catholic faith contradicts the Bible.” Works for salvation, mary-worship and the graven images that go with it, etc.

            My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, Bible rejecting, pagan, ignorance-embracing hate cult. You’re nothing short of a menace to society.

          • Spoob

            Firstly, Catholics do not believe in works for salvation – that’s your usual strawman, attacking the Catholics by misrepresenting their beliefs. We believe in a combination of works and faith by grace. We don’t worship Mary either, I mean I seriously wish I’ve been keeping a tally of how many times I’ve told you this but your brain problem keeps getting in the way of it sinking into your skull. As for graven images, two minutes in a Catholic church or a mass and you’d know that worship is reserved for Jesus Christ, in fact it’s right in the catechism that to do otherwise is a grave sin. So you have your head up your butt threefold right there. But you know that, don’t you? It’s a lot easier to taunt when you ignore facts and go straight for ad hominems.

            My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing hate cult. You’re nothing short of a menace to society. You know this. I defy you to deny it.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Firstly, Catholics do not believe in works for salvation – that’s your usual strawman, attacking the Catholics by misrepresenting their beliefs.” “We believe in a combination of works…” Works, no matter how you deny, or twist, or whatever…

            ” We don’t worship Mary either…” Graven images, bowing, praying to, giving gifts to your graven images, kissing them, building shrines to, making pilgrimages, calling her a “co-redeptrix, and so on – no that’s not worship, just use a different synonym and it will all be ok.

            My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, creation-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing hate cult. You’re nothing short of a menace to society. You know this. I defy you to deny it.

          • Spoob

            “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” – James 2:17

            Looking forward to seeing how you twist this remarkably straightforward bit of scripture.

            “Graven images, bowing, praying to, giving gifts to your graven images, kissing them, building shrines to, making pilgrimages, calling her a “co-redeptrix, and so on – no that’s not worship.”

            I think you might be finally catching on. It’s NOT worship. “Mary I implore you to save my soul and take me to heaven.” – THAT would be worship.
            My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, evolution-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing hate cult. And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

          • Demopublicrat

            “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” – James 2:17 The word saved, salvation, etc. is absent from thins passage as it is talking about people who claim to believe, yet their actions prove otherwise – not at all that works will save, try Ephesians 2:8-9 which is crystal clear on the matter.

            “I think you might be finally catching on. It’s NOT worship.” Your denial is pathetic, and in no way does mary have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with salvation – no co-redemptrix heresy.

            My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, creation-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, pagan hate cult (evolutionism is a religion). And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

          • Spoob

            That’s a very interesting interpretation you have of James 2:17. Too bad it’s at complete variance with practically every Bible scholar out there. This is par for the course for you – make the established scriptures mean what YOU want them to, not what they actually mean.

            We’re saying the same thing regarding Mary, dum dum. She’s got nothing to do with salvation. That’s why we don’t worship her. Get it now?
            I can play this repeating-back game you enjoy so much all day long, too. My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-despising, dictionary-rejecting, evolution-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, fundie hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Too bad it’s at complete variance with practically every Bible scholar out there.” They found salvation in that passage? How does that work with Ephesians 2:8-9?

            “regarding Mary” What’s that? I can’t hear you, your actions are way to loud.

            I can play this repeating-back game you enjoy so much all day long, too. My suspicion is that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary and Bible-rejecting, creation-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, pagan hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.
            BTW one can’t deny something that never happened.

          • Spoob

            Well of course it’s about salvation, what else would it be about?
            “What’s that? I can’t hear you, your actions are way to loud.” That’s your problem right there, you’re assuming you know what my actions are, which you don’t. You aren’t a mind reader and neither is any other fundamentalist. You need to learn this over and over, apparently.

            You want more? OK then. I’m quite positivet hat you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, evolution-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, fundie hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.
            BTW the great majority of Christians disagree with practically everything you say.

          • Demopublicrat

            It’s about actions speak louder than words, if you profess to be a believer, your life will reflect that. When your done skirting around Ephesians 2:8-9 it should be quite clear.

            ” That’s your problem right there, you’re assuming you know what my actions are, which you don’t.” No assumption needed, it’s plain to see.

            I’m quite positivet hat you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, creation-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, pagan hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

            “BTW the great majority of Christians disagree with practically everything you say.” Correction – catholics

          • Spoob

            Faith without works is dead. That’s what it says and that’s what it means. You can’t slip in your own hidden meanings, you’d be arguing from the Bible’s silence yet again if you did that.

            Tell you what, why don’t you send me a picture of me worshipping Mary? That should settle this for once and for all. Actually, no it wouldn’t – please also send me a recording of myself admitting that I worship Mary. Until you can conclusively prove this by doing that, I’m going to suggest you’re talking our your fundie butt.
            I’m quite positive that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, snake-waving, evolution-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, fundie hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact. And continues to.

            Catholics comprise the great majority of Christians, but many others including Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists disagree with practically everything you say.

          • Demopublicrat

            Faith without works is dead. It doesn’t say salvation through works, I have already explained this, you can’t slip in your own hidden meanings. The Bible is not silent on this, but you keep skirting the passages that speak on this – that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. EPHESIANS 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.
            Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

            I’m quite positive that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, Bible-rejecting, Christian-murdering, creation-denying, Bible twisting, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, pagan hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

            “Catholics comprise the great majority of Christians, but many others including Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists disagree with practically everything you say.” “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.” Matthew 7:13

          • Spoob

            It says faith without works is dead. Period. You’re trying to exclude salvation which is being understood in the statement itself. You’re very right when you say it doesn’t say salvation, and that’s what we mean by an argument from silence.

            The “works” in verse 8 of Ephesians are those that obligate God to pay you, they are not the same as the “good works” in v10 that a Christian must take care to perform. Have you looked at Eph 4:17-5:18? That section shows clearly the way a Christian lives their life has an impact on their salvation.
            Or did you conveniently ignore that?

            I’m quite positive that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-hating, dictionary-rejecting, Bible-twisting,
            Catholic-murdering, evolution-denying, snake-waving, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, fundie hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

            “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” – Barry Goldwater

          • Demopublicrat

            “It says faith without works is dead. Period.” Yes it does, nothing about salvation – can you say “thief on the cross”?

            “an argument from silence” Just because that passage doesn’t say “not for salvation” doesn’t mean that’s not the case elsewhere in the Bible.

            “are those that obligate God to pay you” Not even close make-stuff-up boy.
            Works cannot be a means of salvation because only saved men are inclined to perform them.
            Eph 4:17-5:18 talks about the transformation resulting FROM salvation. Works? “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” – Isaiah 64:6
            I’m quite positive that you’re quite content being a member of a Mary-worshiping, dictionary-rejecting, Bible-ignoring, Christian-murdering, creation-denying, chicken-sacrificing, thick headed, brainless, ignorance-embracing, pagan idolatrous hate cult . And every post you make reinforces this simple fact.

          • pax2u

            true we are to forgive those who lie, when they say that Catholics worship Mary, I forgive you and pray that one day you may be a Christian

          • Demopublicrat

            You can start by forgiving yourself.

          • pax2u

            I ask for forgiveness every day and I forgive those who hate me and lie about my faith, I forgive you

          • Demopublicrat

            Repentance figures prominently, start with the RCC and it’s paganism.

          • pax2u

            so you believe that repentance is pagan?
            “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”
            your answer speaks volumes

          • Demopublicrat

            Do you know how to read?

          • pax2u

            If you believe that asking for forgiveness is pagan, then I understand why you are alone

          • Demopublicrat

            Apparently you don’t know how to read.

      • Frank

        Yes,they do.

        • pax2u

          only on statements of faith and morals which has happened 7 times in 2000 years
          as Jesus gave the Keys of authority to st Peter

          • Frank

            You are in error

          • pax2u

            how funny an anti Catholic bigot who does not understand the concept of Papal Infallibility.
            I assume that you belong to no denomination, who would accept your hatred of Christians

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        Not this Catholic.

      • Rosavera

        No, they don’t. All Catholics as all other Christians know that humans are not infallible for they do fall short of His grace.

    • Demopublicrat

      According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic men and women are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the bishops of the Church interpret a passage and they are to accept what the bishops teach as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it. (Catechism 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, 2050)

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        That may be true, I am a convert to Catholism and you might call me a Cafeteria Catholic I don’t care. Mary was not divine, but human just as the Joesph was. If there is not Biblical standing for a rule/doctrine I do question it. If they want to throw me out of the Church, I will still attend Mass and take Eucharistic. I take my faith in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, I believe in the Catholic Church but fear it’s Bishops are running amok sometimes.

        • Rosavera

          Thomas seems to resent the fact that he is not getting what he wants, marriage to his fiancée but not until she reaches 60 years. Thomas have you ever thought that maybe you are living in sin with her…? Yet you want a priest to do your bidding of choice…

          • Thomas Collins Jr June

            No, all I want is for a Priest to follow the Canon Law 1130-1131 and marry us in a Sacramental Marriage, not my bidding but what God and the Church calls for. When I explained our situation and that nothing would separate us, he suggested we do our own exchange of vows since we both are so sincere. God knows what is in my heart and my dear Fiancee, so we have exchanged vows and will do the formal marriage latter, but a piece of paper and blessing from a Priest is not going to make me any more married to her than I am at present. If I am wrong then I will be punished, but doubt that as I have said God is with me and the Holy Spirit is in me, I follow God not man made laws.

          • MarcAlcan

            I have said God is with me and the Holy Spirit is in me, I follow God not man made laws.

            Do you really? Follow God?
            And to claim that God is with you is total hubris. What makes you so sure?

        • Demopublicrat

          Your best bet is to study the Bible and pray earnestly (to God) for guidance. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9
          The Bible encourages people to check what they are being taught with scripture.

          • aleks

            Study the bible and pray earnestly. All cults have these reasoning every time, and all cults have their own religion and never agree with each other.

          • Demopublicrat

            Like the RCC doesn’t agree with scripture.

          • Yvonne Bongle

            Now that is a bunch of nonsense.

          • Demopublicrat

            Think about that next time your bowing to your graven image.

          • Thomas Collins Jr June

            I was saved 8 years before I ever became Catholic, the good old fashioned Pentecostal way, while reading my Bible one evening I felt the Holy Spirit enter me and I fell to my knees alone in my bedroom and asked Christ to forgive me and accept me into his flock. I have been a totally different person since. I am saved and baptised and Catholic which came later.

          • Demopublicrat

            Like I said, pray for guidance.

          • Lizzie

            So you have put yourself under the authority of a denomination that teaches proving hearsay / false doctrine, instead of heeding our Lord Jesus Christ’s stern warnings against false teachers and their deception. You are being disobedient! And that is not a relative statement for you to justify and worm out of, period.

          • Thomas Collins Jr June

            And it’s between me and God, not you to judge.

          • Labataille

            Your last sentence is a circular reference. Which explains the problem. Every religious person relies on some authority figure to tell the how to interpret the bible. Otherwise you would have 2 billion different but equally valid interpretations. Maybe they actually are all valid.

          • Demopublicrat

            Perhaps one Holy Spirit would suffice. God leads the individual.

          • MarcAlcan

            Perhaps one Holy Spirit would suffice. God leads the individual

            You are all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit and you are all coming up with different teachings. So which one is really being guided by the Holy Spirit? Of maybe the Holy Spirit does not really know the truth or maybe changes His mind every now and again.

          • Demopublicrat

            “…you are all coming up with different teachings.” I am coming up with different teachings than what? Are you lumping me with people I don’t fellowship with? Or are you talking about Vatican 1 vs. Vatican 2?

          • MarcAlcan

            “…you are all coming up with different teachings.” I am coming up with different teachings than what? Are you lumping me with people I don’t fellowship with?

            Okay, dumb statement no 2.
            THAT IS PRECISELY my point!
            Those whom you do not fellowship with believe differently to you, and to the 33,000 other denominations.
            If you are really all led by the Holy Spirit, then that is one confused Holy Spirit who all led you to different “truths”. That is dumb.

          • Demopublicrat

            Other people’s beliefs are irrelevant, denomination is not in the Bible and is also irrelevant. For someone touting the RCC as being different from the “33,000 other denominations, you have your share of divisions Vatican 2 anyone?

          • MarcAlcan

            Other people’s beliefs are irrelevant, denomination is not in the Bible and is also irrelevant. For someone touting the RCC as being different from the “33,000 other denominations, you have your share of divisions Vatican 2 anyone?

            Oh but the Church remains one Church. When those in the Church no longer believe, then they can leave and be ….. Protestant.
            it is true that there are some who remain in the Church even though they have become protestant at heart. These are the ones who are like termites …. they remain so they can destroy the Church.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Oh but the Church remains one Church.” Ahh, no. I personally know catholics who drive over 3 hours one way to attend a church that rejects Vatican 2.

          • MarcAlcan

            Here’s something you have to understanding. The Church is one. There may be those who refer to themselves as Catholics but who are in fact not. The sedevacantists are the same as the Protestants except that you are on opposite ends of the revolt. The only difference between Protestants and Protestant-Catholics is that you have come out of the closet, they are still pretending to themselves. that they are Catholic. There are many of them of different variants. I have often challenged them to follow the consequences of their beliefs and just leave. Stop pretending.

            Protestants on the other hand really leave their denomination when they have come up with their own.

          • Demopublicrat

            Mumbo jumbo.

          • MarcAlcan

            Only because you don’t comprehend it.
            Which speaks more of your intellectual capacity.

          • Demopublicrat

            It is easy to comprehend – it’s mumbo jumbo, which speaks more of your intellectual capacity.

          • MarcAlcan

            Well IF it is easy to comprehend yet you think it is mumbo jumbo then you did not comprehend it. Ergo, you are intellectually challenged. You can’t even get your comment right LOL

          • MarcAlcan

            denomination is not in the Bible and is also irrelevant

            Yes, yes, yes!!!
            Denominations are not in the Bible because there is only one Church you will find in the Bible -the one Christ established – the Catholic Church.

            Christ is totally against denominations that is why he prayed for unity.

            Finally you get! Hip, hip hurray.

          • Demopublicrat

            “is only one Church you will find in the Bible -the one Christ established – the Catholic Church.” Lost in fantasyland.

          • MarcAlcan

            Truth bears this out. And I can prove it.
            If you like when can add it to the list of “arguments against the Church” that we are going through.
            We can take that up after the other one you mentioned/

          • Demopublicrat

            The catholic church is a mash of paganism salted with Christian sounding names, it is most definitely not anything Christ established, Constantine perhaps, not Christ.

          • MarcAlcan

            The catholic church is a mash of paganism salted with Christian sounding names, it is most definitely not anything Christ established, Constantine perhaps, not Christ.

            Only because you are too ignorant of history.
            Like I said. I could prove it to you.
            But instead of telling to go ahead you dish out more of your ignorant drivel.
            You are afraid that I am telling the truth aren’t you?
            Otherwise you would have taken up my challenge.
            See, you are like the rest of your ignorant ilk who like to wallow in their darkness. Fine, wallow in your darkness. The Father of lies has got you completely in his grip.

          • Demopublicrat

            “The Father of lies has got you completely in his grip.” The perhaps I should break out the graven images and start bowing and serving someone who has absolutely no relevance to salvation right?

          • MarcAlcan

            The perhaps I should break out the graven images and start bowing and serving someone who has absolutely no relevance to salvation right?

            But you already are.

          • Demopublicrat

            I’m not catholic, sorry, I don’t worship mary.

          • MarcAlcan

            I’m not catholic, sorry, I don’t worship mary.

            Neither do Catholics. But you do worship someone. Yourself.

          • Demopublicrat

            What’s that? You actions are still too loud.

          • MarcAlcan

            Yours speak more loudly. Your lying and your stupid comments are proof of this.

          • Demopublicrat

            What?

          • MarcAlcan

            See a cognition therapist. But no forget that one. It won’t work either. The problem is irreversible.

          • Demopublicrat

            Still can’t hear you.

          • MarcAlcan

            Still can’t hear you.

            I know that. You’re one of those that Jesus spoke of. The ones that don’t have the ears to hear. No wonder you are what you are.

          • Demopublicrat

            What?

          • Linnea Sandkuhler

            I am Catholic and I honor and love His Mother…will pray for you.

          • Conor Maher

            woah……still brothers and sisters in christ.

          • MarcAlcan

            Indeed. But it still remains that this brother in Christ is ignorant of Christian history and prefers to wallow in this ignorance rather than seek the truth.

      • pax2u

        If a person wants to be a Catholic they would need to believe the Biblical theology of the Catholic Church
        otherwise they can choose from 30 thousand different denominations, and 30 thousand different theologies, all of which believe that theirs is the true and pure Church

        • Demopublicrat

          The Catholic Church officially states that Church tradition is equal in authority to the Bible. (Catechism 80, 84, 86, 97) The problem is that Catholic tradition consists of various expressions of worship and belief of the Catholic people. (Catechism 78, 98, 113, 2650, 2661) It is nebulous. It keeps changing. You cannot find it written in one place. You can’t really put your hands on exactly what it is, and it actually contradicts the Bible in many instances.

          • aleks

            Catholic faith is not only to the Roman catholic. Eastern orthodox and Oriental orthodox share almost the same beliefs.
            They are the ones who made the bible. Aren’t they foolish enough to create what will trample them.

          • Demopublicrat

            They had nothing to do with the make-up of the Bible – catholic myth.

          • James Grimes

            This is definitely heresy – “They are the ones who made the bible.”

          • pax2u

            interesting that you reference Christian tradition when you have no denomination, no church, no tradition, no doctrine, no theology and no fellowship
            it is best that you are alone, just you and your hatred of Christians

          • James Grimes

            Same ‘ole, same ‘ole… Aren’t you able to sing a different tune for once? Your constant dreary repetitions are boring. Please, do some real research and find out what God says.

          • pax2u

            very true same thing, those who hate and willing to lie about the Catholic Church never have a denomination, and their theology is to hate the Catholic Church

          • James Grimes

            Same old crap again. Are you a hopeless old man?

          • pax2u

            sorry if you believe that Christianity is crap,
            but you have said that the Catholic Church and mainstream Christianity are apostate,
            so very angry, I will pray for you

          • James Grimes

            You are totally delusional and act like an angry old man. I will not respond to any more of your delusional comments. Please don’t respond to anything I post.

          • pax2u

            I understand why you believe that the Catholic Church and ALL main stream denomination are apostate, you hate and anger is the reason that no denomination would accept you

          • James Grimes

            I asked this person not to respond to anything I post, yet he does so with arrogance. I have tried to engage him in legitimate conversation, but he keeps repeating himself ad nauseum. I want to ignore his lunacy and ask that the real believers who are active here do the same. We will not get anywhere with this guy.

          • Demopublicrat

            Back to this again?

          • pax2u

            still trying to find a denomination that will accept your hatred?

          • Demopublicrat

            Still trying to find denomination is the Bible?

          • pax2u

            you are correct, it is best that you are alone

          • Demopublicrat

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            please keep waiting I am happy that you have no denomination

          • Demopublicrat

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            and I am thankful that you are waiting, all alone, by yourself

          • Demopublicrat

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            put on a coat as you wait in the cold, it is best that you are alone

          • Demopublicrat

            What, can’t back up anything you say? Then don’t say it.

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            I hope you have a hat while you are in the cold, all alone, it is best that you are alone

          • Demopublicrat

            Well I suppose you and the pope are planning on heading someplace warm.

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            it is best that you are alone

          • Demopublicrat

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            put on a coat, when you are out in the cold all alone

          • Demopublicrat

            Still waiting…

          • pax2u

            put a coat and hat on while you are in the cold all alone

        • Demopublicrat

          If a person wants to be a Christian, they would need to believe the Biblical theology of the God’s word.

          otherwise they can choose from 30 thousand different denominations, and 30 thousand different theologies, and the Vatican 1 or Vatican 2 catholic church, all of which believe that theirs is the true and pure Church while adding their own vain traditions of men.

          • Spoob

            Actually it isn’t true to say that the church added man made traditions. Are you fundamentalist? They often make this claim, but actually everything in the Catholic Church is from God.

          • Demopublicrat

            Ok, then show the Bible passage that states mary is a perpetual virgin, or that she ascended into heaven, or that she has anything what-so-ever to do with salvation. That’s just for starters.

          • Spoob

            My sources aren’t from the Bible, they are church teachings. And Mary is not turned to for salvation, we turn to Jesus.

          • Demopublicrat

            The your sources are man-made add ons, otherwise if it were true and relevant, the Bible would contain it.

            “Mary is not turned to for salvation, we turn to Jesus.” Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

          • Spoob

            That is not how it works. Scripture, teachings and traditions work together in a kind of checks-and-balances system. You cannot say that because it is absent from the Bible that is the only place you need to look, that is sola scriptura nonsense which itself is unbiblical. You are very clearly a fundamentalist.

          • Demopublicrat

            Nope, Scripture is the word of God, God stated in his word that it is ALL we need, teachings and traditions are of sinful man the only “checks and balances” are if it lines up with scripture then it is true, if not it is NOT of God – period.

            “You cannot say that because it is absent from the Bible that is the only place you need to look” That flawed way of thinking leaves it open for anybody to add anything, all one has to do is convince enough people that one is “special”. Talk about nonsense, in a matter of eternal life or eternal damnation, why would God give us an incomplete ideology? Answer: He didn’t.

          • Spoob

            That is a fairly bold statement, I wonder if you have proof of it since you’re saying something that flies in the face of Christian teachings and beliefs historically. No one, not even the pope, changes church teachings, they remain as solid as anything in the Bible.

          • Demopublicrat

            All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works. Note the highlighted words.
            “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6 Pretty simple there.

            “No one, not even the pope, changes church teachings, they remain as solid as anything in the Bible.” LOL, Good one. Vatican 2 ring any bells? Or as I posted before: “Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two “infallible” councils. “No one, not even the pope, changes church teachings…”

          • http://devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/ Devin Rose

            Wrong again. You are probably using a Protestant translation of the Bible that deliberately mistranslates “paradosis” in key places. Traditions are praised by St. Paul in 2 & 3 Thessalonians. There are human traditions and God-instituted traditions, so you cannot just say “tradition” is bad. You have to differentiate between the two types, just like THE BIBLE does.

          • Demopublicrat

            “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be PERFECT, FURNISHED TO EVERY good work.” That better, it’s from the catholic “Bible”.

            How about this: “Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:” Again, the catholic version.

          • Kristina

            1 Timothy 3:15.
            “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

            Catholi- nope good ol’ KJV

          • Demopublicrat

            And?

          • patriot

            The church has final authority. Including over interpretation of the bible.

          • Demopublicrat

            Nope, that’s not what is being said here.
            You are giving a bunch of men free reign over the word of God, that is heresy – the Holy Spirit, through the reader, interprets scripture. The teachings of the RCC have changed over the years, and so has their interpretations, God’s Word is constant and unchanging.

          • patriot

            bible says not everything Jesus did is written in the bible. Duh

          • Demopublicrat

            The things we need to know are.

          • James Grimes

            No.

          • Kristina

            1 Timothy 3:15
            But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

          • Demopublicrat

            And?

          • James Grimes

            “that is sola scriptura nonsense which itself is unbiblical. You are very clearly a fundamentalist.” You just received a put-down. Isn’t that awesome? This is what happens when one disregards the Bible as God’s absolute Word.

          • sam

            Sola scriptura? Which protestant’s take should I believe? Everybody thinks they know something more about the bible than someone else.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Yeah, Sam…EVERY BODY DOES.

          • sam

            And look at the results.

          • James Grimes

            Ouch! You realize that they will ignore this quote? You hit the nail on the head. Nice job.

          • patriot

            Show me where in the bible, that it has to be found in the bible. Also how can it say that if the bible didn’t exist until much later? Also everyone used the Septuagint. Which was later canonized by the Catholic Church. This is historical fact.

          • Demopublicrat

            Proverbs 30:6

            “Also everyone used the Septuagint. Which was later canonized by the Catholic Church.” – NOT everyone, the corrupted catholic version derived from the purposely altered Alexandrian text. This is historical fact.

          • James Grimes

            Your source for theology must always come from the Bible. It is the inerrant, infallible, and absolute Word of God. Church traditions are man-made and can change at the whim of the Pope.

          • Spoob

            OK, so you are a Bible-only Christian, I disagree, but even if i didn’t it’s ridiculous to suggest the pope has the power to change what was always there. And your Bible DOES change, that’s why we have so many translations of it.

          • James Grimes

            It would be a waste of my time to try to explain this to you. May I suggest that you do some research to find out why your statements are incorrect. Have a good day.

          • Spoob

            I daresay you have already wasted far too much of your time believing nonsense and hate. Your brand of Christianity is a sham. Good day to you sir.

          • James Grimes

            There is nothing I have said that disagrees with what the Bible teaches. Nothing. I just don’t have any tolerance for Atheists and others who want to force their nonsense upon Christians. If that applies to you, it’s best that you don’t respond to my comments. Have a good day.

          • Spoob

            Is this a fairly standard fundamentalist Christian practice, to call those of other denominations “atheists” when there is disagreement? Based on what I’ve seen by researching your posts, you are no stranger to name calling, hate and bearing false witness. In short, you’re a lousy example of a Christian.

          • James Grimes

            I see you’re bothering me again, but I’m not interested.

          • Spoob

            Then stop responding.

          • Guest

            Excuse my interjection, but this thread is driving me nuts. The pope doesn not have the power to change what was always there; thats the whole point, it was NEVER there, the pope is changing what the CC put there. Like meat on Friday, no meat on Friday; unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven, unbaptized babies now go to heaven. It’s church dogma not of Scripture. The RCC corrupted the Latin Vulgate that it no longer preserved the message of the Gospel because it didn’t want the people to read the bible in English.

          • Spoob

            Catholics aren’t Bible-only Christians Patricia, they also have church teachings and traditions which the fundamentalists don’t want to acknowledge so they constantly ask for scriptural basis for everything. It’s tiresome.

          • Patricia White

            The pope doesn’t have the power to change what was always there, that’s the point, it was NEVER there; he changes what the CC put there, church dogma not Scripture. Ex. No meat on Friday; now meat on Friday; unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven, now unbaptized babies go to heaven. God and Scripture doesn’t change!

          • Spoob

            Catholics are not Bible-only Patricia.

          • aleks

            Yes. Tradition. Like it or not, the only way to understand the bible is to know the tradition of the Jews and early Christians.

            The early church were so very careful in every detail in the interpretation of the scriptures, this includes the roman catholic church. Remember, Paul’s letter to the Romans describe the Romans being called to be saints.

          • Demopublicrat

            “..is to know the tradition of the Jews and early Christians.” To know the culture, but not to follow it. The RCC follows a corrupted Alexandrian Bible, not the Textus Receptus, the first published Greek text of the New Testament . Paul described ALL believers as saints.

          • James Grimes

            Excellent comeback, but we’re dealing with people who are heretical and, in some cases, close to being Atheists.

          • pax2u

            or they can have no denomination, no doctrine, and a theology of hating Christians

        • James Grimes

          Is it OK that we only rely on the Bible for our correct theology?

          • pax2u

            yes the entire Bible, including the 7 jewish books of the Old Testament that the anti Semite Martin Luther to justify his new religion
            But I am not surprised that Martin Luther removed Jewish Books as he hated the Jews and wrote his anti Jewish hatefilled book, “on the Jews and their Lies”

          • James Grimes

            Why are you being so negative? The simple answer is “Yes!” No other nonsense is necessary.

          • pax2u

            I guess I do not agree with those who hate the Jewish people, sorry if that offends you

          • James Grimes

            You are the only one talking about hating the Jewish people. I have not said anything about that. What is your issue? I had asked a simple question.

          • pax2u

            I am sorry but I must stand against those filled with hatred of Christians and Jews

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Ask yourself this then, paz2u:How many members of the Jewish faith is the roman catholic church responsible for the death of? (Crusades, anyone? Inquisition? )

          • pax2u

            if those who are responsible for the deaths of any person were a Catholic then they have committed a Crime, a Murder and that is a Sin against God

            If someone were to write a Book, “on the Jews and their lies” and they would write this

            First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

            would it be wrong?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Sure it would be wrong.John Chrysostom hated Jew as well; your point is…what, exactly?

          • pax2u

            now we know why Martin Luther who hated Jews, removed the Jewish books of the Old Testament to agree with his new religion, of Lutheranism

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Sorry,pax2u, but you’re comments are a little incoherent and somewhat disjointed; Jesus Himself, not to mention His near contemporaries Josephus and Philo, agreed with the Old Testament corpus sans the so-called Apocrypha; what’s more, not all of your celebrated “church fathers ” accepted your current additions to Scripture, like Jerome, who refused to include the Apocryphal books in the Vulgate, so…try again.

          • pax2u

            was Martin Luther an anti Semite?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            I tell you what, pax2u: Let me recommend a book to you that you may or may not find fascinating in regards to this issue, among others. If you haven’t already, read James Carroll’s”Constantine’s Sword”, subtitled The Church and the Jews. Martin Luther may have harbored anti-semitic tendencies to a degree, but that’s NOTHING compared to the institutional,systematic antisemitism practiced by YOUR church for hundreds of years. So…again, what’s your point? By the way, add David L.Kertzler’s book, “The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara”.Read those (Or check them out online!), and get back to me, because this is going nowhere.

          • pax2u

            sorry, but was Martin Luther an anti Semite?

          • pax2u

            what?? Martin Luther MAY have harbored anti semitic tendencies?

            like this?

            “Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.”

          • James Grimes

            Pax2u is usually incoherent. His reading/writing skills are just above illiterate. I ran out of patience awhile back and told him neither to respond to, nor comment on, anything I post here. He arrogantly stalks what I write and post. Most of the time, I cannot decipher what he has written.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Can you tell me what the situation would look like if you were to have a sober, reasonable discussion with a Christian who believes differently than you or may question your assumptions?

            It has been my observation that most people who do this are almost immediately written off as another mental dwarf or troll with evil ulterior motives.

          • pax2u

            if you do not want me to respond to you, then do not reference me. otherwise you are a hypocrite

            if you think that

            posting Scriptures of the Bible is incoherent

            exposing those who lie about the beliefs of Christians is
            incoherent

            that confronting those who hate Christians and confronting those who hate the Jewish books of the Old Testament is incoherent

            then you are the one who is incoherent

            maybe you can not decipher, as English is your second language, welcome to America

            I pity you
            I forgive you
            and I will continue to pray for you

          • James Grimes

            Can anyone make sense of the comment I received below?

            “pax2u
            if you do not want me to respond to you, then do not reference me. otherwise you are a hypocrite
            if you think that
            posting Scriptures of the Bible is incoherent
            exposing those who lie about the beliefs of Christians is
            incoherent
            that confronting those who hate Christians and confronting those who hate the Jewish books of the Old Testament is incoherent
            then you are the one who is incoherent
            maybe you can not decipher, as English is your second language, welcome to America
            I pity you
            I forgive you
            and I will continue to pray for you”

            He doesn’t want to leave me alone.
            Thank you.

          • pax2u

            simply you are a hypocrite

          • James Grimes

            hyp·o·crite: noun

            a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

          • pax2u

            hypocrite: see James Grimes

          • James Grimes

            The incoherent clown is still here. I shudder at the thought.

          • MarcAlcan

            Most definitely!

          • MarcAlcan

            Jesus Himself, not to mention His near contemporaries Josephus and Philo, agreed with the Old Testament corpus sans the so-called Apocrypha

            And pray tell where did Jesus agree that OT should be sans the Deuterocanonicals? Are you not aware that He referenced them?

            Do you not know that the Jews in Jesus’s time DID NOT HAVE A FIXED canon? That this came about only in Jamnia in 90 AD?

            Do you not know that the archeological findings at the Qumran show that deuterocanonicals were part of the Scriptures that faithful Jews used during Jesus’s times?
            Are you forever condemned to ignorance because you choose ignorance.
            St Paul in Romans said that God leaves those who persist in sin to their sin. If you persist in your lies, He will leave you in your lies and you will become enmeshed in your lies.

          • sam

            Google: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition by the BBC

            Here are just a few of the more interesting points covered in the documentary:
            The “Black Legend” began as an anti-Spanish propaganda campaign that succeeded largely because of the invention of the
            printing press. The Inquisition was the prime target. Inquisitors were not fanatical priests as they are often portrayed. In fact, many of them were not priests at all but legal experts trained in Spanish schools.Contrary to popular belief, torture was rarely used. It was used less by the Inquisition than it was in the tribunals of other countries throughout Europe at the time.

            Stories about cruel torture methods used by the Inquisitors and the terrible conditions in which prisoners were kept were completely falsified. The Inquisition actually had the best jails in Spain.Prisoners of secular courts would actually blaspheme so that they could be transferred to Inquisition prisons and escape the maltreatment of the secular prisons.Persecuting witchcraft was a craze in Europe at the time, and secular courts were not tolerant of these kinds of offenses. The accused were often burned at the stake. The Inquisition, on the other hand, declared witchcraft a delusion. No one could be tried for it or burned at the stake.
            The Inquisition was virtually powerless in rural areas.In the entire sixteenth century, the Inquisition in Spain executed only about 50 people, which is contrary to the “Black Legend,” which numbers the executions in the hundreds of thousands.
            Of all the Inquisitions together throughout Europe, scholars estimate that the number of people executed ranged somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. That averages, at most, about fourteen people per year throughout the entire continent over a period of 350 years.

          • MarcAlcan

            Ask yourself this then, paz2u:How many members of the Jewish faith is the roman catholic church responsible for the death of? (Crusades, anyone? Inquisition?

            That you ask that in the hope of saying “Gotcha” highlights just how deep your ignorance is.
            Sam has already replied to you abut the BBC documentary but you can also google Kamen.
            And you know what? The figures that you have and the “grave” atrocities that you “know” about these events were fabrications by the Protestants! Yes, my friends they were lies create by Protestants in the hope of discrediting the Church! Except now, they’ve been found out.
            And you, you’ve been saying how you’ve been studying the Catholic Church for 25 years and you DON’T KNOW THAT?
            What a laugh! Have you been reading comic books by Jack Chik and thought that qualified as ” intelligent literature?”

          • pax2u

            It appears that LC Ringo is upset that you do no agree with his hatred and bigotry of Christians, he is now pouting to Grimy Jimmy who beliefs that hatred of others Religion is his Freedom of Religion

            keep the faith

          • MarcAlcan

            Is it OK that we only rely on the Bible for our correct theology?

            No, because the Bible did not come from a vacuum. The Bible did not fall from the sky.
            The NT was written by members of the Catholic Church – the Church that Christ founded.
            The canon (the books that belong in the Bible) were decided by the Catholic Church.
            These are all verifiable facts.

      • aleks

        It is written that the miracles of the kingdom of heaven is not given to everyone but only to the apostles. To the others was given a parable so that looking they will not see and hearing they will not understand. So therefore believe the scriptures the way the apostles interpreted it. And only the catholic faith, (roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox) have the apostolic succession, so the truth can only be found there. Don’t ever think to be the first to understand the bible, it will lead you to create an unusual sect, that is already happening.

        • Demopublicrat

          Do give chapter and verse in the Bible for that.

          • Spoob

            It is really tiresome watching you demand scriptural backup from non-Bible only Christians.

          • Demopublicrat

            It’s even more tiresome when mary-worshipers continually try and justify their heresy with crap that some guy made up that has been changed over the years.

          • Spoob

            Really? You’re actually going to persist with the Mary worshippers line even after being told numerous times we don’t worship Mary? Is this what your mental state is reduced to?

          • Demopublicrat

            Really? You’re actually going to persist with the we don’t worship mary line even after proving numerous times with your actions you worship mary? Is this what your mental state is reduced to? Perhaps if you recite some vain repetitions of mary-worship you’ll feel better.

          • Spoob

            You seem to be having a really hard time with this, but the simple fact is you do not know me. You don’t know what I do and what i don’t do. And so when I tell you 500 times that I don’t worship Mary, something most people understand very well after I say it the first time, I have to wonder if you have some sort of disability or reading comprehension problem. Let’s try this one last time: I DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. I don’t recite vain ANYTHINGS. My worship is reserved for Jesus Christ alone. I don’t know why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. Do we have this very clear now? You have never met me and you cannot possibly know or guess any of my actions.

          • Demopublicrat

            You are catholic, catholics worship mary in their rituals. If you pray the rosary, you recite vain repetitions and worship mary, why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. Do we have this very clear now?

          • Spoob

            Apparently not, because you continue to tell me what I do rather than ask me. I already said i don’t, meaning there is no ritual I take part in that worships Mary, and the rosary is taken straight out of the book of Luke. Nothing vain about that. And how do you know I recite the rosary? Not all Catholics do. Are you now going to confront the words I’ve presented you with, or continue to parrot my words back to me?

          • Demopublicrat

            “Apparently not, because you continue to tell me what I do rather than ask me. I already said i don’t, meaning there is no ritual I take part in that worships Mary.” Actions speak much louder than words.

            “…the rosary is taken straight out of the book of Luke.” Especially the “pray for us sinners” part right? And of course it isn’t repeated over and over and over and over and over and…

          • Spoob

            Actions speak much louder than words, all right. The thing is, you don’t know what mine are. Best guesses are all you have.

            The Hail Mary is from the book of Luke, with a small part at the end which is a simple request for Mary to pray for us. It might be repeated, but it’s not vain. How did you commit things to memory in school? Memorization.

          • Demopublicrat

            “How did you commit things to memory in school? Memorization.” I don’t repeat them to mary Year after year, after year, after… Try memorizing scripture instead.

          • Spoob

            Yes, we have already established that you hate the mother of Jesus.

          • Demopublicrat

            Well mary-worshiper, how have we established that? Because I don’t worship mary the vessel the God used to bring Christ the man to earth? Perhaps I should worship the potato chip wrapper next to me, after all them chips is tasty and they came from that bag – I know I’ll build a shrine.

          • MarcAlcan

            Because I don’t worship mary the vessel the God used to bring Christ the man to earth?

            You mean the woman He chose to make the Mother of God?

          • Demopublicrat

            Christ existed BEFORE mary, he created her, you mary-worshipers are so brainwashed a simple concept is far out of reach of your grasp. Perhaps you can explain to me why if mary is so improtant is she barely mentioned in the New Testament, nobody else seems to be able to.
            If you have a problem with that, you do not have a problem with the Church, YOU have a problem WITH GOD.

          • MarcAlcan

            Christ existed BEFORE mary, he created her,

            And did we ever say he didn’t? You really ought to read better.

            Perhaps you can explain to me why if mary is so improtant is she barely mentioned in the New Testament,

            So what? GOD considered her important enough to make her MOTHER OF HIS SON. I take it you have a serious beef with God about that?

            If you have a problem with that, you do not have a problem with the Church, YOU have a problem WITH GOD.

            But I don’t have a problem with God nor the Church. But it seems you do – with both.

          • Demopublicrat

            “And did we ever say he didn’t? You really ought to read better.” “So what? GOD considered her important enough to make her MOTHER OF HIS SON.”

          • MarcAlcan

            So what’s the point of this post? Are you agreeing with me?

          • Demopublicrat

            Showcasing you’re denial with your own quote.

          • MarcAlcan

            And how was it supposed to do that?

          • Demopublicrat

            Must I break out the crayons? I doubt that would help.

          • MarcAlcan

            Yes. Humour me. Do break out the crayons.

            Or …..maybe ….you don’t really know the point you are making :LOL and you thought sarcasm would help you extricate yourself.

          • Demopublicrat

            Christ existed BEFORE mary, he created her, yes or no?

          • MarcAlcan

            Christ existed BEFORE mary, he created her, yes or no?

            So?

          • Demopublicrat

            She wasn’t anything more than a vessel, definitely not the mother of God.

          • MarcAlcan

            She wasn’t anything more than a vessel, definitely not the mother of God.

            Are you really that bad in reasoning?

            Mary is not the Mother of God?

            Well then, if Mary is the NOT the Mother of God, and since Jesus is her Son, then Jesus is not God. Okay, take your time, it might strain your grey matter to try to understand that .

            And if you have an issue with that then you have an issue with the Bible.

            Luke 1:30-31 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son , and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High .

            John 19:25-26 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother , and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene. When Jesus saw his mother , and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

            Like I said, it is obvious that you resort to one liners and a repetition of what someone has posted in the hope that your ignorance will not be exposed. Nice try but it did not work.

          • Demopublicrat

            Jesus was fully God and fully human, mary was a vessel for Jesus the man (not God). Jesus is now fully God as his human self has accomplished the mission – mary is now irrelevant as anything but a historical note.

            Like I said, she wasn’t anything more than a vessel, definitely not the mother of God, so you can stop worshiping now.

          • MarcAlcan

            Jesus was fully God and fully human, mary was a vessel for Jesus the man (not God).

            LOL. Wow profoundly dumb you are.

            Were there two Jesuses? Can you separate the human from the Divine?

            If Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, then you must have two different Jesuses.

            Do you even know the Nestorian heresy? If not, google it and educate yourself because are definitely Nestorian if that is what you think.

            So sad that you are not even capable of reading that. Very pathetic for someone who calls himself Christian. There you are DENYING SCRIPTURE.
            Confronted with scripture you collapse. Haha.

            Here it is again.

            Luke 1:30-31 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son , and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High .

            John 19:25-26 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene. When Jesus saw his mother , and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

          • Spoob

            No, Mary-hater, you can start by capitalizing her name – she may not be our savior but she is at least a human being worthy of the respect you would afford every other human being. After that you can invest in a dictionary to know the difference between worship and respect, and you can finish off by renouncing all the fundamentalist garbage you have swallowed whole – I think you are in danger of overdosing on lies and hate.

          • Demopublicrat

            Did I say I hate mary? or are your twisting and putting your own spin on it like everything else, the Bible speaks of false witness – but then that’s not catholic add-on so it doesn’t really matter.
            “the respect you would afford every other human being” That would be a lot of shrines, graven images, hail whoever’s, etc…

            “you can invest in a dictionary to know the difference between worship and respect” the thesaurus from Merriam-Webster states they are synonymous, there is your answer mary-worshiper.

            “you can finish off by renouncing all the fundamentalist garbage…” I get my information from God’s word, your comment comes as no surprise, after all you need the pope to tell you what to think and treat the Bible as “garbage”.

            ” I think you are in danger of overdosing on lies and hate.” It’s painfully obvious you’ve been there done that.

          • Spoob

            You hate Mary, yes. You can’t stand anyone showing her respect and devotion. Have to wonder if you showed your OWN mother respect and devotion, or is that “idolatry” too? Never bought your mom presents. Never kissed her. Never told her you loved her.

            Merriam-Webster:

            WORSHIP
            the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god

            : excessive admiration for someone

            RESPECT
            re·spect noun ri-ˈspekt

            : a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.

            : a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

            :I have to wonder at this point if there’s any point in debunking your lies publicly anymore, since you are humilited time and again and run away claiming victory, Mary-hater.

            God’s word doesn’t call Catholic teachings garbage, you made that up. As you make up most of your anti-Catholic prattle. Are you trying out that old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it?

          • Demopublicrat

            You buy graven mary images presents? What size do they take?

            Is Mary my mother? I don’t build shrines to my mother, I don’t make graven images of my mother, I don’t kiss the feet of the graven images of my mother, I don’t put graven images with golden growns of my mother on an altar and bow to them, and pray to them.
            You do far more than respect, I don’t see “to build a shrine to” in there.
            http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201405/why-do-catholics-venerate-mary-28861

            Merriam-Webster:

            Venerate synonyms –

            venerate: verb
            Synonymsadore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship
            Oh look those nasty words deify and worship are there.
            “God’s word doesn’t call Catholic teachings garbage, you made that up.” He calls then Vain traditions of men, pretty much the same thing.
            Are you trying out that old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it?

          • Spoob

            Did I say I bought Mary presents? Why then would you ask such an absurd question?

            grav·en im·age

            noun
            noun: graven image; plural noun: graven images
            a carved idol or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

            Yep, pretty sure I’ve made it abundantly clear I don’t do that. I worship Jesus Christ. And I do it respectfully too, not turn him into a “personal relationship” like you do. You can’t turn Jesus into your partner in hate.

            “Oh look those nasty words deify and worship are there.” No, you’re muddying the waters and blurring the lines now. There are important subtle distinctions you’re going to miss by simply calling up synonyms. I checked other dictionaries and they all prove you wrong as well. So I have to ask you again: Are you trying out that old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it? I really would like you to answer truthfully this time. No more lies, please.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Yep, pretty sure I’ve made it abundantly clear I don’t do that. I worship Jesus Christ.” Jesus isn’t a woman, your idol or representation of a god used as an object of worship is a woman.

            “No, you’re muddying the waters and blurring the lines now.” No, you’re in denial now.

            “I checked other dictionaries and they all prove you wrong as well.” Merriam-Webster, the most recognized dictionary in the English speaking world is wrong then. Are you trying out that old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it? I really would like you to answer truthfully this time. No more lies, please.

          • Spoob

            Nope, Jesus Christ is the son of God, He is who I worship. Period. If you want to insist I worship Mary then it’s you that has a learning comprehension problem. Because I’m not lying to you, just as millions of Catholics aren’t lying to you, even when you insist everyone is. At your very heart, you are a conspiracy theorist. Take what everyone tells you factually and assume the opposite. That is not healthy.

            If “denial” means that I’m denying a patent absurdity then yes, I guess I’m in denial. I took two distinct words and showed you their dictionary definitions and how different they were, and you took to your thesaurus to look for all the shades of grey in between to blur them. That’s dishonest and quite honestly from you at this point I’d expect nothing less. Are you trying out that old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it?
            I really would like you to answer truthfully this time. No more lies,
            please.

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever you and millions of mary-worshipers say…

          • Spoob

            Although none of us do that, but of course you know better.

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever you and millions of mary-worshipers say…

          • Spoob

            Who are you trying to convince, you or me?

          • MarcAlcan

            You are catholic, catholics worship mary in their rituals

            You are a protestant. Protestants worship bibles in their rituals. It’s called bibliolatry.

          • Demopublicrat

            Why don’t you give me the location of the nearest Bible shrine, or at least a nice graven image where millions of “fundamentalists” pilgrimage to bow down to and kiss every year, or you can keep your asinine comments to yourself.

          • MarcAlcan

            Why don’t you give me the location of the nearest Bible shrine,

            Well duh, don’t some of you kneel before the Bible?
            Furthermore, the Bible Alone is itself an idolatry of the Bible.

          • Demopublicrat

            Not I, mary-worshiper.

          • MarcAlcan

            Not I, mary-worshiper.

            Yeah, keep saying that.
            All you are confirming is that the grey matter between your ears has atrophied.

          • Demopublicrat

            Convincing argument… or whatever.

          • MarcAlcan

            Convincing argument… or whatever.

            Huh! You thought that was an argument??
            That was an observation.

          • Demopublicrat

            … or whatever.

          • MarcAlcan

            Touche!

          • James Grimes

            Did you know that we worship the Bible? That’s an interesting concept. I guess there’s some truth to that in that we believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and absolute Word of God. He has blessed us by providing His Word so that we have absolute truth.

          • Demopublicrat

            I agree with most of what you said, but not the “we worship the Bible” part.

          • James Grimes

            I don’t agree with it either. We were accused of that by MarcAlcan – “You are a protestant. Protestants worship bibles in their rituals. It’s called bibliolatry.” He’s been mocking us for the last several hours.

          • Demopublicrat

            Perhaps he could name some rituals, maybe like raising the Bible up on a stick while moving around like silly idiots in goofy costumes singing it’s praises.

          • MarcAlcan

            I guess there’s some truth to that in that we believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and absolute Word of God.

            Oh you know that do you? How do you know that for a fact?
            I mean how do you know that the Bible is inerrant and the absolute word of God? Does the Bible say so?

          • James Grimes

            The Troll is trolling for some disagreement – “Oh you know that do you? How do you know that for a fact? I mean how do you know that the Bible is inerrant and the absolute word of God? Does the Bible say so?” (MarcAlcan)
            He has good entertainment value.

          • sam

            Flat out lie! You will never , ever find any teaching in the catholic church’s history of such a lie. You do not understand the difference between worship and prayer.

          • James Grimes

            Prayer IS worship.

          • pax2u

            I pray for you Gary, but I do not worship you

            sorry

          • James Grimes

            I keep getting these comments from a person I told to stop stalking me and to not respond to any of my comments –

            pax2u James Grimes • a few seconds ago
            I pray for you Gary, but I do not worship you
            sorry”

            When is this nonsense going to stop?

          • sam

            Not always.

          • James Grimes

            “You do not understand the difference between worship and prayer.”

          • sam

            I am afraid it is you who truly does not understand it.

          • James Grimes

            I understand it fully; more than you would ever admit. BTW, the quote is yours.

          • sam

            Do you really understand? I realize the quote is mine but I had you in mind.

            The act of praying can be an earnest request; entreaty; supplication.

            A humble entreaty addressed to God, a request made to God, as in a prayer for his safe return or any set formula for praying, as to God.

            Prayer is not, by definition, necessarily equated with the adoration that is due God alone. Prayer can certainly involve an act of adoration when it is directed to God, but the term does not necessarily denote adoration. It can simply mean an entreaty.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            Prayer is asking not worship

          • Demopublicrat

            Do tell, start with explaining how a shrine works – give the biblical interpretation.

          • sam

            Find the teaching that says we worship her. Worship is specifically reserved for God and God alone. Marian and sainted shrines do not define worship.

            In Catholic teachings, the veneration of Mary is a natural consequence of Christology: Jesus and Mary are son and mother, redeemer and redeemed.

          • Demopublicrat

            Do tell, start with explaining how a shrine works – give the biblical interpretation, not some vain tradition of men.

            “Marian and sainted shrines do not define worship.” Ahhh… yeah, sure.

          • Kristina

            What justifies vain repetition? What does “vain” refer to? Vain means empty; without meaning, heart or understanding.

            Our Lord said the SAME prayer three times in the garden before His arrest. The Psalms cite the same prayer numerous times in a row! Are these vain repetitions? No.

            Any prayer done without understanding or meaning can become vain; Scripture shows that saying the same prayer repeatedly with meaning and understanding is NOT vain repetition.

          • Demopublicrat

            Your saying the rosary is praying to mary? Repeating the exact same thing 50 times, week after week, year after year doesn’t qualify as vain repetitions? I guess they don’t exist then.

          • MarcAlcan

            Really? You’re actually going to persist with the we don’t worship mary line even after proving numerous times with your actions you worship mary?

            And pray tell what those actions may be ?
            Do you even understand the difference between worship and veration?
            No don’t answer that. It is evident that you are too ignorant of that to do so.

          • Demopublicrat

            I’ve explain the actions over and over and over and over and…

            “Do you even understand the difference between worship and veration[sic]?” The English dictionary lists the two words as synonymous, do you know what synonymous means? It is evident that you are too ignorant of that to comprehend simple English.

          • MarcAlcan

            The English dictionary lists the two words as synonymous, do you know what synonymous means?

            So what? Since when has the English dictionary been the rule as to what the Church means by her terms.

            The English dictionary would also list homosexual and gay as synonymous and yet gay had a different meaning altogether before the homosexual mob hijacked it.

            It is evident that you are too ignorant of that to comprehend simple English.

            As I have explained in the top part of this post, the profound ignorance lies with you. But I bet the distinction will just whizz past you.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Since when has the English dictionary been the rule as to what the Church means by her terms.” Since it is relayed in English perhaps?

            “The English dictionary would also list homosexual and gay as synonymous and yet gay had a different meaning altogether before the homosexual mob hijacked it.” 1. no such thing happened in this case. 2. Even if it did, the use of “gay” in the language has changed, the RCC still uses “venerate”. Not a valid argument.

          • MarcAlcan

            “Since when has the English dictionary been the rule as to what the Church means by her terms.” Since it is relayed in English perhaps?

            Which happens to be a deficient language so it has to borrow a lot of terms from other languages.
            Take for example love. We only have one word for it. But other languages have different terms for different kinds of love.
            This is precisely where worship and veneration come in.
            But, why am I explaiing that to you when most likely you will not get that? I must have more faith in people than I thought.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Which happens to be a deficient language so it has to borrow a lot of terms from other languages.” Which happens to be a hem-haw lame excuse.

            “This is precisely where worship and veneration come in.” A turd by any other name is still a load of crap.

          • MarcAlcan

            Really? You’re actually going to persist with the Mary worshippers line even after being told numerous times we don’t worship Mary? Is this what your mental state is reduced to?

            You are making a great assumption that Demo can actually comprehend what you write or has the desire to do so.

          • Spoob

            True, but you can’t buy entertainment value like this.

          • MarcAlcan

            True, but you can’t buy entertainment value like this.

            Not so sure I agree because I have never been fond of the 3 stooges. I would have liked a bit more wit 🙂

          • Spoob

            I’m content to work with one stooge at a time!

          • MarcAlcan

            Good strategy!

          • MarcAlcan

            more tiresome when mary-worshipers

            Mary worshippers? Wow, how painfully ignorant you are.
            Seriously, if you are going to debunk something, you should at the very least try to understand what you are debunking because you are just so laughable.

          • Demopublicrat

            Denial doesn’t change the obvious truth mary-worshiper.

          • MarcAlcan

            Denial doesn’t change the obvious truth mary-worshiper.

            And wilful ignorance will not change stupidity.

          • Demopublicrat

            “And wilful [sic] ignorance will not change stupidity.” Right, take that to heart.

          • MarcAlcan

            “And wilful [sic] ignorance will not change stupidity.” Right, take that to heart.

            Wonderful!! There really is hope! 🙂

          • James Grimes

            That would truly support the RCC’s position – if they can do it.

          • Demopublicrat

            All they can come up with is vague references which they twist to their own end, always assuming the RCC is actually the church spoke of in the New Testament. The real church would follow the commands of God – that rules out the RCC.

          • James Grimes

            In my ministry, I minister to a lot of Catholics. I try to get them to look at Scripture to find the truth. I don’t ever try to lead them away from the RCC, but I want them to know what the Bible says about a particular situation, to get them to think for themselves. Sometimes it is very difficult.

          • Demopublicrat

            They have been brainwashed their whole lives, my wife used to be catholic, she still says that her family uses the guilt tool of the RCC on her and it still bothers her. That is tough to fight, probably just as much as a heroin addiction.

          • James Grimes

            The guilt trip is popular. The allure to the pageantry is also popular. In the end, their idols, their man-made traditions, and their hierarchy don’t mean anything compared to what God’s Word teaches.

          • Demopublicrat

            Indeed.

          • MarcAlcan

            In the end, their idols, their man-made traditions, and their hierarchy don’t mean anything compared to what God’s Word teaches.

            Are you referring to the Bible? You mean THE Bible that whose canon was declared by the Catholic Chuch? The same Bible whose NT was written by Catholics?
            I can see the indignation coming at this assertion. But hey, that is true. All those who wrote the NT were members of the Catholic Church. There was no other Church. Your church came 1500 years later and everything you have you got from the Catholic Church except that you corrupted it along the way like when you keep copying a copy. The end result is blurred in degraded. But if this is the only thing you know, well you will have no idea what the original looks like because you’ve only every grown up believing and knowing a degraded copy.

          • MarcAlcan

            They have been brainwashed their whole lives, my wife used to be catholic, she still says that her family uses the guilt tool of the RCC on her and it still bothers her. That is tough to fight, probably just as much as a heroin addiction.

            That is sooooo hilarious coming from someone who has been brainwashed his whole life he is unable to allow scripture to speak for itself and must instead for it to speak according to a pre-fabricated theology. You have been brainwashed to think protestant. It is so evident in your post.

          • Demopublicrat

            This from someone who hangs on the pope’s every word, blindly following a sinful man.

          • MarcAlcan

            This from someone who hangs on the pope’s every word, blindly following a sinful man.

            Hilarious, from someone who has been following a man from the beginning- the Protestant deformers.

          • Demopublicrat

            Have I quoted them or have I stuck to scripture? Like I said, this from someone who hangs on the pope’s every word, blindly following a sinful man.

          • MarcAlcan

            And like I said: This from someone who hangs on the words of the Protestant deformers. You are a their child. You imbibed their milk. You think their thoughts. This is evident in how you view scripture.

          • Demopublicrat

            “words of the Protestant deformers.” you’re projecting, trying to make me like you.

          • MarcAlcan

            Huh?

          • James Grimes

            We have another troll stalking us here – MarcAlcan. I responded to him once, but I will ignore his rants and insults in the future. Have another blessed day.

          • Spoob

            Are you in a position to “minister” to Catholics when your own knowledge of church history is so compromised and lacking?

          • MarcAlcan

            Are you in a position to “minister” to Catholics when your own knowledge of church history is so compromised and lacking?

            Yes, I never could understand how the blind leading the blind works.

          • James Grimes

            I am not surprised that I received a hateful comment from “SPOOB.” That’s what he knows and that’s what he is comfortable with. From someone who refuses to use his actual name, I find his comment totally meaningless.

          • MarcAlcan

            In my ministry, I minister to a lot of Catholics. I try to get them to look at Scripture to find the truth

            And no doubt you get a lot of ill catechized catholics so your sleigh of hand works. But try that on someone even just a tiny more informed.

            to get them to think for themselves.

            That is hilarious. You think protestant. You are conditioned to think protestant. You would not know the truth if it bit you in the behind because you have been conditioned to think protestant.

            In fact, Protestants who finally step out of that mould and start thinking for themselves end up ceasing to be protestants.

          • James Grimes

            Why are you so negative and rude? Is this your normal disposition? You forgot to include ” I don’t ever try to lead them away from the RCC, but I want them to know what the Bible says about a particular situation…” You can wallow in your misery, but please don’t include me in it. The Lord offers more to me than what you are offering.

          • MarcAlcan

            Why are you so negative and rude? Is this your normal disposition?

            Negative and rude? Did you not read your own posts?

            And why should I be positive about your lies? Why should I be positive about the by product of the Father of lies? As a Christian, we should combat the lie wherever we find them.

            The Lord offers more to me than what you are offering.

            I am not offering you anything. But YOU are offering unsuspecting, ill informed Catholics bad theology and bad exegesis. You are offering them a corruption. And that is what I am upset about.
            I suggest you truly try to get better educated about the faith. There is more to Christianity than the last 500 years.

          • MarcAlcan

            always assuming the RCC is actually the church spoke of in the New Testament

            Hmmm, you have obviously not thought this through.
            If the Catholic Church is indeed the Church spoken of in the New Testament, then she is a DIVINELY INSTITUTED Church. That alone settles all arguments. And if you are unable to work out why that is, let me know and I will explain it to you.

          • Demopublicrat

            “If” But alas, it is not. No pope, no mary queen of heaven, no…

          • MarcAlcan

            “If” But alas, it is not. No pope, no mary queen of heaven, no…

            Oh but it is. And the intelligent protestants come to the same conclusion. 🙂

          • Demopublicrat

            Hardly.

          • MarcAlcan

            The real church would follow the commands of God – that rules out the RCC.

            Since the Catholic Church IS the Church that God established, then your statement does not make sense. And yes you are right, the real Church DOES follow the commands of God, which is why yours don’t.

          • Demopublicrat

            The catholics CLAIM it is the real church, but it is not.

            “Church DOES follow the commands of God” but not the graven image one, or the Christ is the only mediator between God and man one, or the call no man on earth your father one, or…

          • MarcAlcan

            The catholics CLAIM it is the real church, but it is not.

            Which we can prove and which many protestants who are actually honestly searching for the truth – found to their joy.

            “Church DOES follow the commands of God” but not the graven image one, or the Christ is the only mediator between God and man one, or the call no man on earth your father one, or…

            Wow! Such profound ignorance in this day and age is really inexcusable.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Which we can prove” Hardly

            When all you have in reply to the RCC ignoring the commands of God is: “Wow! Such profound ignorance in this day and age is really inexcusable.” It speaks volumes.

          • MarcAlcan

            Hardly

            When all you have in reply to the RCC ignoring the commands of God is: “Wow! Such profound ignorance in this day and age is really inexcusable.” It speaks volumes

            Wonderful! That means you are willing to go back and forth with this issue.
            If you are let me know and I will take you through the road of truth.

          • Demopublicrat

            Start with call no man your father. Then try bowing to graven images.

          • MarcAlcan

            Brilliant!
            Let’s take it one at a time.

            Call no man your father.

            I am numbering this so that you can zero in on a particular point.
            1) What do you think Christ meant here? Read the entire chapter leading up to this point.
            2) Did you think he literally meant that we can call no man our father because I hope you realize that you can’t even call your own father (you know the one who is the male half of your parents) father.
            3) What about when Paul referred to himself as father? Do you think he was violating Jesus’s teaching?
            4) Did Jesus then violate his own dictate by referring to Abraham as father?

          • Demopublicrat

            1) The beginning of this chapter is referring to so-called spiritual leaders ( you know like the pope), not biological fathers.

            2) What does that have to do with the pope? Your mother jump the fence?

            3)The passage again is dealing with so-called spiritual leaders (perhaps you should read the entire chapter leading up to this point.
            4) No.

          • MarcAlcan

            Okay.
            1) You are correct that Jesus was addressing the malpractice of the Pharisees of his day. But notice on the 1st verse, He says that the people are to do what they are told to do by these people but just not to do what they do. So in effect, he is saying that they have authority to teach (sit on Moses’s seat) but they themselves are not following their own teaching even though this is sound. So therefore that goes for us too. The question then is who now for us sits on Moses’s sit. What is the equivalent.

            2) You are correct. It has nothing to do with the Pope. Which is precisely the point. If Jesus was being literal with the “call no man father” then that mean you can’t call your man father. The command was all encompassing (no man) so therefore no one should call their father, father. Nothing could be more absurd than that.

            3)But if the passage is dealing with so called spiritual leaders, then was not Paul a spiritual leader? So therefore according to you Paul was violating the Lord’s command.

            4)He wasn’t? But he just called someone a father (Abraham) and this is not his father in heaven? So what gives? The only way He is not violating his own command is if His own command is not to be understood literally.

            So therefore, Christ here was using a hyperbole in the same manner that he said to pluck your right eye and chop off your hand if it causes you to sin.

            As for the Pope, I encourage you to refer between the parallelism between Eliakim and the Papacy in Isaiah 22.
            If you do not know of this then I will be happy to take you through that one as well.
            Ergo this protestant argument against Catholicism is bogus and has no support in Scripture. It is the flimsiest of all their arguments against Catholicism.

          • Demopublicrat

            1) Jesus was saying to obey the law which doesn’t include calling them “father”.

            2) Jesus was referring to religious leaders like priests and the pope.

            3) one can only guess exactly what you are talking about without reference, but I’m quite sure Paul was not saying that he should be called father.

            4) *sigh* Abraham was NOT being referred to as a religious leader, he was in fact the biological father of Israel.

            Based on misdirected logic we get this: “So therefore, Christ here was using a hyperbole in the same manner that he said to pluck your right eye and chop off your hand if it causes you to sin.”

            There is no parallelism that in any way describes the pope, ergo more catholic mumbo jumbo. Read Psalm 119

          • MarcAlcan

            Jesus was saying to obey the law which doesn’t include calling them “father”.

            Well that’s not what the first verse says. In fact Jesus was very clear that they must be obeyed because they sit on Moses seat.

            What he was getting at were the Rabbi’s who liked having the place of honor and getting the best seats and being called Rabbi. The admonition here is because of the hubris of the Rabbi’s.

            Jesus was referring to religious leaders like priests and the pope.

            No He wasn’t. He was referring to the Pharisees of his time. Notice that the first part says not to be called Rabbi or teacher.

            one can only guess exactly what you are talking about without reference, but I’m quite sure Paul was not saying that he should be called father.

            But Paul calls himself father.

            *sigh* Abraham was NOT being referred to as a religious leader, he was in fact the biological father of Israel.

            Abraham was the father in faith of Israel. Not all of Israel is a direct descendant of Abraham.

            Based on misdirected logic we get this

            Actually it follows perfectly. If you say “NO MAN”, then that is a blanket admonition. NO MAN means NO MAN. If Jesus is to be taken at his word on that then we would need to take him at his word with reading chopping off one’s eyes and one’s hands.

            So we need to find out when He is being literal and when He is using hyperbole to drive home a point.

            There is no parallelism that in any way describes the pope

            Only because you are ignorant of that fact. So would you like me to show you and therefore remove this one bit of ignorance.

          • Demopublicrat

            “There is no parallelism that in any way describes the pope” In you little world perhaps, the pope is as much a religious leader as the Pharisees as the scriptures apply the same today as “in his time”.
            “But Paul calls himself father. ” Like I said, reference that.

          • MarcAlcan

            In you little world perhaps, the pope is as much a religious leader as the Pharisees as the scriptures apply the same today as “in his time”.

            Except that the Pharisees were not appointed by Christ.

            Like I said, reference that.

            And I did. And still it is there. Paul calls himself father.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Except that the Pharisees were not appointed by Christ.” Neither is the pope.
            “And I did. And still it is there. Paul calls himself father.”
            Like I said, reference that.

          • MarcAlcan

            And I did. And still it is there. Paul calls himself father.” Like I said, reference that.

            And like I said. He did.

          • Demopublicrat

            Like I said, reference that.

          • aleks

            Matthew 13:10-13

          • Demopublicrat

            Nice try but no, Jesus was referring to those who follow and believe(d) in him, why do you think Christians believe, could it be because they have seen, heard, and understood?
            Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:3, “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”

            “And only the catholic faith, (roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox) have the apostolic succession, so the truth can only be found there.” More crap made up by some guy.

          • Kristina

            Apostolic succession and authority is no joke.
            Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
            Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).
            Luke 9:1; 10:19 – Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).
            Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.
            Luke 22:29 – the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.
            Num 16:28 – the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.
            John 5:30 – similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.
            John 7:16-17 – Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.
            John 8:28 – Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.
            John 12:49 – The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.
            John 13:20 – Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.
            John 14:10 – Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.
            John 16:14-15 – what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

          • Demopublicrat

            Traditions of men:
            Apostolic succession and authority is no joke. Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles. the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority. He will transfer this authority to other men.He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

            What we have here is errant assumption, half truths, and out right fabrication. The errant assumption that only the apostles would ever receive authority from God, they at the time, were pretty much all the believers on earth and Christ was instructing them. Because they had fist-hand knowledge, and the New Testament didn’t yet exist, they were the ones who initially planted churches and trained others as apostles,to make sure the message stayed true . Once others received and grasped the message they too could help spread it and teach it. The key here is that the apostles Christ was talking to had first hand knowledge and were taught by Christ himself – that is not the case today, nor has it been for over 1500 years. Now we have all of the scriptures which act as a guide to keep his message, commands, etc. pure, protecting against those who would alter it or add vain traditions of men and giving us his instructions.

            The Bible tells us how one truly gets to heaven, and it is not by being good or by being baptized (although an important step) or by anything else we do (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:10-18, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9-13). Along this line, God’s Word shows us just how much God loves us (Romans 5:6-8; John 3:16). And it is in learning this that we are drawn to love Him in return (1 John 4:19).

          • Kristina

            Which brings us to a very important question. Just how in the world did Christianity exist before the printing press? Before electricity that ran the printing press? Its not like believers all had there own Bible that they could read everyday. Bibles were HAND copied and extremely rare and expensive. But, your probably right Christianity probably didn’t REALLY exist until the 1500s.

          • Demopublicrat

            But, your probably right catholocism probably didn’t REALLY exist until the 1500s. – I corrected that for you.

          • Kristina

            Did you know?

            Martin Luther:

            Mary the Mother of God

            Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

            “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God … It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”1Perpetual Virginity

            Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians – and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

            “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”2The Immaculate Conception

            Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

            “But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”3Assumption

            Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

            “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”4Honor to Mary

            Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

            “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”5

            “Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.”6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

            John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

            “Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”7

            “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”8 Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

            “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.”9

            “To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”10

            Ulrich Zwingli:

            “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.”11

            “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

            “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.”13

            “Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin.”14

            “It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother.”15

            “The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.”16

            1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

            2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

            3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works,

            English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.

            Louis], Volume 4, 694.

            4 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

            5 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works

            (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

            6 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

            7 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

            8 Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

            9 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

            10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

            11 Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639

            12 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

            13 E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

            14 Ibid.

            15 Ibid.

            16 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

            17 David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

          • Demopublicrat

            Good for Martin Luther, I’m not Lutheran, nor do I care about his opinions if they do not line up with scripture.

          • Kristina

            And Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin? I mean these guys set the people free from the Catholic Church!

          • Demopublicrat

            Why must we worry about what some man said? How about scripture?

          • Kristina

            Yes, scripture has quite a lot to say about to say about it as I’ve already posted.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            That whole thing you wrote had two Scriptures in it, Galatians 4:4 and Exodus 4:22.Everything else was fantasy woven out of thin air! Let me ask you this question, Kristina (perhaps as a woman you will be more inclined to answer.)—Can you explain why, if the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary should be believed, why did she go through the purification rites prescribed for mothers in Leviticus chapter 12? There were no such rituals prescribed for virgins in the Mosaic Law, so…I’m still waiting for someone to explain Mary’s actions.The concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity much be read INTO the Scriptures (Or the Word of God can be ignored and”tradition”supplants Holy Writ, something that doesn’t seem to bother catholics. As long as some supposed so-called”church father”claims it to be so,presumably it is so.After all, you are required to…”loyally submit your wills and intellects “…to your presumed ecclesiastical masters, I.e.the so-called”magisterium”)-So…If Scripture was good enough for the Saviour, it’s good enough for me.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Hey, Mr. Ringo, are you ever going to answer my questions?
            I’ve been waiting for days. Or, should I post them here?
            Since you are asking the same question about Lev. 12?
            God Bless!

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Hey, Nick_from_Detroit! One of the Fruits of the Spirit is…Patience, my friend! I’ll answer you shortly, as I’ve said. By the way, feel free to answer me inre Leviticus chapter 12, if you think you can; so far, no once else has! GOD bless you, too!–Patience!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “Shortly” usually doesn’t mean more than a couple of days, on the interwebs. And, MarcAlcan answered you pretty well. Your reply didn’t really address the point his response, I found.
            Merry Christmas!

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Is that some kind of joke, Nick? MarcAlcan? Please…he gave his opinion, nothing more. He did more bobbing and weaving than anything else; he didn’t come CLOSE to satisfying MY questions attendant upon this issue. But, hey!…If his answers satisfy you, so be it.PATIENCE, Nick!!

          • MarcAlcan

            He did more bobbing and weaving than anything else; he didn’t come CLOSE to satisfying MY questions attendant upon this issue.

            Actually I did. But that you are unable to get it is also quite evident 🙂
            Here’s the thing though, if you exercise the grey matter a bit more, you too will get it.

          • MarcAlcan

            Can you explain why, if the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary should be believed, why did she go through the purification rites prescribed for mothers in Leviticus chapter 12?

            Are you still barking the totally laughable argument regarding Leviticus?
            Seriously man, if you are going to try to debunk our dogma’s you should at least try to understand the terms. Other Protestants are able to do that you know.

          • James Grimes

            Excellent come-back and explanation. Beware of the stalkers here; they will want to tear you down. Have a blessed day.

          • Kristina

            On this particular reply I don’t think we are referring to the same post; I was referring to previous posts that are in different threads than this one.

            As for Mary bringing the bunt offering; could you imagine the uproar, the scandal the danger they all would have been in?
            Mary was born under the law and as a good Jewish woman she met the requirements of the law. Jesus was ritually washed for “the repentance of sins” by John the Baptist. Certainly Jesus had no sin and did not need to repent, yet he did this out of obedience to “fulfill all righteousness.”

            You do know that the early reformers also held fast to the perpetual virginity of Mary right?

            I’m sorry you don’t like me or my Catholic faith very much but I will share it with long-suffering .

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Allow me to offer my most humble apologies, Kristina! I in no way meant to convey in any sense that I don’t like you; I don’t know you, so it would be absurd to be inimical towards an unseen person. You are probably a delightful in person; certainly you are passionate in your beliefs, and I can respect that. Oftentimes the things we love the most generate the strongest feelings among us, and we can easily get carried away. As for roman catholicism itself, it’s no secret among the bloggers on these sites that I have little regard for the system; as I’ve said many times, I consider the institution a bogus, contrived, man-centered, soul-enslaving counterfeit, the claim that”it’s the church Christ established ” notwithstanding. I don’t think so. Just because someone says so doesn’t make it so.Frankly, your own long, vile, heinous history testifies against you; it would be difficult to find a religious system that has caused more harm to humanity than yours, Kristina, and that’s just how I feel. I have studied the roman catholic religious system for almost 25 years, and it simply has little in it that appeals to me. The paradox is that I know many wonderful people who adhere to the Catholic Church, and I love them dearly, but the system…No.So, there it is, Kristina. God bless you.

          • Kristina

            And I can respect that too. I’ll admit, most do a terrible job of explaining the faith, which leads to much misunderstanding. I believe that is changing, praise God! And God Bless you.

          • Joseph Essien-Obot

            I would really love to know what that “long, vile, heinous history of roman catholicism” is. 3 years of the Inquisition in Spain, the 200 years of worldly popes, the 100 years of Crusades in self defense, all these in respect to 2,000 years of history?

            In 25 years you have never come across the writings of Christians like ourselves who wrote during the time of the Apostles and just after? Or is it that the views of those Christians were just as like what you profess?

            I’d really love to read what you say.

          • MarcAlcan

            theytherefore have a right to be called Christians;and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the the children of the Catholic Church

            And yet…there .. you .. are.

          • MarcAlcan

            theytherefore have a right to be called Christians;and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the the children of the Catholic Church

            And that is VERY EVIDENT. And it is also very evident that such a view stems from a profound willful ignorance. But one day, God’s mercy will overtake your wilfulness and you will come to know the truth of His glorious Catholic Church.

          • Demopublicrat

            The scripture was ok, it was the crap you added to it.

          • MarcAlcan

            The scripture was ok, it was the crap you added to it.

            And I am sure you are able to explain what the crap is and why it is crap. So go ahead…

          • Demopublicrat

            Simple, everything quoted from scripture is ok. EVRYTHING else not from scripture – crap.

          • MarcAlcan

            Simple, everything quoted from scripture is ok. EVRYTHING else not from scripture – crap.

            See this just proves the fact how completely logically challenged you are.
            Maybe you can tell me how you know that everything from Scripture is ok? Who told you that? How do you know that for a fact?

          • Demopublicrat

            I’ve gone over this already.

          • MarcAlcan

            No you haven’t. You’ve waffled on but you haven’t said anything sensible.

          • Demopublicrat

            You just choose to ignore it – it’s on you, not me.

          • MarcAlcan

            There was nothing to ignore.

          • Demopublicrat

            You just choose to ignore it – it’s on you, not me.

          • MarcAlcan

            There was nothing to ignore.
            If you think there was something to ignore then you can go ahead and detail what I am supposed to have ignored.

          • Demopublicrat

            Read the posts instead of ignoring them.

          • MarcAlcan

            That is exactly my point. I read the post. What brilliant argument was I supposed to have ignored?
            You can’t even tell me now.

          • Demopublicrat

            If I have to explain…

          • MarcAlcan

            If I have to explain…

            But it’s quite apparent you can’t.

          • Demopublicrat

            It’s quite apparent you wouldn’t understand.

          • MarcAlcan

            It’s quite apparent you wouldn’t understand.

            Hardly. It’s quite apparent you yourself don’t understand your own reasoning hence your inability to explain it.
            As evidenced by your one liners.
            There is still time to learn you know.

          • Demopublicrat

            “One liners” simplicity as the concept is simple.

          • MarcAlcan

            One liners” simplicity as the concept is simple.

            Naaah! It’s proof of your inability to comprehend even your own posts and you think you can hide behind one liners.

          • Demopublicrat

            I’m not the one who can’t comprehend even one liners.

          • MarcAlcan

            I’m not the one who can’t comprehend even one liners.

            You dont’ even comprehend your OWN one liners. Parrots never do.

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever mary-worshiper.

          • MarcAlcan

            Whatever Self-worshipper.

          • Demopublicrat
          • MarcAlcan

            Why must we worry about what some man said? How about scripture?

            Well how about we ask the Church who came up with the NT so we know what it exactly means.
            I mean, why would you even consider Scripture as scripture when it was the Church who came up with the Scripture. If you are really ticked off by the Church, I would have thought that you would have come up with your own Scripture. Maybe start from scratch in the year 1521. It could go like this: the Lord’s revelation to Luther….

          • Demopublicrat

            “Well how about we ask the Church who came up with the NT so we know what it exactly means.” Why not ask the Mormons, or the JWs or the muslims, or Jim Jones, or…

            “I mean, why would you even consider Scripture as scripture when it was the Church who came up with the Scripture.” It is a catholic fallacy that the RCC came up with scripture, the Old Testament was canonized well before the RCC came out with it paganized version of Christianity. I’m not Lutheran.

          • MarcAlcan

            Why not ask the Mormons, or the JWs or the muslims, or Jim Jones, or…

            You are partially correct there because the Muslims have their own book.

            So if you want to be your own type of religion, then how come you don’t have your own book and instead use ours – the Bible.

            It is a catholic fallacy that the RCC came up with scripture, the Old Testament was canonized well before the RCC came out with it paganized version of Christianity. I’m not Lutheran.

            Like I said, quite profound ignorance.
            The Jews DID NOT HAVE A CANON at all till after Christ. There was no fixed canon during the time of Jesus and only during the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD they start looking at fixing the Jewish canon.
            I do suggest you get better educated. This is laughable. But thank you for the entertainment.

          • Demopublicrat

            “So if you want to be your own type of religion, then how come you don’t have your own book” – like Douay-Rheims

            Like I said, quite profound ignorance, around Palestine the Jewish Scripture is exactly what Christians today call the Old Testament. Jesus referred to these books when he spoke of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).
            do suggest you get better educated. This is laughable. But thank you for the entertainment.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Wow, Kristina. I shudder to think that’s actually a real question. Since Christianity is CHRIST, maybe you should get on your knees and ask HIM…

          • MarcAlcan

            Since Christianity is CHRIST

            Are you devolving or what? Christianity IS CHRIST? Really? Christianity and the Godhead are one entity?

          • MarcAlcan

            Now we have all of the scriptures which act as a guide to keep his message, commands, etc. pure, protecting against those who would alter it or add vain traditions of men and giving us his instructions.

            You mean the scriptures that were written by members of the Catholic Church which He built and which He continues to guide? That Scripture?

          • Demopublicrat

            “You mean the scriptures that were written by members of the Catholic Church which He built and which He continues to guide? That Scripture?” No, because that scripture does not exist.
            Like I said baptizing is only part of it, and you forgot the being good part – does it say being good saves you?

          • MarcAlcan

            No, because that scripture does not exist.

            Oh really. Obviously you are also ignorant of history. You have a lot of catching up to do with regards Church history. It might be a good idea to start now.

            Like I said baptizing is only part of it, and you forgot the being good part – does it say being good saves you?

            Ever read Matthew 25? Oh maybe that is not in your corrupted scripture either.

          • Demopublicrat

            Church history and reality don’t always line up.
            Matthew 25 does not state that one can work out their own salvation.

          • MarcAlcan

            Church history and reality don’t always line up.

            Like I said before, really dumb. If Church history does not line up with reality then it is not history!

            Matthew 25 does not state that one can work out their own salvation.

            Then how come those who “worked” good deeds were invited to the kingdom and those who didn’t were thrown out where there was gnashing of teeth.

          • Demopublicrat

            “If Church history does not line up with reality then it is not history!” Exactly.
            Those spoken of in Matthew 25 are already followers (hence the reference to “servants” or “virgins in the wedding party”) Christ is talking about the actions following belief or the bearing of fruit. He speaks more of this in the parable of the fig tree.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            I suppose you think that by repeating false eisegesis, you can tweak and parse the Scriptures enough to extract so-called”apostolic succession”out of them, huh?

          • Kristina

            You were convicted enough to comment.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Wow.You actually think that roman catholicism has some convicting power? That’s not even half funny, just sad and pathetic. I’ve been studying roman catholicism for almost 25 years, Kristina, and in ALL THAT TIME I’ve not found ANYTHING to recommend that bogus, contrived, man-centered institution to me. I have been a born-again, blood-bought, Spirit-filled child of Almighty God for 38 years and counting, and I have NEVER regretted…”confessing with my mouth”Jesus is Lord”, and believing in my heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thereby being saved”…I don’t need my life IN CHRIST confirmed by sinful, flawed, fallible human beings; I am grateful that Almighty God condescended to bring about His Gospel through them, but these selfsame men presume to think of themselves as somehow necessary for MY salvation, or whatever religious system they’ve constructed in order to entrap me in some sort of yoke of bondage, as Peter spoke of in Acts 15, well…I’ll take the freedom I have iN CHRIST All.day.long.Whatever catholics want to claim about their religious institution, contrary to your pope Boniface VIII’s”Unam Sanctum”, your church is NOT GOD, and your church is NOT my Saviour nor my Judge.Jesus Christ STILL has that job, and you catholics would do well to remember that.

          • James Grimes

            Well done. Thank you.

          • Kristina

            I’m sorry you don’t understand my Catholic faith. I’m sorry you don’t understand that Jesus is my LORD Jesus Christ. My perfect Pascal sacrifice who’s blood covers me so I can stand worthy before God. That I walk out my salvation with fear in trembling. That by Gods grace and indwelling of His Holy Spirit I am able to renew that walk of salvation daily and take of my cross. That by my faith in my Lord Jesus Christ my soul is convicted and my works are the fruits of my convicted soul. I’m sorry that you don’t understand that I was baptized into God’s own family at the time of my baptism. That I am surrounded my a great cloud of witness that through their prayerful intercession allow me to run the race. That the Church was meant to be visible and hierarchical like creation and the angels. I’m sorry you take offense that Jesus gave us His mother to take and be our own. That as the gebhirah she places our needs before her King. I could go on and on and on there is so much, so much depth to the love of God!!!

          • MarcAlcan

            I’m sorry you don’t understand my Catholic faith

            And boy does he not understand it big time. I

          • MarcAlcan

            I’ve been studying roman catholicism for almost 25 years,

            And blah blah blah. Do you realize that that makes you even more pathetic. After all that time you remain this ignorant? One would think that given that much time and study you would have already advanced even if only a tiny bit.

          • James Grimes

            I just read Marc Alcan’s rant below. Boy, is he arrogant! He really has no clue about the church Jesus had established. Blessings to you on this Lord’s Day.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Yeah…I’m done engaging with MarcAlcan, Mr.Grimes; there is a line uttered by the Pharaoh character portrayed by Yul Brynner in that campy but well-loved classic”The Ten Commandments”that goes…”Let him rave on that men may know him mad!”…I don’t bother with him anymore; until I got involved with him, I had no idea what a”troll”was; now…the guy is an Internet stalker, and if he’s Roman Catholicism’s best defender, God help them! I’m sure I didn’t even have to warn you that he would attack; the worse part is that he’s not even close to being an able defender of Catholic claims and dogma; he just echoing the catholic party line! Oh, well…his presumptious judging of other Christians will cost him in the end-Just keep him and those of his ilk in your prayers!!—And again, God bless YOU, my brother!

          • James Grimes

            What is disturbing is how rude he is to you below.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Indeed.I must admit I found myself puzzled at his attitude as well.( He claimed, in effect, that non-Catholics are being influenced by Satan. What can you say but”Wow?”)-It may be possible that some psychological issues are at work, but I don’t wish to denigrate anyone; I’m just concerned about his constant pejorative and polemical attacks against those whom, after all, are supposed to be viewed as…”separated brethren “…according to his own pope (And Catechism! )–In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we are told that…”All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians;and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the the children of the Catholic Church”…So, there it is, Brother James.[ The ironic thing about this particular claim from the Catechism is that although I purchased this book a while ago, I almost NEVER read it; to come across this particular section is astonishing, because I am a baptized Christian, ergo,MarcAlcan and myself are: Ta Da! Brothers in the Lord!! Who’da thunk it? Now, if he rejects his own Church’s teachings, there really won’t be anything else left to say to him, although if the current pattern holds, he will try mightily to get around what the Catechism has said.[ By the way,it’s in the chapter entitled”Profession of Faith (Part One), page 235, section 818]—So, again, let’s just pray for our poor friend,and keep proclaiming Our Saviour as Lord of ALL baptized Christians!

          • MarcAlcan

            He claimed, in effect, that non-Catholic Christians are being influenced by Satan.

            Well it’s very simple Logic.
            The Holy Spirit UNITES.
            The Devil DIVIDES.
            There are 33,000 protestant denominations and counting.
            So draw your own conclusions.

            theytherefore have a right to be called Christians;and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the the children of the Catholic Church

            And I never said you are not a Christian. Just someone being misled by the evil one. Though you can’t be entirely blamed for that. Those who were responsible for your formation are.

            For one thing you are spreading lies after lies. And you can’t even be bothered to find out the truth. You have been studying the Catholic faith for 25 years and yet still here you are with your lies.
            Well guess who is the Father of lies?

          • James Grimes

            I looked at his responses on this site and a few others. 99% are disagreements with those who had posted. Many of these posts are insulting to the original poster. This says a lot about him, probably all we need to know about him.
            I’m just going to ignore him. I can’t waste my time with someone who is so miserable. He thinks he can share his misery with others, but, in fact, he is just wallowing in it.
            Stay true to the faith. Thanks for standing up to these miscreants. Just don’t waste too much of your time with them. I’m sure you have better and more productive things to do.
            Blessings.

          • MarcAlcan

            What is disturbing is how rude he is to you below.

            And by implication Laurence is not rude? You really ought to get better reading glasses. He even made threats!

          • MarcAlcan

            !”…I don’t bother with him anymore; until I got involved with him, I had no idea what a”troll”

            Or until you got involved with me, you thought that every Catholic you know have no clue as to what we Catholics believe. So you thought you could get away with your lies. But we’re not letting you. 🙂

            and if he’s Roman Catholicism’s best defender, God help them!

            Are you kidding? I am the least of them. And that is what makes it sad. I am the least of them and I am making mincemeat of your arguments. rdt is way better than you when it comes to logic and even he is not doing so good explaining what you protestants believe.

          • MarcAlcan

            I just read Marc Alcan’s rant below. Boy, is he arrogant! He really has no clue about the church Jesus had established. Blessings to you on this Lord’s Day.

            No. You’re the one who is clueless.
            But God is merciful. He will draw you to His Church one day and then your ignorance will cease.

          • Yvonne Bongle

            Marc Alcan Is not arrogant. He just knows his faith. If that makes him arrogant, well then I guess he is. Hmmm? lol’

          • MarcAlcan

            I suppose you think that by repeating false eisegesis,

            False eisegesis? You are the one who is totally guilty of that because the Protestant religion was born of eisegesis. Luther had a preconceived doctrine and did violence to scripture to make it say what he wants it to say.
            You like muzzling scripture when it goes against you.

            you can tweak and parse the Scriptures enough to extract so-called”apostolic succession”out of them, huh?

          • James Grimes

            Eisegesis, by definition, is reading something into the Bible that isn’t there. The mary-worshipers and statue-worshipers probably don’t do this. They probably know what the Bible says about these things, but choose to ignore them, choosing instead to substitute their own desires for worship. In any event, it is a form of corruption.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Mr.Grimes, you, my good sir, are a seriously brave man.I’m reminded of when they rushed upon Stephen; the haste they exhibited in stoning him was astounding; and you, sir, may well receive the Internet version of said stoning. BRAVO, and God bless you! You are absolutely in my prayers, and bless you for standing up for the Word of God, NOT the fantasies and speculations of men (or women, for that matter.)

          • MarcAlcan

            I’m reminded of when they rushed upon Stephen;

            There is just one minor error here. St Stephen was being stoned for being a member of the Catholic Church. I don’t think Mr Grimes is a member and it seems he is even working towards getting members out of Christ’s Church.

          • James Grimes

            We’re being stalked. Oh my!

          • MarcAlcan

            Eisegesis, by definition, is reading something into the Bible that isn’t there.

            You are sooooo right.
            That is why the sinners prayer is not there.
            Salvation by faith ALONE is not there.
            You will be saved by asking the Lord to be your personal Lord and saviour is not there.
            Once saved always saved is not there.
            And what else is NOT THERE? The splintering Protestant denominations!
            So what IS there?
            Well, baptism saves you according to Peter.
            You need to eat his flesh and drink his blood (he said this 7 times mind you) according to Jesus.
            The Church is the foundation of Truth according to Paul.
            His Church will be built on Peter and will be guided into truth according to Jesus.
            We must work out our salvation in faith and trembling according to Paul.
            Jesus’s last commission to His apostles to BAPTISE ALL NATIONS and make them disciples which happens to be exactly what the Church did according to the book of Acts.
            I could go on and on but I think you get my drift 🙂
            Thank you for posting that definition.

          • KenS

            1 Corinthians 13:8-10 states: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail: whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there e knowledge,it shall vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

            This passage speaks of the apostleship ending with the completion of the bible (that which is perfect is come). We only had partial knowledge (scripture) until the completion of the bible, therefore when the bible was complete we had no more need for apostles giving us more scripture.

            We have a more sure Word as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19-21: We have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

            This clearly shows that the Bible is our final authority and not the Roman Catholic Church or any of its leaders in any proclamation that they may make.

            The Bible goes on to tell us this in the very next verses:

            2 Peter 2:1-2: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall being in damnable heresies,even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

            I don’t know about you, but to me this speaks of exactly what the Roman Catholic Church as done.

          • Kristina

            You bring up an interesting point and I wonder if you also believe that there is no more prophecy, gift of tounges, healing, etc? I have to wonder because I have born again, bible-only friends that would insist that these gifts have not ceased. I would also like to point out that they would insist they are Spirit-filled and have a strong distaste for the Catholic Faith. Point is there are so many different “brands” of born again bible only out there. Some believe this, some that. And each are telling the other that there brand is the correct one. I would also like to add that the Teaching of the Faith was passed orally for centuries, as the complied Bible was hard to come by because it had to be hand copied, and it was very expensive and time consuming to do so. And what about 1 Timothy 3:15 which calls the Church the pillar and foundation of the Truth? When the Gospel was taken into a new country and spread throughout the Earth, it was done orally. They didn’t have bibles to pass out to each believer. If they had a full bible themselves! Why do the Faiths of 1800 year old churches in Iraq and elsewhere sure seem to look catholic if not catholic then Orthodox?

            If anything it is in error to believe we can divorce Scripture from it’s historic and institutional context, while adding our own language and cultural biases.

          • KenS

            nowhere in any of those verses does it say that there will be successors to the apostles, there cannot be any successors, because to be an apostle, you have to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ, and the last eyewitness to Him was Paul. Paul then proceeds to tell us in I Corinthians 13:8-13, that the gift of knowledge will end when that which is perfect is come, meaning when the Bible is completed we will have the complete knowledge of God, therefore, we will not have a succession of apostles. We are to get all our knowledge from the complete word of God, as verse 12 says “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” Therefore; we see that with the completion of the bible, we have all knowledge and there is no new prophecy/knowledge given to us by any man. We have everything we need to know in the completed Word of God.

          • Kristina

            Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

            In 1 Timothy 3:15 we learn the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

            The new covenant is prefigured in the Old covenant, and the Old fulfilled in the new.

            We see that they consecrated men for service to the Lord in the Levitical priesthood. Moses states: “So you shall present the Levites before the tent of meeting. You shall also assemble the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, and present the Levites before the LORD; and the sons of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites.” (Num 8:9-10)

            Likewise, in the New Testament we see a similar thing happen: In the Antioch church of the first century, they sent out an apostolic team this way – “Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (Act 13:3)

          • KenS

            NO, Timothy was a pastor, or elder, not an apostle, and acts 13:3 refers to ministers or teachers, sorry but that is not equal to an apostle. Read on to verse 5, and it say they had also John to their minister, cant get more plain than that. It clearly shows they were ministers not apostles..

          • Kristina

            Ken, your position is a bit unclear to me. The genealogies in the OT was some of the most exciting parts of the OT for the Jews, it showed them their place in God’s family, there heritage, their line to God! Similarly, we know the early Church looked back to their line to the apostles, and thus Christ Himself. The Church is built on the apostles as Christ as the Cornerstone holding it all together (Eph 2:19-22). The same Church that complied the Bible called itself “apostolic”.

          • KenS

            Your position is just as much unclear to me. Just because the foundation was laid down by the apostles, does not mean that there was an apostolic succession. Please show me where in the bible that anyone after Paul was referred to as an apostle or where it shows that there was a succession of apostles. I do not think you would be hard pressed to find it. 1 Timothy 3 1-16 gives us the leadership qualifications for the Church of God and the only 2 authorized leadership positions, bishop (pastor) and deacon. With bishops clearly being the leader of the church as verse 5 shows. This clearly shows us that there were no new apostles, only new pastors(bishops), Not a pope, then bishops as the RCC has, but rather a bishop (pastor) and deacons. The bible also gives us examples of local new testament churches, with their own autonomy, rather than a hierarchy like the RCC has.

          • Kristina

            Does your church have Bishops Ken? Did you know the Pope is also referred to as a Bishop? Even the Angels were given hierarchy.

          • KenS

            Yes, the teams that were sent out were established as apostles by their eyewitness of the living and resurrected Christ, but the reference to Timothy and the people he teaches is not how one becomes an apostle, but rather how one becomes a bishop/preacher or deacon, the only two offices authorized in the bible for the new testament church. Ministers and apostles are not one and the same, but the apostles became ministers as well and taught new ministers to keep spreading the Gospel of Christ, but not successors to any hierarchy, because Christ is the only head of the Church. The different churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessolonica, etc.. all show us that they were working independently from each other and their was no hierarchy at all. They all had their own pastors/bishops and deacons, they did not get them appointed from any higher church, they all came from the new believers in the local community.

          • Yvonne Bongle

            I wouldn’t call that crap. It does go all the way back to Jesus Christ and all the sacraments are there to help us get to heaven. These are gifts from our Holy Trinity. Please don’t tell me that you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity.

          • Demopublicrat

            The sacraments aren’t even as valuable as a nice roll of Charmin. Grace helps gets you to heaven.

        • Laurence Charles Ringo

          What the what are you talking about, aleks?

        • James Grimes

          “And only the catholic faith, (roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox) have the apostolic succession, so the truth can only be found there.”
          Absolutely not true! I hope you don’t really believe this. Just remember… by the time of the Reformation, Roman Catholics had basically disavowed what the Bible had taught and substituted man-made teachings. If this had not happened, there would not have been any need for a Reformation.

      • http://devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/ Devin Rose

        Wrong. Catholics are encouraged to “think with the Church,” using their God-given reasoning and intellect to study the evidence for the teachings of the Faith.

        • Demopublicrat

          Well now, you’ve put yourself in a paradox, either you are lying now or you are sayng the RCC lies as (Catechism 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, 2050) disagrees.

          • MarcAlcan

            Devon’s points mirror precisely the paragraph citations you mentioned. So either you did not understand Devon or you did not understand the citations of more likely both. So like before you are showing that you are not very good with comprehension.

          • Demopublicrat

            “According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic men and women are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without checking it out with the Catholic Church.”

            “Wrong. Catholics are encouraged to ‘think with the Church,’ using their God-given reasoning and intellect to study the evidence for the teachings of the Faith.”
            So like before you are showing that you are not very good with comprehension.
            “Wrong. ‘think with the Church,'”

          • MarcAlcan

            According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, ….
            “Wrong. Catholics are encouraged to ‘think with the Church,’ …
            “Wrong. ‘think with the Church,'”

            Sigh. See, this is exactly what I mean when I say that you might be comprehension challenged.

            Here is what I wrote:Devon’s points mirror precisely the paragraph citations you mentioned.

            So, to humour you and break it down for you:

            1) You gave citations from the CCC.

            2) Devon said we are to “think with the Church”

            Now, explain to me how the CCC citations you gave is supposed to be contrary to Devon’s “we are to “think with the Church”?
            To be able to answer that proper, you need to go to the citations, read them then hold it up against what Devon said and find out if it contradicts his short statement.
            Is that plain enough for you?

          • Demopublicrat

            “think with the Church”

          • MarcAlcan

            Again, how is that supposed to be contrary to the CCC citations you mentioned?
            You really have no clue do you? So you post one liners in the hope that this will mask your ignorance.
            Maybe it is time you actually read the CCC citations an explain how that Devon’s “think with the Church” goes against that.
            Or perhaps you are too lazy.

          • Demopublicrat

            I could give a crap less about the CCC or Devon.

          • MarcAlcan

            Which just goes to show what a stupid liar you are.
            First you challenge Devon’s post CCC citations (as if you know them), then when confronted you come up with your cryptic inanity. Now you come up with these. Utterly stupid. And this stems from your idolatry of yourself.

          • Demopublicrat

            “think with the Church”

          • MarcAlcan

            “think with the Church”

            Like I said. Dumb one liners aimed at hiding your ignorance.

          • Demopublicrat

            Correction – YOU don’t understand.

          • MarcAlcan

            Correction – YOU don’t understand.

            So goes the parrot.

        • Demopublicrat

          If one would think for himself and use their God-given reasoning and intellect to study the evidence for the teachings of the Faith, you will end up with more of that whole Martin Luther business, you can’t have that now can you? Saved by grace….

          • Yvonne Bongle

            No, however, we would follow the rules and not leave the faith when things didn’t go our way like, (a priest not being able to get married). We all know that Martin Luther did this. Saved by grace…

          • Demopublicrat

            You follow the “rules” of man, not of God.

            As far as saved by grace: Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

        • Lizzie

          You must have scripture to back up the validity of any doctrine. It isn’t about going along with the church crowd theology. I know this is a rule of thumb even in my protestant church. If it isn’t Sola scriptura!!! It isn’t God.
          You have allowed the Catholic Church to dictate dogma to you instead of just reading the word for yourself.
          I challenge you to open your heart and pray for guidance, then start reading with out any added teaching. Give yourself a good six months.

          • MarcAlcan

            You must have scripture to back up the validity of any doctrine.

            Really? But isn’t Sola Scriptura a doctrine. How do you backup a doctrine with itself? Do you not know that that is circular reasoning.

            Besides, where does it say in the Bible that Scipture must back up doctrine? Do you not know that before there was scripture, there was already doctrine?

            If it isn’t Sola scriptura!!! It isn’t God.

            But that is ridiculous. Sola Scriptura IS A MAN MADE DOCTRINE. It is definitely NOT of God.

            I challenge you to open your heart and pray for guidance,

            No, I challenge you to open your heart and your mind. At this point it is closed because you have been feed a lot of Protestant errors (like Sola Scriptura). But when your mind is opened (like so many Protestant minds have been) then you will see that what the Catholic Church teaches is true (just like many Protestants who have come home to Christ’s Church).

      • Laurence Charles Ringo

        That is actually true. Catholics are required to…”loyally submit their wills and intellects”…to their presumed ecclesiastical masters, I.e the so-called”magisterium”.

        • Demopublicrat

          I quoted directly from the catechism.

          • James Grimes

            It doesn’t make any difference to the stalkers who are trolling here. They will find argument with that just to be disagreeable.

          • Yvonne Bongle

            Do you think because you quote from our catechism you know the whole book and our traditions and laws? You really don’t that is one teeny tiny quote.

          • Demopublicrat

            one example of many showing the fallacy of the RCC.

        • MarcAlcan

          That is actually true. Catholics are required to…”loyally submit their wills and intellects”…to their presumed ecclesiastical masters, I.e the so-called”magisterium”.

          You mean as opposed to your ecclesial master which – drum roll – happens to be yourself. That is a wonderful church of one.

      • Conor Maher

        The bishops, including the bishop of Rome, haven’t changed teaching to suit their own gains. We follow two thousand years of developed theological doctrine that is in total accordance with the bible and early christian tradition. The problem with an uneducated approach is that it may lead to confusion. Do we follow the Law of Moses anymore?…..no but you would be left scratching your head given that there are contradictions and commentaries within the bible itself….the entirety of which was collected and organized by the Catholic Church to show the narrative of God as both Author and Character in this story written by humans who were inspired by God.

    • jmichael39

      I’m not sure how anyone in the Catholic Church would be surprised by this revelation. I was raised Catholic and my mom always told me this doctrine of the church. Look, I’ve had the opportunity through working in the past for a national company that does church directories to meet people from all denominations. There are true believers in all of them. I shake my head in wonderment that some of them continue to stay in churches whose dogmas are borderline or blatantly false. I can say the same thing about the Mormon church. There are MANY people in the Mormon church who have no clue about their blatantly unbiblical dogmas. But they still love Jesus with all their hearts souls minds and strength.

      • Neiman

        The Mormon Jesus is a different Jesus, not the biblical Jesus. So loving Him will not save their souls.

        • jmichael39

          Dude, I’m not talking about the dogma of the Mormon hierarchy. I’m talking about what the average Mormon believes. You talk to the average Mormon about what the Mormon Church doctrines are and they don’t have a clue about half of them. Same with Catholic Doctrine. Heck, half the people I meet who attend traditional Protestant churches don’t have clue how to explain the doctrines of their own denomination. It has been and always will be about individual relationships with God through Jesus Christ.

          • Neiman

            Jesus is God!

          • jmichael39

            You’re not getting my point, Neiman…so nevermind…bless you

        • Rosavera

          and you have all the answers, you know it all, you are infallible, you are judge and jury…

          • Neiman

            “you have all the answers, you know it all, you are infallible, you are judge and jury” Wrong in every case, every false accusation.

            It is late and I won’t go into it now, but I can prove theirs is not the Jesus of the Bible, theirs is a false Christ.

          • Rosavera

            kneel and repent Neiman, for you know not what you are saying…

          • Demopublicrat

            The Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers, offspring of Elohim who is but one god of many. They also teach that if we follow the proper course, we can all be gods – sound like a certain serpent in a certain garden?

      • Gracie777

        Something’s seriously wrong when a church puts more emphasis on Mary than on Christ. Don’t you want to be confident your “religious leaders” teach truth? Or, why bother?

        • pax2u

          and the Catholic Church does not put more empasis on Mary than on Christ
          Mary is honored but only God is worshiped

          • Demopublicrat

            In 1826, a schoolmaster was hanged because he substituted the phrase “Praise be to God” in place of “Ave Maria” (“Hail Mary”) during school prayers.

          • pax2u

            so you have found an ancedote with out a citation.
            Does remind me of the Protestant KKK persecution of blacks, jews and Catholics

          • Demopublicrat

            Citation: Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, page 308. Paul Johnson is a prominent historian and a Catholic.

            Which I do not condone but pales to the crusades, the inquisition, and all of the other bloodlust of the RCC.

            http://childabuserecovery.com/pope-francis-found-guilty-of-child-trafficking-rape-murder/

          • pax2u

            it is best that you are alone

        • jmichael39

          Once again, I don’t give a rip about church dogma. Most people in traditional Protestant churches don’t know the official doctrines of their own denomination. It has been and always will be about the individual connection to God through Jesus Christ. Do I care whether some person attending the Mormon Church doesn’t have a clue that the Mormon Church’s official views on Jesus are not correct? Not terribly….yes, I would prefer they go to a Church with a better understanding of the biblical Jesus. But again, that’s not my call. I’m NOT going to suggest that a person who happens to be Mormon or Catholic or any other denomination just cannot possibly be worshipping the same Jesus I worship because the official dogma of those Churches are wrong.

    • Neiman

      That is exactly what you should say and believe to be a Christian. Congratulations, you are a Christian. What bothers me is that so many Catholics don’t understand what you do, they look to the Catholic Church and many requirements of the Church as the basis of their salvation. In third world countries, believe me that their dependence on Mary and the many requirements of the RCC for their salvation places them at risk.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        Well, I just two weeks ago had dinner with the Priest who confirmed me into the Catholic Church. I was seeking a Sacramental marriage (Canon Law 1130-1131) until my Fiancee becomes 60 in order not to screw up her SS benefits from her deceased husband. He denied it to me saying it wasn’t of “Grave Circumstance”. While taking instruction from him (Now a Monsignor and retired) said to me I was his Miracle Child as a Pentecostal had never come to him to convert to Catholic faith and stayed with the Church. I guess it’s the 42 years of being a Protestant doesn’t mean I go along with some of the stuff the Bishops of the Catholic come up with like this, what the Pope just said about Mary, I ain’t buying into it. Being sinless and all, she was human, not divine. Why God chose her? Blood line and the best choice, who knows, a Mystery I don’t worry too much about. God Bless & Merry Christmas.

        • http://devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/ Devin Rose

          Thomas, you are remaining Protestant at heart. Please check out my book The Protestant’s Dilemma to find out reasons supporting Catholic doctrines such as this, and demonstrating Protestantism is in error on many things.

          • James Foard

            “Thomas, you are remaining Protestant at heart”. He is remaining faithful to the word of God, and to his profession of faith in Christ and Christ alone as the one Name above all other names to call on for salvation: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” 1Tim 2:5-7
            “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”
            Acts 4:12
            To Him be the glory.

          • April Sheridan

            Exactly. “Mother” worship is Harlot worship (deception) Father worship through the doorway Jesus Christ and the only ones we are to turn to… period.

          • MarcAlcan

            Exactly. “Mother” worship is Harlot worship (deception) Father worship through the doorway Jesus Christ and the only ones we are to turn to… period.

            Well duh, we don’t worship Mary. Why is it that protestants can’t get that into their head? Their like parrots.

          • sam

            They are parrots, colors galore with big beaks . That’s how I can tell the difference between prots and catholics. 🙂

          • DGCJ

            Quoting bible verses kind of makes you look insane. No offense, but do you have a brain?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            “Quoting bible verses kind of makes you look insane”…Is that some kind of unfunny joke?? If qouting Holy Writ makes anyone look insane, I for one will take my place with all those in the New Testament who did so, Peter and Jesus included.What the what are you talking about???

          • James Foard

            Thank you Laurence. I was at a loss for words when I read DGCJ’s post. You answered him well. According to DCGJ our Lord was insane for quoting scripture to satan in the wilderness, and insane for every time He used scripture in refuting the pharisees and sadducees. The word of God is our light and compass; it contains the story of our creation, our fall, our redemption and our reward and eternal destiny. As St. Paul, I will be a fool in the world’s eyes for Christ’s sake.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            God bless you,James, and thanks for your encouraging words! I hope that by the Grace of Almighty God and the Holy Spirit’s guidance and revelatory power and discernment, I will ALWAYS be able to defend Holy Writ with all that is within me! Again, God bless, and you will be in my prayers, as well as those who disdain the Word of God so blatantly and foolishly.

          • Linnea Sandkuhler

            God did not stop communicating with us throughout the ages –Jesus received His humanity from Mary,and as you can’t separate His Divinity from Him, after His birth He obeyed His Mother- as God and Man–of course Mary never asked Him anything contrary to God’s will. Tota Pulchra

          • Linnea Sandkuhler

            Who do you think guided the writing of the Gospel ? Mary, spouse of the Holy Spirit.

        • sam

          You should look into it more closely why God chose her. And to find out why the church believes this should help you decide whether you really want to remain a catholic or not.

        • MarcAlcan

          Being sinless and all, she was human, not divine.

          Did we say she was divine?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Alphonso Ligouri did.

          • MarcAlcan

            Alphonso Ligouri did.

            In what context?

          • sam

            I doubt it very much!! Find this please.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Seriously, Sam? You need to find a copy of Ligouri’s famous book, “The Glories of Mary”.You’ll see how much he idolized Mary to the point of diety.

          • sam

            Please find it instead of this. He may have had a great devotion but that would never indicate any claim of ‘divinity’ to a creature of God. That is never , ever going to be found in church literature.

    • Frank

      What the pope spoke is official Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Been that way since before you was born. It’s mandated beliefs by them.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        Not for this convert to Catholicism 14 years ago. I made it perfectly clear to the Priest I met with 1-2 hours a week for 6 months that though I did believe in the Catholic Church as the True Apostolic Church, there were certain beliefs I had as a Protestant I would not be giving up when joining the Church. He had no problem with it, so as it stands, the Pope is the Vicar/Leader of the Church he is human and not infallible IMHO. When I became Catholic I did not give up my reason and ability to pray to God for clear belief and faith of what is true and not true. God the Father, Christ the Savior/Son and the Holy Spirit are number one above all.

        • Frank

          Yes, there are many catholic priests that are apostate Catholics that will teach and allow uncatholic doctrines into their congregation. But to be saved according to catholic teachings you must accept all catholic teachings regarding these things.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I’m sorta like you, Thomas: I am a non-Catholic who attends a very conservative Catholic church for the following reasons:

          1. I like their high view of worship and many of their hymns. (Beats 7-11 songs any day.)
          2. I like their striving for holiness, which is demanded of us followers of Christ in the Bible. (Beats cheap grace protestantism any day.)
          3. I like most of their liturgy. (OT, responsorial psalm, NT, Gospel, plus the good creeds, parts and whole.)
          4. I like the fact that the church overall (thus far) has stood firm on the Sanctity of Life and Marriage (when so many protestant ones have caved), especially under attack by the godless Obama administration these past 6 years. (It’s nice to meet faithful, Jesus-loving, Catholics now – before I meet them in prison.)
          5. I like the people I work with on missions teams there too. Catholics are starting to study the Bible more and more, but they sure do put their faith in action better than most, IMO.

          The things you disagree with, I do as well, and definitely some more. But, I can be salt and light in the Catholic church, even as a non-Catholic, and there is much to be learned from Catholics – the things they do better than most, that are sound in a Biblical sense. God bless you, Thomas!

    • http://devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/ Devin Rose

      What the Pope suggests is not unbiblical. Catholic dogma states that salvation is from God and He is the only one we worship. What the Pope is saying is that Mary said yes to God and in doing so, salvation (Jesus) entered the world.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        Have your book but just started reading it, thanks.

    • Guest

      How is this “news”? That is what I’m trying to figure out.

    • wackyt

      God used Mary for His plan for salvation. Sin came into the world thru a woman He used another woman to bring salvation into the world, thereby undoing what the first woman did. In Genesis 3 it says “I will put enmity between you and the woman”. Enmity means a deep seated hate thus by God’s Word there can never be any friendship between Mary and the devil. So for that to be true she could not even do one sin because if she did just one sin she would be on the devil’s side and God’s word would be wrong.

      • wackyt

        “Then God’s temple in heaven opened and in the temple could be seen the Ark of the Covenant. There were flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, an earthquake and a violent hailstorm. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Revelation 11:19- 12:6

    • Veri Tas

      If, as a Catholic, if you are disturbed by something like this, feel free to do your homework because you have 2000+ years of very smart, bible-loving, theologians on your side to explain WHY the Catholic Church teaches what it does.

      For example, WHY does the Church teach that Mary was conceived without sin, and is that teaching biblical? Hint- It is super-biblical: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

      And, while we’re at it, here’s a little picture of Luke 1:28. Just for fun.

    • MarcAlcan

      I’m Catholic and find this disturbing of the Pope, God is the one we worship and his Son Christ the one we find our salvation from and the Holy Spirit to help guide us in worship of the Father, God. What the Pope suggests is unbiblical. God Bless.

      Obviously you are clueless as to what the Immaculate Conception means.
      The IC in no way detracts from the worship due to God.
      If you are indeed Catholic, then you are totally ill educated about Scripture and about the faith.

    • Joseph Essien-Obot

      I doubt very much you are Catholic. What the pope said was not a suggestion but a teaching of the Catholic Church.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        I care less what you doubt. I am Roman Catholic.

        • Joseph Essien-Obot

          You mean a pretender to the faith.

    • Joseph Essien-Obot

      You cannot have been Catholic and not known this all along. What the pope said is not his personal musing it is part of the very fabric of Catholic faith.

      The channel of God’s entrance into humanity cannot have been conceived in sin. God comes into the world by our ‘sinlessness’, our true love of neighbour. I think you would want to understand ‘sinlessness’ as ‘holiness’.

      The pope did not say Mary is therefore worshiped because she is sinless. Do we worship babies, are they sinful? Were Adam and Eve God when they were originally sinless? Do we worship Jesus because he is sinless?

      Thanks.

    • April Sheridan

      Everyone should be. The Jesuit Roman Vatican are false Christians who pose as holy men. They are the ones our Jesus warned us about.

    • KenS

      This has been the doctrine of the RCC since 1844, so why are you surprised by this pope following the church’s established doctrine. Maybe instead of being surprised and disturbed, you should be reading the Bible yourself and seeing what it says that you truly need to be saved, which is to believe that Jesus alone is our savior, He is God, he died and rose again to pay for our sins, believe on him and him alone and no works, no ordinance, etc. only believe that he died and rose again for our sins, then you are saved, then find a bible believing church to attend in order to learn more and to fulfill the LORDs command to not forsake the assembly of the saints.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        I’ve since educated myself on this point and now aware of the RCC teaching on Mary, it was my ignorance on the subject, never had been pointed out to me. Yes, the Virgin Mother was indeed born without original sin. I always thought the blessing took place when the angel visited here letting her know she was with child, then from that point she became “special” in the eyes of God. Mea Culpa.

    • Linnea Sandkuhler

      Do you really think God stopped communicating with us after the Bible?

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        No, he still talks to us in various ways, people, dreams, during prayer. God still communicates with the faithful I believe.

    • Linnea Sandkuhler

      If you are Catholic, you shouldn’t find this surprising–this has been taught for a century.

    • Conor Maher

      These references that they make toward the catechism are taken out of context like much of the bible. Specifically, “that “[s]he was the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race (CCC, para. 494).” go to the catechism, it is referenced that because she said “yes” to God’s will that salvation was able to come about. If she had said “no” we would have no messiah. Not that she is the root of salvation itself. Know your faith, Mary is venerated, not worshiped and she does intercede on our behalf (literal physical evidence in this world: Lourdes, Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe etc). Also yes immaculate conception is not biblical but believed by early christians and with good reason. Only a perfect vessel could hold and bare God himself. Our relationship to her is like that of any family. You love and revere your mother, in a perfect relationship you do not ask the will of the mother to supersede that of the will of the father. So any intercession from her is willed by the Father. These are just simple reasons why our veneration of Mary is A) not something to get riled about and B) A beautiful thing as a practicing Catholic. I ask that all my brothers and sisters in Christ reserve any kind hatred as is our teaching and to do your own research to at least understand different beliefs so as to come to know and love others more effectively.

  • Demopublicrat

    IMMACULATE CONCEPTION — Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. (Catechism 490-492).

    In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”. Mary knew that she needed a savior.

    The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church.

    • BeWhoYouAre

      Well, that’s typical of your made up fundie horseshit.

    • Kristina

      First Eve was created without sin, as so was the new Eve Mary. God saved her from the original stain from the first Eve at her conception so that God bring forth the new Adam (Jesus). Like the first Eve came from the first Adam, the new Adam comes from the new Eve. She is the “woman” of Genesis 3:15 and Jeremiah 31:22

      • Demopublicrat

        “new Eve Mary” – do show chapter and verse or keep your RCC’s heretical fairytales to yourself.

        “God saved her from the original stain of Eve’s disobedience from her conception so that God bring forth the new Adam (Jesus).” Jesus created mary.

        Genesis 3:15 and Jeremiah 31:22 – Prophecies of the coming messiah and his birth, nothing at all about mary being sinless, or anything other than a vessel, or some kind of new “Eve”, Those are vain traditions of men.

  • Jennifer Pruitt

    Mary was God’s chosen vessel to bring Jesus (the Messiah) into the world yes. But to say she was without sin, that’s taking stupid to a whole new level. We surely are living in the last days!

    • Gracie777

      Lord, come quickly, Amen.

      • Neiman

        Again, amen!

    • bumblebee8

      Just as a means of discussion, so how does one obtain original sin? Would Jesus be born of someone who has original sin? Why then did Jesus get baptized?

      • Neiman

        a. Original sin comes from Adam and Eve, God says no one is good, no not one.
        b. God says we are all conceived in sin.
        c. The Holy Spirit protected the Human Jesus from the stain of Mary’s sins, yet He grew He was tempted just as we are and yet without committing any sin.
        d. Jesus was baptized to fulfill the Law of Moses – He was Jew and came first to the house of Israel first and thus came as a Jew, it was the washing away of any sins.

        • bumblebee8

          in response,
          a. So how is it passed down from Adam & Eve
          c. Where did you get the Holy Spirit protected Him
          d. What sins had to be washed away

          • Neiman

            a. “The term “original sin” deals with Adam’s sin of disobedience in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race. Original sin can be defined as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.” The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious
            sin.” Psalm 51: “5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”

            c. As Jesus was without sin, it implies original sin which was in Mary was not passed onto Him. He was filled with the Holy Spirit without measure from His conception when the Holy Spirit overcame Mary. ”
            For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” (John 3:34).

            d. For Jesus none! It was in obedience to the Law of Moses only, as a testimony to the Jews that He fulfilled all the Law.

  • Gary

    This heresy of the Catholics, and others, is why Catholicism is not Christianity.

    • Spoob

      Catholicism is absolutely Christianity! In fact the earliest form of it!

  • Wingnut

    This isn’t anything new. Anyone who’s followed catholic teachings for any length of time has heard this. It is heresy, and is also one of the reasons that the catholic “church” *forbid* their parishioners for owning or reading the Word. The “church” wanted to be the one to disseminate what they wanted the people to know, rather than the truth. Thanks to the printing press everyone has access to the Word and can study it for themselves!

    • pax2u

      your posting name is perfect for you
      and guttenburg was a Catholic
      what denomination does a wingut belong to?

    • pax2u

      hey wingnut, proper name

      The Gutenberg Bible that gave the printing press and bible to everyone is true, as Gutenberg was a Catholic

      • Wingnut

        About the name… if you have ever seen me on a three wheeled race bike, you’d understand 😉

        Here’s a link with some interesting information about the above…

        http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modules/gutenberg/books/legacy/

        • pax2u

          do you have a denomination?

          • Wingnut

            I only claim to be apostolic pentecostal, if I must have a name tag 😉 You?

          • pax2u

            I am a Catholic of the Latin rite

          • Wingnut

            Cool. I appreciate you pushing me to study some more. My original post was what I’ve been taught and always believed. I spent some time today with google and learned quite a bit that I didn’t know before (or have forgotten). I’m not done but I suspect I’ll be retracting some of what I wrote, or at least clarifying some points further.

            One more question for you, tho. I’ve heard of Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, but didn’t know of any other true catholic. What, exactly, is a Catholic of the Latin rite? Is that like a Jesuit or something? <—not being smart… I just don't know! 🙂

          • pax2u

            The majority of Western Catholics are Catholics of the Latin Rite,

            The Pope is the Bishop of the Rome, but the Church is Catholic, Universal

            The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

            Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”

            A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

            This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.

            Jesuit is a Priesthood order, similar to a Dominican, or a Franciscan

          • Wingnut

            Wow! I had no idea… thanks for the lesson! I had no idea the term was an insult! I thought it just denoted the region, similar to a “Southern Baptist”. I’ll be sure to refrain for that one! 😉

          • pax2u

            the name is really just Catholic Church, and there are various rites,

            A Catholic in France is just a Catholic
            A Catholic in Spain is just a Catholic
            A Catholic in Venice is just a Catholic
            but I guess a Catholic in Rome, would be a Roman Catholic

  • Susan Moore

    Pure blasphemy from the Pope!

    • Frank

      The pope is satan’s minion.

      • pax2u

        Merry Christmas Frank, Is this what your denomination teaches?

        • Frank

          It’s what God teaches. What denominations teach are immaterial to what God teaches.

          • pax2u

            Please provide from the Bible God’s word and teaching where the word Pope is mentioned, Book, Chapter and Verse

          • Frank

            You don’t even understand basic natural Truth out of the Bible, how will you understand deep spiritual Truth from the Bible? You won’t. You need to be concerned about baby food.

          • pax2u

            so you can not show it in the Bible

          • Frank

            What I can show you is immaterial to what I have already said. You don’t even understand what you have already read from the natural sense, you won’t understand what is shown you from the spiritual. You don’t even seek the Truth.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            That is what every fundamentalist with a load of opinions and a big mouth says to justify his positions.

            It is only a disingenuous co-opting of biblical language to denigrate other Christians who do not share your opinion or interpretations.

          • Frank

            I don’t know about any fundamentalist. But God’s Truth spoken by anyone is God’s Truth. And you will not see it until you put aside your thoughts on what is true and what is not and seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Which means forgetting what you think is true or what any man says is true and accept unconditionally what God says is Truth.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Well, then, people are free to accept or reject your particular interpretation of Scripture without fear of rejecting Scripture itself. After all, you are only another man offering another interpretation. It is strange how “God’s Truth” ends up being the prototypical fundamentalist and Evangelical interpretations and opinions when you speak it.

          • Frank

            When you reject God’s interpretation of Scripture as Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of that day you won’t make it into eternal life. There is only one Way, one Truth, one Life. Not multiple as is propagated by various denominations and their opposing doctrines. People have always been free to reject Jesus and His Word, but there is a fiery place of eternal torment to pay.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Yeah, you ignored the part where I clearly pointed out that there is a distinction between your particular interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself. Re-configuring the language to call it “God’s interpretation” does not help you deflect the distinction I made.

          • pax2u

            thank you for your truthful answer that you can not show it in the Bible

          • Frank

            Your assumptional goading will not get me to waste my time showing you what God has blinded your eyes to see. You need to be concerned with understanding the natural straight Truth of His Word before, which you don’t understand because you don’t seek the Truth, before you become concerned with His deep spiritual Truth. You need to learn how to crawl before you walk.

          • pax2u

            I will pray for you

          • Frank

            First you should be concerned with your salvation and being known by Jesus. Until you get saved God won’t be hearing you, except for salvation.

          • pax2u

            I trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation
            I will pray for your eternal soul, and forgive you your hatred of Christians

  • blueray

    ,..and have no statues, craven images, other GODs before me…this is a pagan religion, created by Satan, to deceive and scruge GODs word, to deliberately lead mankind to Hell…I pray mankind wake up to this ungodliness, that has rob the truth, GODs word, hijacked the Apostles…if they don’t except the real truth, they will be lost, forever…Shalom…….

    • BeWhoYouAre

      Utter nonsense.

    • pax2u

      are you Hebrew Roots?

  • James Grimes

    There are several heresies here that will keep the RCC from ever joining the mainstream Christian community. On second thought, since all the mainstream denominations are apostate, the RCC isn’t much different.

    • BeWhoYouAre

      That’s right, only your far-right cult of hateful fundamentalists are the true ones, right? Funny how God hates all the same things you do.

      • Gracie777

        Look who’s calling the kettle black.. The difference between YOU and Christians? WE are forgiven, YOU are not.

        • Neiman

          Amen!

        • James Grimes

          He is nothing but hate. Any comment directed at a Christian is filled with hate. He knows nothing but hate. The arrogance is that he will accuse Christians of hate when, in fact, it’s right under his nose.

        • Spoob

          Fundamentalists are forgiven but Catholics are not?

      • The Last Trump

        Wrong. You have that backwards, as usual. Christians hate everything God hates.

        • Spoob

          I think it is an oxymoron to say “God hates” at all. God does not hate. God is love. And if Christians are hating they are not being Christ-like.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh, God is love alright. But He’s also Holy. And His holiness demands judgment. Christ died a horrific death to save you and I from something, remember? Read your Bible. It very clearly details the things that God “hates” and judges.

          • Spoob

            I think far too often people project their own hatred onto God, and do so to “back up” their own prejudices.

          • The Last Trump

            That’s why we read our Bibles. And nobody should be hating anybody. Hate the sin. What sin? God defines the sins very clearly in His Word.

    • James Grimes

      Note the hateful comment of BeWhoYouAre below. He is an Atheist stalker on this forum and he stalks me and responds to my posts with hate-filled rants. In turn, I don’t hate him. I have very little, actually no, tolerance for this person. Everything he says on this forum is anti-Christian and is meant to be disagreeable and insulting.

      In the end, he will have to answer to the God he detests.

      • pax2u

        wow, so you say that the 1.2 Billion Catholic Christians, and all mainstream denominations are apostate, and that some one else is hateful, wow, just wow

        • James Grimes

          You should continue to be amazed at what I say. If you listen long enough and keep quiet, you may actually learn something.

          • pax2u

            sorry for speaking out,
            but I still believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech

      • Spoob

        I think he just disagrees with your brand of Christianity. Based on what you say here I think I disagree too. Catholics are Christians.

        • James Grimes

          Which parts of the Bible that I hold to do you disagree with?

          • Spoob

            The part where you attack your fellow Christians.

    • pax2u

      1.2 billion Catholics who are Christian souls for Jesus Christ,
      The Catholic Church which believes that a Baptism in the name of the Trinity is a Christian Baptism and that those Churches that teach the Christian Trinity are Christian Churches and their members are Christian brothers and sisters of Catholics,
      and now you say that all the mainstream denominations are apostate
      does that make you the ONLY true Christian? and every one else is in error?

      • James Grimes

        This is pure stupidity. You should think things through before you post a comment such as this.

      • Neiman

        That is what we learn about the End Times Church, all of them, which includes the Roman Catholic have strayed from a single minded devotion to Jesus alone, as James says, they are all apostate. They have long corrupted the Christian faith. Those that will gain heaven will only be those that are born again, converted to Christ and are members of His Holy Body, His only true Church. Christians will join for corporate worship within many denominations, but they are one in Spirit and their hearts are set upon their Savior above all things.

        • pax2u

          I think that the endtimes began when Jesus ascended to Heaven
          all Churches are filled with sinners, but with Jesus all things are possible

          • Neiman

            I a way you are right, it did begin with the early Church. Yet, as in so many cases in the Bible, let us use the Letters to the Churches in Revelation 3-4. They applied to specific churches in Asia at that time, they applied to the various church ages and they have a specific fulfillment in the Last Days. It is a triple bearing on the teaching of the End Times.

  • BeWhoYouAre

    Here we go again. He is not the ‘pope’. He is the pope. Who writes these headlines?

  • Magister_militum_praesentalis

    Christian News Network is throwing some raw, red meat to all of the fundamentalists with this article.

    • Gary

      Is there anything in the article that is not true?

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        The better question is why does a news outlet that caters to Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants care about this enough to devote space for it? Why does their audience care about this?

        • James Grimes

          So that believers (I did say “believers,” didn’t I) can engage in some honest discussion.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Okay, that is nice lip service paid to the concept of “honest discussion,” but that is rarely what occurs in this kind of venue and setting. That is the reason why I described it as “raw, red meat.”

          • BeWhoYouAre

            You’ve never in the time I’ve been here engaged in anything remotely honest. Everything is hate.

        • Joseph Beatty Cain

          For we all are brothers & sisters, its our duty as christians to bring the word of God to as many people as we can. If your cousin was Roman catholic wouldn’t you feel terrible knowing he believed something false that prevented him from getting salvation?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            If we were both Christians I would not presume to judge his salvation.

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            No judgement just
            stating facts.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I see your opinion, to be sure. Where are the facts?

          • pax2u

            what denomination is true and pure?

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            None that I know of as it is made up of men which are infallible. But God’s word is pure & true!

          • Spoob

            OK well, I feel bad that you are believing a fundamentalist lie, I would like to see you turn from it……there is no salvation in fundamentalism, only anger and hate!

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            Prove to me its a lie????

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            I feel no anger or hate, my salvation comes from the blood of Jesus.

        • jcrosby35

          How about for the purpose of revealing the truth. That is as good a reason as there is.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What truth is that?

          • Neiman

            Jesus Christ is the Truth, there is no Truth without Him or outside of Him.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Why would the article need to proclaim this since the Pope is a Christian and believes that Jesus is the Truth?

          • Neiman

            It is only your opinion the Pope is a Christian, I think he is far from it and an anti-Christ.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Perhaps the rotten fruit in your nostrils during your inspection is yours and not the Pope’s?

          • Neiman

            As yourself has shown absolutely no fruits of the Holy Spirit herein, perhaps you should hold your tongue lest we are overwhelmed with your bias and gross stupidity.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, you are only accusing me of not having the fruits of the Spirit because I question your assumptions and ask you to explain the views you hold.

          • Neiman

            No, I am accusing you of not having any fruits of the Spirit, because you do not appear have ever displayed the tiniest fruit of the Spirit. Now the spirits of division, strife and atheism – yes, the Holy Spirit – no!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Oh, so now I am an “atheist” for daring to question your assumptions and asking you to explain your views. It appears you will do just about anything to deflect from answering difficult questions. This is not limited to smearing the opposition with ad hominems.

          • Spoob

            That is RIDICULOUS….the pope represents CHRIST, why would you think he is an anti-Christ?

          • Neiman

            It would take more time and effort than I am willing to invest this morning to list the myriad of reasons why the Pope is a false Prophet. There is not a single fragment of objective, documented evidence or a single passage of Scripture that provides the least justification that God ever called for a person to be His Vicar on earth – when Christ is the only head of His Church. There is nary a word in the Bible that supports the idea of a Pope at all or that says there is any connection between the Pope and Peter. There is nary a word that justifies any man being elevated to the position of “Holy Father, which office is Almighty God’s alone, thus the falsely called Pope is, like Lucifer, trying to be God. The many false teachings of the Catholic Church are contrary to God’s Word, the Roman Catholic Church elevates other people and things to stand between Christ and His only true Church, which is the Spiritual Body of Christ. That is all anti-Christ.

            In a myriad of ways the Pope while using Jesus Name promotes the doctrines of hell. While this will offend you and I understand and I am indeed sensitive to the degree of offense involved, the Truth has always offended those people that call themselves God’s people, it offended the Jews when Christ came as their Messiah, Jesus was/is the rock of offense. It offends people that call themselves Christian, but are in reality of the synagogue of Satan. It offends the world, because it convicts them of sin. So your offense is already noted, but I would rather offend people that a few might find the only true light which is Christ, no matter how I am attacked for doing so.

    • James Grimes

      Was this meant to be an insulting comment?

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        Nope. Empirical observation.

      • pax2u

        of the 30 thousand denominations, and 30 thousand different theologies, which theology is correct?

        • James Grimes

          The truth that is declared by the Bible! I hope you don’t have an issue with that.

          • Neiman

            Exactly! It is NOT about denominations. It is about God’s Word the Bible and the Living Word – Jesus Christ. That is the problem with denominations, what they add or delete from God’s Word. pax2u is trying to be nice, but he and all Catholics, all Christians need to look to Jesus for everything they need in this life and eternity – not to man.

          • pax2u

            thank you Neiman, I am trying and I am a work in progress
            Jesus Christ is my Savior, my Redeemer, my Teacher, and my God and I give thanks to him for all things

          • pax2u

            you are welcome

            “We are obliged to
            yield many things to the Papists–that with them is the Word of God, which we
            received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”-
            Martin Luther

    • BeWhoYouAre

      I’m thinking a better name is Christian “News” Network. Since they’re so fond of throwing disapproving quotation marks all over their stories. And notice how it’s always “the pontiff known as Pope Francis,” they can’t just say Pope Francis. When you think of all the things in this world people could be focusing on, creating discord between protestants and catholics is all that matters?

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        It does give the impression of an orchestration of sorts.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          And so many of the commenters here don’t seem to realize that there were Catholics long before there were fundamentalists.

          • Gary

            Not true.

          • pax2u

            Matt 16

            17And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18″I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19″I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”…

            the Church is universal

          • Gary

            Catholicism is not Christianity. Catholic doctrine, as the pope has proven, is not in accord with the Bible. Catholics borrow some Christian doctrine and mix it with their own unbiblical doctrine, and then claim it is all Christianity. Well, it isn’t.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What about Protestants who do the same thing and claim the same inspiration and truth as you?

          • Gary

            Many Protestants believe stuff that is not in accord with the Bible.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Like what? Let’s see some concrete examples.

          • pax2u

            is your denomination Christian?

          • Spoob

            My dictionary says Catholics are Christians. Is my dictionary wrong? It was written by man after all.

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            Yes, we the people who believe are the church univeral.

          • jcrosby35

            Pax as I said before, “you have the mentality of a parrot”. Get on subject.

          • pax2u

            and this is your response to the word of God, so sad

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            Catholic’s are a fairly young religion starting about 325 AD. Their were many fundamental religions 4000 years before that…

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Where are you getting this 325 AD figure from?

          • pax2u

            Jack Chick

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            From eduacational bible, you could probably use google and feel safe?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, I want to know where YOU got the information from and why YOU think it is relevant.

          • jcrosby35

            Irrelevant. There were Christians, (Disciples and Apostles) before there was even the conception of the RCC which was designed by Constantine 400 plus years later.

            The truth is:

            Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
            Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
            Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
            Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

        • pax2u

          wait for the “christians” who will say that Christmas is pagan because it has the word mas

        • pax2u

          this is to bring our the “christian” love at this special time of year

          • jcrosby35

            True Christians love the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. John 14:6

            Here is the truth about Mary and the RCC.

            Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
            Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
            Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
            Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

            Can you handle the truth?

          • pax2u

            tell us your denomination, so we can understand your truth

      • pax2u

        notice that they file this under apostasy, is the Birth of Jesus considered apostasy?

        • BeWhoYouAre

          I keep expecting to get banned from this site. It’s very typical of these sorts of forums to silence their opposition.

    • pax2u

      you are right, here come the 30 thousand denominations and 30 thousand theologies, and each believes that theirs is the only one that is correct

    • jcrosby35

      You want raw meat then here. A little something to chew on.

      God does have limits. He is limited to His Word. Let God be true and every man a liar. God is not a man that He should lie about anything.

      And Mary was not sinless?

      Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
      Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
      Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
      Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

      If Mary was sinless then why did she die?
      1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
      1Co 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
      1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
      Mary is a sinner like every other person and her salvation is in Christ like every other Christian.

      • Magister_militum_praesentalis

        Yes, I have seen how you have repeated the “Babylonian theology” trope without any explanation as to what it means or how it applies.

        • pax2u

          I am waiting for a Jack Chick hate comic book link to support their anti Catholic anger

  • Neiman

    This is lunacy. If true that Mary was born without sin, then under Catholic teaching that she was thus born to keep Jesus from being an issue of original sin, then for her to have been born without sin, so would her mother, so would her grandmother and eventually we get back to Eve, whom we know sinned before she gave birth to Abel – oops, it all falls apart, huh?

    Jesus was divinely protect as to His human nature and in Spirit He was Almighty thus sinless. He did not need Mary to be sinless. Sorry Catholics, she also had other children via pregnancy and normal birth process.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      So was Christ’s flesh something other than real, physical human flesh, the kind which he would share with those he came to save?

      • Neiman

        I will not play your games today. Try reading what I actually wrote, especially the first sentence of the second paragraph.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          What I said cuts to the heart of the issue. That issue is the confession of the full humanity of Christ, to which Mary his mother is intimately connected. It is not about elevating Mary to the position of a god or demigod.

      • Joseph Beatty Cain

        I think the flesh of Jesus was the pure DNA that Adam & Eve had before they had sinned. The later generations over time corrupted the DNA , made it less than pure from the nature of sin that prevailed over time.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          What do you mean by “pure DNA?” If anything, Jesus would have the “DNA” of his mother Mary, which is also of the line of David.

          • Joseph Beatty Cain

            Mary was merely a vessel… Yes he was born from her ,but he was of God!

          • pax2u

            really? blessed among women, and full of grace or a broodmare?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            This ignores my point. Where did Jesus’ flesh come from? Is it different than normal human flesh?

    • pax2u

      Mary was conceived with out sin

      • Neiman

        Read my first paragraph again. Tell us how she could have been born without sin without her, mother, grandmother, etc also being born without sin.

        Also, please quote from Scripture where it says Mary was without sin.

        • pax2u

          by the work of God, I do not limit God
          Jesus was born of a pure and sinless womb,

          • Neiman

            Scriptural proof please.

          • pax2u

            you need spritural proof that God is all powerful and has no limits?

          • Neiman

            The subject was Mary being without sin and I asked for proof from God’s Word.

          • pax2u

            my proof is that God is all powerful and with out limits

          • Neiman

            That is a pitiful answer! I have tired to encourage you to be a Berean Christian, to study the word so that you can divide truth from error and come to the full knowledge of Truth. When you cannot stand on God’s Word alone, you have no place to stand except shifting sands and thereupon your house will fall.

          • pax2u

            I am sorry if you believe that since I believe in God, and that he is all powerful and that he has no limits, that my answer is pitiful.
            but I believe in an all powerful God, God is my pillar and foundation

          • Neiman

            It is useless, you, like so many well meaning Catholics refuse to submit to God’s Word alone, you refuse to see Jesus as your all-in-all, your first to last in all things, the beginning and end of all things in your life, the Alpha to Omega, having preeminence in all things, having absolute supremacy in your life as the absolute Lord thereof. Believing God is all powerful, which is surely the Truth, will not gain you eternal life.

          • pax2u

            If someone disagrees with your theology does that make them against God?
            I see Jesus Christ as everything, I may not agree with you but I would never consider your beliefs as anti Christian

          • Neiman

            It has NOTHING to do with my theology or any denomination or any set of beliefs, it is either Jesus and Him alone or you are robbing Him of His Glory, it is anti-Christ. I know that sounds mean, but think about it, God is a jealous God, He will not share His glory with anyone or anything.

            Let us just take one thing, prayers to Mary asking her to intercede for you? Why not go directly to Jesus, if you are a part of His Body and He is your head, if He is Almighty God, on what possible basis can you justify praying to Mary or any saint, to lesser beings? You are thereby saying, ‘Jesus I don’t trust you to love and care for my every need and heart’s desire, I don’t believe you love me enough, I need your mother to appeal to you on my behalf.’ He loved you enough to die for your when you were His enemy, but now that you are part of His Spiritual Body, he loves you less? He will hear Mary before a part of His own body? That is to hold the cross and the resurrection up to shame, it is to demean Christ and make Mary first in your heart.

            I warn you, Jesus will not share His glory with anyone, not even Mary and when you pray to anyone else but to Him, He will not hear or answer your prayers.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Neiman: “It has NOTHING to do with my theology or any denomination or any set of beliefs, it is either Jesus and Him alone or you are robbing Him of His Glory, it is anti-Christ. I know that sounds mean, but think about it, God is a jealous God, He will not share His glory with anyone or anything.”

            These are grandiose words which pay lip service to the concept of Jesus’ glory and God’s jealousy.

            However, anyone who can follow the threads of your posts can see that, any time someone asks you difficult questions, or requests that you explain your position, you immediately lash out by impugning their character and hiding behind grandiose rhetoric.

            It is deflection and deficiency, plain and simple.

          • pax2u

            I agree with you
            is it now anti Christ to have a difference of theological doctrine?

          • pax2u

            I believe that Jesus Christ is my God, and I worship Jesus Christ,
            there will be many who will hate me for my beliefs, and I will pray for them and forgive them
            blessings to you

      • Gary

        No, she was not.

        • pax2u

          sorry if that is what you believe,
          I believe that Jesus is God, and as God he is pure and his womb was a pure and sinless womb

          • Gary

            There is nothing in the Bible that proves Mary was sinless. What the Catholics teach about Mary is not Biblical.

  • BeWhoYouAre

    The Pope is not saying anything out of line or shocking. I’m not sure why this constitutes “news”.

    • pax2u

      It may be news to those who do not believe in Jesus

      • BeWhoYouAre

        I don’t know why it’s so hard to have a Christian news source that isn’t so disparaging of the major denominations.

    • Gary

      It is out of line with the Bible.

      • BeWhoYouAre

        No it isn’t.

        • Gary

          Then prove it.

  • Neiman

    Why won’t you Catholics answer me? If true that Mary was born without sin, then under Catholic teaching, if she was thus born to keep Jesus from being an issue of original
    sin, then for her to have been born without sin, so would her mother, so
    would her grandmother and eventually we get back to Eve, whom we know
    sinned before she gave birth to Abel – oops, it all falls apart, huh? If Mary’s mother was guilty of sin, any sin, the tiniest sin, then Mary was born into sin.

    No matter what, why would she have to be less than human, free of sin, perfect, to be the vessel through whom the Savior was given His Human Nature? Surely as to His Spirit, being the great I AM and holy, His Spirit could be not ever be guilty of sin. If the Holy Spirit overwhelmed Mary and Jesus was from conception filled with the Spirit without measure, is the Pope suggesting He could not keep Jesus free from all sin in the womb, no matter Mary’s human failings?

    • pax2u

      God has no limits and created a pure and sinless womb for the birth of his Son Jesus Christ

      • Neiman

        Not meaning to, you oppose Catholic doctrine. I said Jesus was protected from the stain and effects of original sin by the Holy Spirit and while it is a matter of words and not worth dispute, you would not be wrong in saying the Holy Spirit placed a sinless womb in Mary to bear Jesus. Yet, if that is true, by any such words, then it was not necessary for Mary to be without sin, as her sin nature could not be communicated to Jesus. So, as there are no scriptural proofs Mary was without sin and by your own admission she did not have to be without sin, the Immaculate Conception, implying that Mary was without sin, is nonsense.

        • pax2u

          I am sorry if I oppose Catholic doctrine, not sure how,
          it is your opinion of the Immaculate Conception but it is not mine
          I think it is interesting that non Catholic Christians think that Catholics place to much honor on Mary, and in an attempt not to be too “Catholic” bend over backwords to try to limit any importance of Mary, maybe the answer is in the middle

      • jcrosby35

        God does have limits. He is limited to His Word. Let God be true and every man a liar. God is not a man that He should lie about anything.

        And Mary was not sinless.

        Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
        Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
        Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
        Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

        If Mary was sinless then why did she die?
        1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
        1Co 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
        1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
        Mary is a sinner like every other person and her salvation is in Christ like every other Christian.

        • pax2u

          so you limit God,
          I believe that God is all powerful

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      The better question is why do you always deflect from explaining your position and instead accuse people of “lying”?

  • jcrosby35

    Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
    Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
    Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
    Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      “Babylonian theology”—if that is not a ridiculous assumption based upon parallelomania, then what is Babylonian theology? Astrology? Religious texts in cuneiform? What?

      • jcrosby35

        You got a problem? Then prove me wrong. I am not interested in your private interpretation or argumentation.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          I am under no obligation to prove your negatives for you. Understand how debate works. You made a ridiculous statement about “Babylonian theology.” Explain what you mean by it.

          • jcrosby35

            If you want to dispute my negatives then you are under every obligation to prove me wrong. I owe you no explanation.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            How can I do that when you make cryptic, unsupported statements about “Babylonian theology?”

            Despite what you may think about Babylonian magicians, I cannot read your mind.

          • jcrosby35

            Read my mind?
            Then do not try. Shut up and buzz off.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No, how about explaining what you mean by “Babylonian theology.” If you cannot do so, then perhaps you should not employ the term or use it as a pejorative reference to describe the beliefs of Christians against whom you are prejudiced.

          • pax2u

            I think that he would flunk a first year community college logic and debate class

  • Frank

    Feast of the Immaculate Deception

    • pax2u

      sad that you are not a Christian

      • Frank

        I know Jesus personally. He has told me unequivocally that I am His, that I have eternal life. You may be caught up in man’s wisdom and doctrines, but I am not.

        • Spoob

          No one knows Jesus personally.

        • pax2u

          but does Jesus know you?,
          based on your anger, hatred and bigotry that voice in your head is not the Christian God Jesus Christ,
          could be demonic or a mental disability

  • Xaranthe

    Lofty words,deception,and idolatry. The scripture clearly has answers for this.Matthew 7:16 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16″You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17″So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…

    You shall have no other gods before Me. 4″You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.5″You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,…

  • jcrosby35

    God does have limits. He is limited to His Word. Let God be true and every man a liar. God is not a man that He should lie about anything.

    And Mary was not sinless.

    Feast of Immaculate Conception? Another cultic RCC tradition to justify there Babylonian theology. Mary was a sinner (Past tense) a flesh and blood person born the same way you and I were born, lived and died.
    Sinless? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
    Only Christ was born without sin. God is His Father and not man.
    Mary was bless to bare God’s child but she was not immaculate.

    If Mary was sinless then why did she die?
    1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
    1Co 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
    1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
    Mary is a sinner like every other person and her salvation is in Christ like every other Christian.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      Repost.

  • EdWalton

    If the Holy Spirt described as a dove, can rein in my sinful heart; then despite her sin the Lion of Judea had no problems with being carried and birthed by an obedient Mary.

  • Dee Rogers

    Blasphemy…. Mary was a pious, mortal woman, a vessel chosen to bear Jesus, God in the flesh…they VENERATE a mortal woman, who is no holier than the rest of us. They take the most beautiful, wholesome, pure Gift, throw it away to keep the pretty paper it came in!!! The catholic church CHANGED the 10 Commandments to SUIT THEM… they left out Commandment #2, Exodus 20:4, and SPLIT number 10 into two so they still had 10! The catholic church, are the leaders among the churches of men that Jesus says for us to come OUT of, He is knocking and waiting for you to answer. Paul is an apostate, who changed the words of Jesus to suit himself. 3 TIMES in Acts paul said it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. 3 TIMES James rebutted paul, and 3 TIMES Jesus admonished him!!! Read the Bible in more depth. Rev 2:2; Rev 2:20, listen to HIS VOICE…

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      And here is another non-Pauline “Christian.” Do you also reject the concept of the Holy Trinity?

      • Neiman

        You simply do not know Jesus at all.

        Isaiah said this about Jesus: 9:“6For
        a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us {JESUS]; And the
        government will rest on His shoulders; And His name [JESUS} will be called
        Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7There
        will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the
        throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it
        with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore.

        Romans 8: “9However,
        you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God
        dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
        does not belong to Him.”
        See this, we have the Spirit, He is the Spirit of God, He is the Spirit of Christ.

        In Jesus all of the Godhead (Trinity) dwells bodily. Yes, God is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity, but they are ONE Almighty God. We have in Jesus, by His name, by dwelling in Him, access to the Father and we are led there and empowered by the Holy Spirit and these three are One God.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Why are you attacking me when Dee Rogers quite brazenly rejected the faith and witness of St. Paul along with a significant part of the New Testament revelation?

          • pax2u

            because you may be a Catholic, and a target

    • Neiman

      You will have to show us passage by passage and prove that James rebutted Paul, he did not, even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture. You will have to prove passage by passage that Jesus rebutted Paul and be ready to defend them.

      Paul was no Apostate, He was an Apostle, anointed of God and if you throw out His writings the Bible collapses.

      How foolish you are, in Revelations Jesus was nor reproving or rebutting what Paul taught at all. Jezebel tempted the JEWS into idolatry and eating meats sacrificed to them, wherein they (JEWS) were under the Law, it was that spirit of Jezebel which was in promotion of idolatry that Jesus was teaching. But, under grace we are no longer under the Law and Paul was teaching that as we are free from the law we can eat anything God sets before us, as the Holy Spirit taught Peter not to call any food unclean which God called clean. Nonetheless, Paul taught that in love, if we know it is sacrificed to idols, we should refrain from eating this food, not because it was a sin, but for the sake of weaker brothers whom it might offend or that they might act against their conscience and eat, which would make it sin for them.

      You have some truth above to offer, but your rejection of what Paul wrote, which Peter recognized as being Scripture, you are rejecting scripture; or, are you calling Peter and apostate as well?

      By the way, Jesus when asked about the Commandments omitted the ceremonial commandments and only talked of obeying the moral commandments, Oops, I guess Jesus was an apostate too? My goodness, it seems Jesus, Paul and Peter were all apostates, right?

      • pax2u

        at least Dee Rogers is against the Catholic Church,
        is Dee’s theology anti Christ?

  • Sean Gregory

    Catholic bashing again from a bunch of pseudo Christians. How wonderful. The pharisees have come pout to play.

    • pax2u

      well it is the Christmas season,
      but you are correct, it is the Catholic bashing season

  • railhead

    Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
    47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
    Mary called God “her saviour”, someone who has no sin has no need of a saviour. Also, Mary offered a sacrifice after the days of her purification. If she had been pure, as the Catholic church believes, she would need not observe the purification rituals or offer sacrifices prescribed by the law of Moses.
    The Catholic Church is an Anti-Christ religion, a clever disguise of Christianity just like ancient Phariseeism, covering a works salvation “gospel” where you have to work your way to heaven. Official Catholic doctrine teaches that anyone who claims that salvation is by faith alone (like the Bible teaches) is “anathema”.
    And anyone who wants to bring up James 2 as a response to my post, please see Romans 4:4-10. Faith without works is dead because it is not accomplishing anything for the kingdom of God, but faith without works is still faith, and enough to save a person according to Romans 4.

    • Magister_militum_praesentalis

      If all else fails, play the Pharisee Card.

      http://issuesetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/pcard.jpg

      • pax2u

        it is sad that if they disagree with the theology of the Catholic Church it is also “anti Christ”
        I may not agree with anothers theology, but it would be wrong to automatically shout anti Christ to another
        I always wonder, do they belong to a church or denomination or are they only part of the lunatic fringe and that if any one disagrees with them they must be “anti Christ”

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          Right. It is pure post-Reformation partisanship. Now, I will admit freely and openly that I disagree with the extent to which current Roman Catholic dogma takes Marian devotions.

          However, I know the history behind it, and also the reasons behind them, which is to recognize the importance of Mary in the Incarnation and life of the Lord, as well as to safeguard it from the effects of neo-Nestorianism. I do not express my disagreement in hateful partisan rhetoric and arrogant fundamentalist pietism.

          • pax2u

            it is a knee jerk reaction, for those who hate the Catholic Church
            If it is Catholic it must be wrong, they twist themselves into pretzels trying so hard not to agree with a Catholic
            maybe to be a Pro test ant , is to have a theology of being against Catholics, rather than being for Jesus Christ

      • railhead

        Well tell me how this is wrong? The Pharisees basically taught that the law was a means of salvation. The Roman Catholic church also teaches that following God’s law is the means of salvation, just in a much more round about way, saying you must have “deeds”.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          No, Catholicism does not teach that works save. It is only Christ that saves. Catholicism teaches that people are justified before God by a combination of their faith and good works.

          • railhead

            Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
            That verse says you can’t have it both ways; it’s either grace or works. Thus teaching a combination of faith and good works is the same as teaching good works.
            Honestly, if you ask most Catholics why they think they will go to heaven (in my experience at their door steps) the answer you get is no different from most people who don’t believe in Jesus at all….they believe they will go to heaven because they are good people that live a good life. But Eph. 2:8,9 is clear that salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Are you conflating salvation with justification? That is what it sounds like to me. Please explain how you balance Romans 11 with James.

          • Neiman

            Justified; It means all my sins are forgiven (just as if I had never sinned) and thus I am saved, born again, converted from idols to Christ! They are bound together.

            The Catholic Church does teach a works oriented salvation, they teach that James refuted Paul’s teaching, even though their falsely called first Pope Peter, called Paul’s teachings scripture and did not say that about James. The Catholic Church adds confession to a priest, penance, sacraments, the Mass, being a member of the Catholic Church, devotion to Mary, purgatory and a bunch of works of the flesh for anyone to be saved. Which, as railhead points out, is adding works to Grace; and grace and works is an oxymoron, they are wholly contrary to one another. James taught for those who say they are saved, but do not have the “good works” (not works of obedience to the Law) flowing from the Holy Spirit in their lives, their claim of being saved is dead, of no benefit to them or others. James never added works to salvation by faith alone, he only talked about the good works towards the brethren first and then the world of the Holy Spirit being manifested, not as a condition.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            So you are saying that the whole point of James is that he states the obvious that the saved person will do good works? No wonder Martin Luther wanted to toss James out of the canon if that is the mindset one adopts.

          • Neiman

            I only quote God’s Word, but your being Roman Catholic, I know you hate God’s Word, so what’s the point?

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            LOL… there it is again. If someone questions your assumptions and requests that you explain your beliefs they are guilty of “hating God’s Word.” By the way, I have told you before that I am not Roman Catholic and the reasons why.

          • Neiman

            You are the one here always defending the false beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, so you are a Catholic. You never stand alone on God’s Word, but what the RCC teaches, which almost always false and that makes you a Catholic.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Incorrect. You fail to acknowledge that I am not Roman Catholic because you want me to be so it is easier to apply your rhetorical tropes. I outlined some very specific issues on which I disagree with Roman Catholicism and the reasons why. It is not my problem if you do not want to acknowledge that because it does not serve your purposes.

          • Neiman

            If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck . . .

            You always defend Catholic teaching, always attack bible believing Christians and never stand on God’s Word. So, even if you are not a member, at heart you are obviously a Catholic.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Nope, once again, you fail to acknowledge where I have stated clearly the DOGMAS on which I disagree with Roman Catholicism on. That would discount me from being a member and a Roman Catholic believer by desire.

            As for your rhetoric of “bible believing Christians” and “never stand on God’s word,” I would again reiterate that I do not accept the premise. I do believe the Bible, and I try to stand on God’s word; what I don’t do is accept your interpretation as correct by default, nor that it is one and the same with the Bible itself.

  • Truthhurts24

    And the great whore continues to spread its filthy doctrine of devils across the globe. COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE!!! Christ Jesus The Messiah has warned this world.

    • Frank

      The woman that rides the beast.

      • Neiman

        That beast is the entirety of the organized falsely called Christian religions that claim Christ, but in reality are practical atheists, the beast is apostate Christianity.

        • Magister_militum_praesentalis

          In other words, every single denomination, church, and person who does not agree with Neiman’s particular interpretation of Scripture and assumptions about what constitutes a “True Christian™.”

          • Neiman

            There is no registered trademark for “true Christian.”

            There rest of your asininity does not deserve a reply.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            More deflection because you do not like to answer tough questions. What kind of apologist worth his salt employs juvenile tactics like that and expects his interlocutors to take him seriously? Asinine, indeed.

          • pax2u

            no true scotsman can deny Nieman’s logic?

          • pax2u

            It always seems that those who hate the Catholic Church never belong to a denomination, but then who would accept them?

        • Frank

          The Ecumenical Movement as a point of reference.

  • Rosavera

    How false this biased article and Gendron are… there is never any divine devotion given to the Blessed Mother except love for being the Mother of our Lord, and those reading this seem to want to believe in the lie. Gendron, who says he was a former Catholic should know that no Catholic, no priest, no Pope believes nor teaches to pray to the Blessed Mother as we do to our Lord and God Jesus… i find Catholics to be some of the most loving Christians to our Lord, some of the most forgiving and i don’t see real Catholics criticize nor try to find fault with other Christians.

    • Frank

      There are a lot of Catholics that do not believe Catholicism nor actually take the time to read official catholic doctrinal publications. I have read them and Gendron is %10000 correct.

      • Rosavera

        you read them but did not understand … you make assumptions with your eyes and know nothing of the heart of Catholics… Gendron is false in his belief, as you are, but there will be a time when we will all know the truth, and that is when standing in front of our Lord , trying telling our Lord how you and others like demonized some of His followers…

        • Frank

          Jesus saved me from the very Satanic RCC years back. I am very familiar with Catholicism and the heart of Catholics. A huge part of my family is catholic, I was raised catholic. I thank Jesus He told me they and their teaching is not from Him but from Lucifer. That’s the frank truth.

          • Rosavera

            So, you base your faith on yourself and your experiences only while condemning Catholics in general … look to your soul and be reminded of the Pharisee who professed to be so righteous and thanked God he was not like the tax collector…

          • Frank

            I base my faith on Jesus. He and I have had many discussions over the years about many things. We still do to this day. Jesus is the Author and Perfector of my faith. I don’t look to my soul but to Jesus. I have never professed to be so righteous nor thanked God in arrogance as the Pharisee did in my writings to you. My words were specific and to the point, not parabolic in nature. I thank God for leading me out of satanic teachings, the people propagating it and setting me on the right path. I never said nor implied in any sense of the word the attitude of the Pharissee in that parable by thanking God for taking me out of Satan’s teachings and away from the people teaching it. You have a misunderstanding of that parable. Praise God for His Truth to set me free from Satan’s bondage. Praise God for Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And there is only One.

          • pax2u

            when Jesus spoke to you which denomination did he tell you to fellowship with?

          • Frank

            And again you are with a worldly mindset, not a spiritual one.

          • pax2u

            you said that Jesus spoke to you
            did he tell you to have fellowship with Christians
            or to be alone?

          • Rosavera

            feel sorry for you…

          • Frank

            I don’t. Jesus set me free from Satan’s bondage after many years. Thank you Jesus!

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            What does your family say when you declare that their religious beliefs are satanic and from Lucifer?

          • Frank

            That’s a little too personal and irrelevant.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            No it is not since you were the one who held up your interactions with your Catholic family as an example of something.

            Perhaps the reason why you will not answer it is because it is wrong to treat your family in such a fashion?

          • Frank

            Wrong to speak the Truth frankly to my family? Truth that will save them from eternity being separated from Jesus? Definately not wrong. Holding up a general generic story is one thing but getting into details is another.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Who is to say that your family does not hold their beliefs just as passionately as you do and believe they hold the Truth? After all, they raised you as a Roman Catholic. You have not suggested how one can distinguish between the two things being presented as Truth.

            Erring on the side of caution, I would say that you need to re-evaluate at least your approach if you are telling your family that their beliefs are satanic and from Lucifer.

          • Frank

            I have suggested how someone can distinguish between two opposing ideas to find the Truth, in other posts. I believe to pax2u or however he or she spells it for example. Sure people not just family might hold to their beliefs passionately. And so did the religious leaders as examples all through the 4 gospels and Acts. But they were in error and the Truth is sometimes frank or blunt as seen in those books and elsewhere. This shook things up. It put a decision before people. Jesus didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. Gently in tone of voice is different than not telling the full blunt Truth by being wishy washy and allowing for error.

          • pax2u

            I forgive you and will pray to the Christian God Jesus Christ for your eternal soul

          • Frank

            I know Jesus personally and He has told me personally that my eternal soul is safe and secure in Him. Until you repent of your heresies your prayers will not be heard by Him.

          • pax2u

            when Jesus speaks to you , what denomination does he tell you to fellowship with, or does he tell you to be alone?

          • pax2u

            Jesus is God, and is all powerful, and hears all prayers, you limit God, maybe that was not Jesus who spoke to you?

          • Frank

            Your understanding of what God hears and doesn’t hear is flawed.

          • pax2u

            you limit the power of God, no wonder you do not understand the theological doctrines of the Catholic Church

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            But I do not see what you are telling me as a matter of frank or blunt Truth. Rather, you are offering an opposing interpretation of a text that we both accept as true, and passing off that interpretation as “Truth.”

          • pax2u

            I see that Gary as a Baptist, does not agree with Billy Graham but does support the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist church that protests the funerals of American Soldiers who have died in Battle,
            and Frank who says that he was raised Catholic does not understand the concept of Papal Infallibility, I told him that it had only been announced, if I recall correctly, 7 times in 2000 years which he says is not correct, I wonder what his source of Catholic Religious history is, a Jack Chick comic book?

          • Frank

            Your post had more than just that in it when I said you were in error to your post.

          • pax2u

            what was in error in my post?
            I stated the concept of Papal infallibilty and YOU say that I was in error, please tell me my error

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Yes. The popular understanding, or misconception, purposeful or not, is that everything the pope says is “infallible.”

          • pax2u

            It also appears that they base their theology on protest ing the Catholic Church
            when the Pope declares his support of the traditional marriage of one man and one woman, and for the support of Freedom of Religion and being against Islamic Terrorism, they must twist themselves into pretzels to be againist what ever the Pope states

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Right. There are certain denominations and lonewolf Christians whose entire Christian existence is formed as a reaction to “what ever those Catholics do/believe.”

          • pax2u

            notice that Nieman, Frank and Demo have no denomination
            and Gary is a Baptist who denounces Billy Graham, and supports the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church as they protest the funerals of American Soldiers who have died for America
            he now is against America as anti God, sounds like he embraces the black helicopter conspiracy theories

          • pax2u

            understanding a concept is not important when they have the need to hate and lie about theology of the Catholic Church

          • Frank

            And neither did the religious leaders of that time. And their reactions to being told the frank blunt Truth was not Godly.

          • pax2u

            I am sure that your amily prays to Lord Jesus Christ regularly for your eternal soul
            what denomination did you join?

          • Frank

            Again you speak of what you do not know. As for denominations, you are still on that carnal kick. I cannot speak to you as spiritual as you are very worldly.

          • pax2u

            I am sure that your family gatherings must be “special” since they are satanic pagans

          • Frank

            My family time is wonderful. You still speak on matters you have no clue about.

          • pax2u

            I am sure the appreciate being told that they are satanic pagans

          • pax2u

            you must have an interesting Thanksgiving dinner, with your satanic familty

          • Frank

            You make assumptions you know nothing about.

          • pax2u

            what denomination do you fellowship with now?

          • Frank

            That worldly mindset will not set you on the Way.

          • pax2u

            Did Jesus tell you that you should be alone?

        • Neiman

          You know nothing of what happens after we die or are resurrected. For the redeemed of the Lord, they are part of the Body of Christ and cannot come into any judgment at all. For the lost, there are no questions, it is not a debate, they are self-judged and will not see life.

          For the most part, no one here judges or hates Catholics, they do and should hate the many false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, because it leads many souls away from Christ and His Salvation, for those like man below that is a Catholic and made the right confession of salvation by faith in Christ alone, we hate that such people are stil in bondage to so many lies of the RCC.

          • Rosavera

            you judge…! you make yourself out to be so righteous and above all others, condemning others while beating your chest you know it all…

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Neiman: “For the most part, no one here judges or hates Catholics…”

            That is a rather broad assumption. Are you sure you want to speak for others here in that regard?

          • Neiman

            Go get someone with greater intelligence, reasoning powers and reading comprehension than yourself, you know any 5-year-old and ask them what “for the most part means, . . ” Then get back to me.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            There you go again lobbing the ad hominems rather than dealing with arguments. “For the most part” does not do anything towards clearing up what you meant. Do you presume to speak for others here?

          • pax2u

            some will think that since ad hominem is a latin phrase it must be a Papal trick.
            I have been told that Catholics do not read the Bible, and when I explain that I regularly read the Bible, I am told that so does Satan, all I can say is Wow, just Wow,

            it appears that those who hate and lie about the Catholic Church usually have no denomination and a theology of hating the Catholic Church

      • Neiman

        Too many Catholics stand daily and pray the Rosary which is partly directed to Mary and that is prayer. Too many Catholics are devoted to Mary and even though they deny it, worship her as their intercessor between God and man. Pope John Paul-II was working hard before his death to elevate Mary to co-redemptor with Jesus. The current Pope says no one can be saved that do not recognize Mary as their mother. All of that, sadly, is anti-Christ.

        • Frank

          The JW’s have a similiar spirit in that they pervert meanings of words to try and justify their ungodly actions and beliefs. It was one of the reasons I studied the language the NT was originally written.

      • Rosavera

        your words, lies spewing from your mouth. There is nothing that Pope Francis said or that Catholics do that is not within the Bible and love for our Lord…

        • Gary

          What the pope said about Mary is not confirmed by the Bible. And I have personally heard Catholics pray to Mary, as well as to other “saints”.

      • pax2u

        and most anti Catholics do not belong to a Christian denomination
        what is your Christian denomination?

  • John Wright

    HERE IS THE TRUTH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

    the
    sin nature is not passed through the loins of the woman but through the
    loins of the man all are born with the sin nature because it takes a
    man to produce a child , but in the case of Christ ,Christ’s Father was
    not of the earth and did not have the sin nature because his Father
    was Father God therefor Christ was born without sin ….Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ……Salvation
    I love my friends ,I really do, but there’s something I must say,
    and some of you won’t like it, and may turn and walk away
    but I must say it anyway ,because I really care,
    and when I go to heaven , I would like to see you there

    You can not get to heaven by all the works you’ve done
    I do not care how good you are, by work’s it can’t be done.
    you nor I are good enough to pay the price of sin.
    And though we try our very best it will not get us in.

    Only by the blood of Christ can we be redeemed,
    for only he was pure enough to wash us fully clean.
    Only through the Lamb of God can we enter in,
    for there is no other way to pay the price of sin.

    Many claim there’s other ways to get to God above,
    but only through the Son of God, was it paid in Blood
    And if God sent his only son to die upon the tree
    why would he grant another way, for those that don’t believe

    Christ blood was shed for you and I ,while hanging on the cross.
    The Son of God , paid with his life, so we would not be lost
    Only Christ could pay that price, with His precious blood,
    for only he was without sin, and He did it out of Love

    So when you ponder on these things, and look for other ways
    understand Gods only Son paid your price that day.
    With His blood and with His life that he freely gave,
    because His Father asked him to ,so you could then be saved.

  • Fresenbet Fransua Woldemariam

    The Bible clearly puts it that Jesus is neither Mary’s nor Joseph’s son. He is rather God’s Son. God used the family in Nazareth merely as a gate to enter the earthly realm. That’s all. Therefore, Mary is simply a means and not an end in herself.

  • Gary

    The Catholics could put an end to the disagreement over what they say about Mary by simply quoting the Bible verses that prove what they claim.

    • pax2u

      luke 1:28

      And the angel came in unto her and said, “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.”

      luke 1:41

      When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

      luke 1:42

      In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

      luke 1:43

      But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

      James 5:16

      16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

      James 2:1-5

      On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

      now waiting for the standard anti Catholic response when a Bible verse is asked for and provided, “it is out of context”

      • Gary

        Yes. Not a single one of those Bible verses proves that Mary was conceived without sin. Not a one of them. And it is VERY dishonest of you to claim they do.

        • pax2u

          sad that you do not believe in the Bible
          God would provide a perfect womb for his son

          • Gary

            Between the two of us I am the one who believes the Bible. The Bible does not prove what you believe.

          • pax2u

            You do not speak for me and what I believe,
            I believe that Baptists are Christians, I believe that Billy Graham is an example of a Bapist Christian, not Fred Phelps and his Westboro Bapist Church, you have said that you can agree with what Fred Phelps believes, I agree with what Billy Graham believes

          • Gary

            You prove what you believe. And I prove what I believe. If you want to compare Phelps to Graham, Phelps beliefs were closer to what the Bible says than are the beliefs of Graham.

          • pax2u

            I like Graham because he is a Christian
            why do you like Fred Phelps and his westboro Baptist Church that protests the combat deaths of American Soldiers?

          • Gary

            I don’t think you know what a real Christian is. As I understand it, Westboro protests at the funerals of American soldiers because they believe the us government has rejected God and has endorsed homosexuality, among other sins, and protesting military funerals is a way to get that message noticed.

          • pax2u

            you can accept the Westboro Baptist Church as Christian
            I will accept Billy Graham as a Christian

          • Gary

            OK. But so what?

          • pax2u

            the difference between Billy Graham and the Fred Phelps Westboro Bapist Church is the difference between Love and Hate, and that is so what

          • Gary

            There is another difference that is critically important: the difference between truth and error. Who loves you more, the one who tells you the truth, even if it hurts your feelings, or the one who is “nice” to you, but allows you to continue in your error?

          • pax2u

            there are many good Baptists, but I do not believe that the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church who protest at the Funerals of American soldiers who died serving their Country are good Baptists,
            but if you agree with the Westboro Baptist Church that is your concern

          • Neiman

            Gary never said nor intimated he agrees with the Westboro Baptists, you are implying something falsely, because he offends you with the Truth, you are being dishonest and trying to make him a Westboro Baptist in his beliefs, so you can demonize him and that is grossly dishonest.

          • pax2u

            actually he has said that he agrees with them on their actions on homosexuality
            ask Gary if he has more in common with Billy Graham or the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church

          • Gary

            From what I know about their beliefs, I cannot say I fully agree with either Phelps or Graham. On the whole, I think Phelps was closer to what the Bible says than is Graham. And another difference between them is that Graham was always trying to win friends and be popular, whereas Phelps was not concerned about that.

          • pax2u

            I believe that the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Group is a hate group
            and I believe that Billy Graham is a great Man, a great American, a Great Christian and a Great Baptist

          • Gary

            You also believe Mary was sinless. So your track record on believing things that are true is not very good.

          • pax2u

            I also believe that the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group

          • Gary

            Opinions vary.

          • pax2u

            true, some agree with hate, but I do not

          • Gary

            You hate Westboro Baptist Church. And me.

          • pax2u

            they are not Christian, and hate our Soldiers who die for their Country

          • Gary

            You flatter yourself. You are as much a hater as anyone could be. And you have not forgiven me, or Westboro Baptist for anything, so you can stop lying about that.

          • pax2u

            I do not hate you , and I will continue to forgive you and pray for you

          • Gary

            I sometimes get accused of being a member of Westboro Baptist, without even mentioning them, and even though I live in NC and they are in Kansas. And they have no branches, as far as I know.

          • Gary

            You should ask Westboro Baptist Church whether they are concerned about your opinion of them. LOL.

          • pax2u

            I understand why you disagree with Billy Graham, he is a Great Christian
            so is America anti God, do you live in America?

          • Gary

            I live in NC. Born here. And yes, much of America is anti-God, including the federal government. That includes the military. There probably are some members of the military who are Christians, but they work for an anti-Christian organization.

          • pax2u

            is North Carolina anti God?
            is that a black helicopter over your house right now?

          • Gary

            Many in NC are anti-God. The state government is too, though maybe not to the degree the federal government is.

          • pax2u

            maybe you should move to another Country?

          • Gary

            What countries are better?

          • pax2u

            I prefer America, and I am proud to be an American

          • Neiman

            Amen Gary!

          • pax2u

            I understand why you would support the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church who protest the funerals of American Soldiers who died for their Country,
            I prefer to support Billy Graham as a great American, a great Christian and a Great Baptist

          • Neiman

            This makes you into a liar, a deceiver just like Satan.

            Neither I, nor Gary nor indeed the vast majority of Christian have ever voiced the least amount of support for the Westboro Baptists, you are deliberately, with malice lying – shame on you. You need to repent, not to me or Gary, but to God for such damnable lies.

            Whether Billy Graham is a great American or not, has nothing to do with the Christian faith.

          • pax2u

            you can call me names, and hate me and my faith, and i will forgive you and still pray for you

          • pax2u

            you may want to ask Gary,

            from his post “, I think Phelps was closer to what the Bible says than is Graham”
            you can hate me and my faith, and call me Satan, and I will still forgive you

          • pax2u

            Graham speaks of Gods Love
            Phelps spoke of hatred, including hating dead American combat soldiers
            that is the big difference between you and me

        • pax2u

          an Angel spoke to Mary that she was highly favored by God, that she was Blessed,
          she was choosen by God, she was not just an ordinary young women,
          it is your decision to believe that she was concieved with sin,
          I stand with the word of God

          • Gary

            None of the things that were said to Mary, or about Mary indicate that she was sinless. You stand with Catholics, but not with the word of God.

          • pax2u

            God provided his son with a perfect womb, Mary was blessed and full of grace
            I stand with Jesus Christ, you can stand with the Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church

          • Gary

            No, you do not stand with Jesus Christ. You adore Mary, not Jesus.

          • pax2u

            Gary you can hate me, you can hate Mary, you can hate what I believe in, you can hate America, you can hate American soldiers
            and I will still pray for you, and forgive you