ChristiansUnite Forums

Mary the mother of God?

God sent Christ Jesus to die for us and be intermediary between God and HIs people. The cup he drank should be all sufficient for all men for all time.

The Pope as head of the church on earth?

God made Christ Jesus to be the head of His church on earth.

Raising people up to be special saints?

God sent Jesus Christ to shed His blood through which all who are called by His gospel are sanctified and holy, called to be saints.

The catechism?

God sent Jesus and through the Holy Spirit given by Jesus Christ, to inspired men, scripture of God was given and God's scripture or word is all that is necessary for the man of God to stand approved.

Man has added many things and ordinances to the word of God and His son Jesus Christ.
Why, when Christ is all sufficient to salvation from sin and to life in God??

*applauds*

 :)


And as an extra.... why is Mary considered a perpetual virgin if she was married and Jesus had siblings? And why is Mary considered sinless?  :-\

In one word, the reason for the Dogmas of Mary are that she has been deliberately made to usurp the place of the Son of God. Here is a brief glimpse into the teachings regarding Mary, from "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, who did his research very thoroughly:

'The Roman Church maintains that it was not so much the seed of the woman, as the woman herself, that was to bruise the head of the serpent. In defiance of all grammar, she renders the Divine denunciation against the serpent thus: "She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel." The same was held by the ancient Babylonians, and symbolically represented in their temples. In the uppermost story of the tower of Babel, or temple of Belus, Diodorus Siculus tells us there stood three images of the great divinities of Babylon; and one of these was of a woman grasping a serpent's head. Among the Greeks the same thing was symbolised; for Diana, whose real character was originally the same as that of the great Babylonian goddess, was represented as bearing in one of her hands a serpent deprived of its head. As time wore away, and the facts of Semiramis' history became obscured, her son's birth was boldly declared to be miraculous: and therefore she was called "Alma Mater," * "the Virgin Mother." '

Just which bit of:
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
do you have a problem with?

What's wrong with recognising that certain people did & do a better than average job of following Christ?  Don't we all do that, even if you don't use the word saint?

All who are saved are saints.   Those that are declared saints are those whom it can be seen were clearly saved.  The church accepts that the vast majority of saints will never be recognised in this world.

You've got a problem with statements of belief?

The catechism is nothing more than a document to help understand what the bible and the teachings of the church are.

On the other hand, try these for non-biblical additions:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Biblical inerrancy in matters not concerning faith
3. The idea that God only speaks through the bible, and never through his followers or the Church


Tradition has it (based on very early writings that were not included in the bible largely on the basis that they were not suitable for reading in church) that Joseph was an old man, a widower, who died shortly after the events described in at the end of Luke 2.   Jesus "siblings" were either cousins or children of Joseph's first mariage.

Just which bit of:
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
do you have a problem with?No, just the Roman paganisms added to and associated with her and her being set up equal with Jesus as an intermediary for God's people to God.. The use of Mary in the Roman Church's way is blasphemous to say the least and false teachings.

Do you not realize all God's people are saints and God does not recognize one as being more sanctified than another. He is not a respector of persons. Christ's blood sanctifies every one called to him with no specialties of the individual noted except His sins are gone and is quickened to life in God.

One does not heed the call of God to be holy in Christ for personal recognition as a saint. It is not the church that makes saints but the word of God through faith in/on Jesus Christ. The church are the faithful called to be saints in Christ by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The only statement that must be made according to God's word is confession with the heart that Jesus is the son of God.
No words of uninspired men.

A repacement for the Holy Spirit??
The teaching of the church should be the BIble, so isn't catechism redundant?
  No it is not as it guides the Bible student into the ways of Rome fitting the Bible to suit its ways and her agenda instead of God's will.
An unecessary document as the bible was given to men to be understood.

???


Tradition has it (based on very early writings that were not included in the bible largely on the basis that they were not suitable for reading in church) that Joseph was an old man, a widower, who died shortly after the events described in at the end of Luke 2.   Jesus "siblings" were either cousins or children of Joseph's first mariage.
??? I did not write this.

But as an extra:
Jesus had siblings born to Mary.
God gave us Jesus the Christ through Mary and she like Peter would probably say to Rome "Satan get thee hence" for adulterating my Heavenly Father's word by putting me up on a pedestal that God did not assign to me."


You did not answer the question and the reason for the thread.

"Man has added many things and ordinances to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why, when Christ is all sufficient to salvation from sin and to life in God?? "

So you don't actually have any objection to calling Mary the mother of God then?

Thats all the saints are.  Canonisation is just the process of saying "look, we can see from this guy's life that he was a true man of God, and therefore a saint".  It doesn't mean you, I or anyone else isn't a saint, just that it isn't obvious either way to an outside observer with absolute certainity.

The church doesn't claim to make saints - it mealy recognising some people as having clearly been saints.

You seem to have no idea what the Catechism is for - its a teaching document, not something to read out and then know you're saved.

On that basis we wouldn't need to discuss the bible with each other, listen to other's opinions on it, read books (catholic, protestant, or otherwise), bother with sermons and homilies, or anything else.  Experience shows that that way leads to everyone coming up with a completely different interpretation of the bible.

The fact is, the bible is an extreamly complex book - as it should be if its going to tell us anything meaningful about an infinite God, so we all need the work of others to help us understand it.   The catechism is one such document.  Feel free to disagree with some of the precise content, but the principle is no different from the sermon in any church service, the leaflets at the back of any church, debates on this forum, books in your prefered Christian bookshop, or any other text (written, spoken, pictorial or whatever) that expounds or explains what's in the bible.

How do you know this.  The bible talks about Jesus' siblings, but the word it uses could refer to cousins, or they could be son's of Joseph.  The bible alone simply does not say which.

You may not be capable of learning anything useful from her example, but many are.   And if the angel Gabriel, and her cousin Elizabeth, can both pay honour to her, then I see no reason why we can't.

We need to understand the nature of that salvation.  If one sentence were enough, we wouldn't need the whole bible.

Your turn to explain why the protestant churches added the three non-biblical teachings I mentioned:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. Biblical inerrancy in matters not concerning faith
3. The idea that God only speaks through the bible, and never through his followers or the Church

Mary was considered eternally a virgin because no where in scripture does it say that she had children and the understanding of all the early Church Father's (those who had first hand accounts from the Apostles and others who knew Jesus and His mother) agree with this perpetual virginity.  

Verses used by some to show Christ had brothers and/or sisters can always be shown to be referring to cousins or other more distant relationships.  Besides it must be remembered that Joseph was much older than Mary and could easily have had children from a previous marriage so even if Jesus had true brothers and sisters they could have been half brother and so Mary still could have remained a virgin.  

The point is that the teaching that she remained a virgin  is not contrary to scripture and is supported by the writings of the earliest Christians.

Mary is considered sinless because Jesus/God cannot be in the presence of sin as is clear from Rev 21:27 where nothing unclean can enter heaven.  Therefore so that Mary could be an acceptable vessel to bear our Lord she was kept from sin and saved by Christ prior to her birth.   This teaching also is not contrary to scripture and is supported by the writings of the earliest Christians.

Mary being the mother of God does not impact this issue at all.  The doctrine of Mary as mother of God comes from defending the divinity of Jesus.  Mary is Jesus' mother, Jesus is truly God, Mary is God's mother.  That simple.


The Pope is the physical head of the physical Church on earth.  Jesus is still the spiritual head of the Church both on earth and in heaven.  Just as we must have a physically identifiable Church on earth in order to appeal to it to clear up disagreements between brothers (Matt 18;17) that physical Church needs to have someone in charge.


This is a misunderstanding or purposeful misrepresentation of the Catholic Churches statement on saints.  The Catholic Church does not raise anyone up to be saints.  It teaches all who are saved are saints.  But a few whose lives have been rigorously investigated have been shown to have led lives worthy of being used as an example and those the Church designate as saints.  It is basically saying that the Church is pretty sure those individuals were truly saved and that it is ok to model your life after their behavior.  The list of saints of the Catholic is by no means exhaustive or even infallible.


The Bible is materially sufficient in that everything we need to know about our salvation and proper behavior is contained in it.  But it is not formally sufficient.  In other words the Bible like any written material is not completely clear.  That is because when you don't understand something in written material you cannot ask it to clarify itself.  That is why we have teachers to help illuminate the true meaning of it.


The RCC certainly has added nothing to the Gospel of Jesus but has expressed in it all it's fullness by interpreting each verse in light of the entirety of scripture instead of in isolation.


The reason is clear from your own statement.  Yes, Christ is sufficient to salvation as long as you understand that vaguely stated concept properly.  The specifics about what you believe about Christ, His role as sacrificial lamb, shepherd and the full message of His Gospel is not contained in so simple a statement and that is why a Church, to act as pillar and ground of the truth, and it's Catechism; are necessary to guide those who wish to understand the full meaning of the teachings of our Lord.  

That is not the intention of the RCC and it was not the intention of all the early Church Father's either.


Quite the contrary, Hislop has been shown to have made up a large section of his book, claiming sources that don't exist and misquoting things at leisure.  In fact even some Protestant authors have come out apologizing for their reliance on his book.  No one of repute references his work these days.


This type of guilt by association (which is a logical error) riddles Hislops works - one of the reasons he is so easily discredited.

The early pagans have a myth a Gilgamesh who survived a world wide flood.  So by Hislop's reasoning the Israelites stole the idea from them and it is a pagan concept we must deny it ever happened.

Ok, please forgive my ignorance in advance.... :-\


Mary is Jesus' mother, Jesus is truly God, Mary is God's mother.  That simple.

So wouldn't that put Mary with God during creation?

Why does her 'status' have to be elevated? Why couldn't she be just a woman who God used - along the lines of Moses, John, Paul, etc? A 'vessel', if you will... Why does she have to be considered 'more holy'? This (along with the pope stuff) really has me thrown! I realize that RCC'ers say it is not worshipping Mary - but to a non-RCC'er it definitely appears to be!

Nonsense, all you have quoted is traditional teaching of the RCC.

Scripture does not substantiate your allegations, it is clear Joseph and Mary had sons and daughters.

There is not a shred of evidence Joseph had any children by any previous marriage.

Keep dreaming....

Mary, was not a perpetual virgin and neither was she immaculately concevied, nor taken bodily into heaven, it is all a concotion of someones imagination, taught as thou it is the Word of God.

She was a plain ole sinner in need of a Savior just like every run of the mill human, she was chosen by God to give birth to the Child Jesus, even she says she is a sinner;

Lk 1
41  And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42  And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45  And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
46  And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48  For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49  For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50  And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51  He hath showed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52  He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53  He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54  He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55  As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
56  And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.


Petro

And the scripture is??

ollie,


And that is the truth............

Petro

Indeed.  I'm still waiting for you to explain these additions:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. Biblical inerrancy in matters not concerning faith
3. The idea that God only speaks through the bible, and never through his followers or the Church

Clearly not.
I ask again, which bit of:
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
do you have a problem with?


The "Therefore Mary is the mother of God" part.  :-\

but Mary's role - carrying, giving birth to, and nuturing Christ - is on a different order of magnitude.

Why? If Christ didn't think so, why would man? It seems to attempt to humanize God and deify Mary.

Appearences can be deceptive.  Lots of things appear strange or wrong if you don't understand them.

Which is why I'm asking....

How can that not follow from the previous two lines?



Why do you say this?

How does it humanize God?   Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that's as humanizing as it needs to get.
Its not intended to deify Mary, but to recognising that she was called to do, and willingly did, something above and beyond what any other mortal has ever done.

Fair enough.  When so many people are accusing, then others get defensive about it.  Fair questions are good - accusations are not.

How can that not follow from the previous two lines?

I follow the reasoning - it's logical by man's standards. But I don't see how that makes it right. If God was here before man, how could He possibly have a mother?  :-\

but Mary's role - carrying, giving birth to, and nuturing Christ - is on a different order of magnitude.

Why? If Christ didn't think so, ...

Why do you say this?

Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
 
Mark 3:31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 8:19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

Luke 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

How does it humanize God?
By giving Him a mother....

Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that's as humanizing as it needs to get.
I agree!

Because He was born on earth in approximately 1 BC.  Who say's a mother has to exist before her children?


The point he is trying to get across here, is that we are His family.  Not that His mother isn't special.
 

as above.


as above


Which she did.  Big time.



Ok, I'll rephrase it.  How does having a mother humanize Him anymore than being born as a helpless infant in a dirty stable, growing up in wretched world, being betrayed by his best mates, and dying the most excrutiatingly painful and humiliating death imaginable?

It is I who am asking why the additions. Perhaps you could answer, please, instead of doubling a question back on me about other additions? It is impossible to learn what makes man add to what God has given when the original question is treated in this manner.

The theme of the thread, in so many reworded words to help your understanding of the question, is why man has to add to God's will for man when He has given Christ who is all sufficient for the man of God.

& my point is, that for any set of "additions" that you choose to use as examples, at least one group of people are going to argue that they are not additions.

The real answer to your question is, of course, that, as fallen individuals, we'll manage to mess up anything we get our hands on, either intentionally, unintentionally, or both.

I don't see where you get the 'deify Mary' bit, but emphasizing Mary's role as the mother of Jesus was exactly what you say it was - an attempt to humanize Jesus. I don't think the importance of Mary's role as the mother of God, the proof that Jesus was human, can be overstated.

A lot of scholars think that the nativity narratives, found only in Matthew and Luke, are interpolations by proto-orthodox Christians (the branch of Christianity that eventually became the Catholic Church), who felt they were necessary to battle the popular Gnostic teaching that Jesus was fully divine, and only gave the appearance of being human.

"This teaching also is not contrary to scripture and is supported by the writings of the earliest Christians."


Why are these early writings of the "earliest Christians" not in the Bible?
Is it because they were found to be uninspired of God's Holy Spirit and subject to error and inconsistencies, therefore not
compiled into the inspired writings known as the Bible?

When one is in Christ one is no longer "fallen".

Thanks, it is an answer of sorts.

What's your test for inspired?

Some were rejected because they weren't of apostolic authorship, some because they were simply not good enough or didn't come from a sufficiently reliable source.  Many though, were rejected simply because they were not suitable for reading in Church, which is what the bible was originally intended to be - a book of scriptures suitable for reading in church.

Just because a book wasn't deemed suitable to be included in the bible, doesn't necessarly mean it's inaccurate.

Replace the word "fallen" with "falable" if it makes you happier.  You got the sense of what I was trying to say.

No that would not require Mary to be with God at creation.  She is Jesus' mather not His creator.  Mary has no role in creation.

Why did God elevate Mary?  I don't know - I think it has something to do with her reply to the news that she was to bear Christ.  She basically said let Thy will be done.  As the second Eve she responded with an obedience that directly opposes the disobedience of the first eve.  That gives her a special place in the salvation plan.

As for appearances, remember appearances are not reality.  It may appear to me that something you do has one intent when you really have another, but I am in no position to judge your intent.

Petro do you ever read what I write.  I said Mary had Jesus as a savior.  The verse you quote cannot be interpreted even by you to say that the Catholic teaching says Mary doesn't claim Christ as a savior.  In fact Mary if anything it supports the idea that Mary was saved prior to her birth or at least prior to her pregnancy since she already recognizes Jesus as her savior before anyone else and before He actually dies on the cross in the sacrifice you put all your faith in to the exclusion of all the other teachings of scripture.

As for there being no evidence in scripture that she was a perpetual virgin.  I agree, but Catholics don't hold to the man made idea of sola scriptura.  I said and still contend that there is nothing in scripture contrary to the doctrine of perpetual virginity and rather than address that you drag out another strawman to attack.

Verses used by some to show Christ had brothers and/or sisters can always be shown to be referring to cousins or other more distant relationships.  Besides it must be remembered that Joseph was much older than Mary and could easily have had children from a previous marriage so even if Jesus had true brothers and sisters they could have been half brother and so Mary still could have remained a virgin.

Where do I find more on this? Being non-RCC, I would like Scripture on it. But if it isn't there, where do your early church fathers explain it? Sorry, 'it' being; Joseph's age, previous marriage, possibility of Mary's step-parenting, being married to Mary and not ummm.... consumating the marriage (so to speak).

Why did God elevate Mary?

Did God elevate Mary or did man?  :-\

It may appear to me that something you do has one intent when you really have another, but I am in no position to judge your intent.

I realize appearances are simply what things appear to be. That being told, I can tell you what I don't understand and you can explain it - if you so choose.

The following two links should provide you with information on how the early Church Fathers held to the idea of perpetual virginity.

http://www.catholic-defense.com/mary.htm

or this one

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

I normally am against providing links in forums, preferring instead to offer the actual text but in this case the discussion is so long it would make the post too large.  If you would prefer I send the entire text, so you don’t have to look it up yourself, I can via e-mail if you would provide it.  Basically the first site shows arguments by Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom defending the perpetual virginity against different objectives.  The second site is a compendium of many more Church Fathers statements supporting the idea.

The rest of the ideas I expressed stem from this belief held since the earliest times.  The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura so there is not any scripture that plainly teaches the perpetual virginity, at least as far as I know.  I also do not know of any scripture that teaches other than that either, so the doctrine is not contrary to scripture.  The argument basically goes as follows.  If the early Church Fathers taught Mary’s perpetual virginity then the Church has believed it for its whole existence.  If so and the Church cannot error on matters of doctrine then there must be other interpretations for verses that would indicate otherwise.  These other interpretations are that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were really either one of three possibilities.  

First they could be real half-brothers, if Joseph was married previously.  Again this is only a possible alternative interpretation to show that the doctrine is not contrary to scripture.  I am not a scholar in terms of early Church Fathers statements, (I mean they fill a 20 volume set of books) but I do not know of a specific claim that Joseph did have a previous wife and children.  It is only that nothing in scripture disallows this idea and explanation.  

The second possibility is the one most commonly used and that is that the translation is imprecise because the languages are so vague.  The term used in the scriptures can also be used for more distant relatives such as cousins.

Finally the terms in some instances can be understood to mean brother and sister in a congenial sense.  In that they are not blood relatives at all but someone very close.

Any one or all of these alternatives, are not contrary to scripture, and allow the doctrine taught by the Church since the earliest of times to be accurate.  It all comes down to do you trust the Church’s teachings for the past 2000 years or someone’s relatively new interpretation of scripture in the last 400 years.


Yes, that is the question.  If it was man then the Church is wrong.  But if it is God who did it and the Church is merely teaching a proper interpretation, as the ground and pillar of truth, then all should believe it.  Mary appears throughout the scriptures in many types and models in both the Old and New Testament, as the new Eve and the ark of the covenant, etc.  A complete study of this would take a long time but it is these appearances that had led the Church to see her in this elevated as you put it position.


Catholic’s who properly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church see Mary as a saint and nothing more.  She is not on par in anyway with God.  She is not to be worshipped.  Prayers to her are to be seen as prayers to any saint, that is the request for them to pray for us to God much as we would ask any Christian on earth to pray for us.  The efficacy of these prayers may be greater in the same way that Peter was more likely to affect a cure than I would be, but that is only because they have proven themselves to be vessels of honor and God has chosen to work through them.

You cannot worship by accident, worship must be intentional.  Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings on Mary will not worship her.  To someone looking at it from the outside it may appear as those who have a cornucopia on their dining table are worshipping some pagan god, but they might not be.  They might just be following a custom of man and not even be aware of the significance.  Just as eating food offered to idols was considered worship by some in the New Testament times, but Paul showed that if we knew the idol was nothing than for us the act was also nothing.

What institutions like the RCC, teach are espoused by the heirarchy not its faithfull, as you can see, by the statements made by these who write their own understanding of what their church teaches, it does not reflect the official teaching of the church.






Christians cannot take what christians that worship at the RCC altar say with a grain of salt, since they have their ideas, of what their church teaches, not really knowing the truth, this is clear when one observes the worship theology from country to country, even church to church in a country.

Consider what saint Ligouri of the RCC whose writings were considered iffallible at the time of his canonization.

Http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm

Praying to her

The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name...above every name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 260).

Contrast what scripture states;

Phil.2 "Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

"Pope Pius the 12th "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and glory and might, she is exalted to hypostatic union with the blessed Trinity." This hypostatic union makes her part of the Godhead."


If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??..

Petro

What's the deal with all the Catholic-bashing on this forum?

With all the issues and challenges facing Christians today, don't you think that trying to hold your brothers and sisters in Christ up to ridicule is maybe not the best way to spend your time?

I'll say this for the Catholics - they haven't split themselves up into thousands of different denominations, like the Protestants.

Thank you for the links. It'll take me a bit of time to read and digest the information.

The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura...

Naturally, I have to ask, why they don't? Maybe long ago before Gutenberg....  ???

They don't accept sola scriptura because the scripture doesn't say to.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say the scriptures alone are the sole source of God's Word.  Sola scriptura is an oxymoron, a self contradicting concept because it is an idea from outside scripture.  Additionally, it was never even proposed until the Reformation.  The early Christians looked to the Church not the Bible to instruct in the Way.

They don't accept sola scriptura because the Church existed prior to the scriptures of the New Testament, being the body that decided what was and was not to be included in them.  In fact the early Christians accept the scriptures because the Church recommended them. They did not accept a Church based on what the scriptures say as Protestants do today.  

The Church and not the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth.

dyskolos,

It is not the individuals it is the teaching espoused, it is errorneous, and not scriptural.

We don't have a problem with christians that claim the Lord, who follow and agree with his word, but we do, with with those who deny HIS OWN Words, I don't speak for all just those that agree with Gods Word.

Anything or anyone who dosn't agree with catholic teachings is viewed as catholic bashing when one points out the truth  of scriptutre, so it seems to me the argument isn't with men but with God himself, since His word is plain.

I posted what I did, to refute, what is michael believes his church teaches, as you can see, he disagrees with what his church officially teaches.

It doesn' t matter if he or you deny that this is what they teach, if you do not know the truth of it.

There can only be unity when we agree what the truth taught in scripture is, and what the errors taught by religions are.

I, for one am not interested in unity at the expense of comprimising the truth of the Word of God.

Secondly, those who espuse what their religion teaches ought to know exactly what they teach so as to not teach something other than the truth of what they teach, that way, we can know whether to take them seriously or not.

And besides by pointing out error, perhaps it will lead the individusal to read the Word and learn the truth.

As for your statrement;


You are mistaken, their are many persuasions of the RC type catholic religions,  some hold to some RCC doctrines some to others, but they all look up to the pope and mary, you need to talk to,  tibby....

Blessings,

Petro

You need to do some more research before you run off believing every detail of everything ever said by a Pope or a Doctor of the Church.  Just because they say it does not make it an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Only Councils of Bishops, or Popes (when they speak ex cathedra) are infallible.  Councils meet about once every 100 years or more and the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra three times in the past 200 years, so these aren't comon occurences.  Your two examples don't fall into either category Petro so they are not to be taken as infallible or even official teachings of the Catholic Church.  It appears once again that although you accuse me of not knowing the teachings of my own Church it is really you who do not know what you are talking about.  

The official teachings of the Catholic Church can be found in the Catechism.  If you have a problem with something in there, we can chat and I will explain it to you.  

If you want to drag up some obscure quote of a Pope or Bishop from a period where flowery speech was the manner of the day we will have to lay a lot of ground work before you will be able to see what is meant and not what your simplistic approach demands to see.

"If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??.."

Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against individual Catholics.

You sir,

Are in denial, how much information leading to the top, is necessary to have you conduct your own research to establish whether the information is true or not.

The information you put forth, is clearly that of an individual that isn't living in the reality of the times.  I suppose, you would still deny that better than 40%, of catholic seminarians are NOT homosexuals??

And deny the problem with pedophilia exists within this institution, pleeeaase..........you must be living in a bubble.


You are right to a certain extent, however, there is the seal which the RCC uses to stamp its approval on writings that have been edited and closely monitered by the church which would be considered church official teaching (regardless of the fact that it actually comes with this disclaimer;

"The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

Which is ridiculous, it would seem that if someone had to pay to have the church examnine, edit, endorse, and approve the content of the material printed, that the church would either agree or disagree to its content by issuing the stamp or not, clearly it is another way of simply making money.

It is called the ............Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat.................

For a copy of what the seal looks like see;

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/york.htm
 
For a description of what it is see;

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html

Before you start claiming foul and your anti catholic rehtoric...feel free to search it out whereever...and,

If you claim any information I am giving you is inaccurate, please choose your own website, and educate me.

nihil obstat
Noun   1.   nihil obstat - the phrase used by the official censor of the Roman Catholic Church to say that a publication has been examined and contains nothing offensive to the Church  imprimatur, sanction, countenance, endorsement, indorsement, warrant - formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement"    
   2.   nihil obstat - authoritative approval  sanction - the act of final authorization; "it had the sanction of the church"   

Having now, laid the foundation to what is the official and what isn't, allow now to present evidence that will allow you to examine  these in the light of what is official teaching, verses against what you THINK is official teaching, and what contitutes it.

Roman Catholics not only believe that Mary was without original sin; they believe her to be the 'Mediatrix" of all graces.  Some even assert that no grace grace is given to anyone unless it is first passes through Mary's hand (I have no idea where you stand on this issue, and neither do I care but clearly this is why you believe grace is a gift and not necessarily because God sanctifies believers in the drawing towards faith).
 
And this has led millions of RC's to actually practice , to replace Jesus  with Mary so that "a complete new worship system of Mary" has arisen and has  been sanctioned and even encouraged by the heirarchy of this institution.

"Encouraged to such a point  that the heirarchy had predicted that by the year 2000 it would announced and defined as the dogma that "the Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemtrix of the human race."  

Even now James Nichols reminds us, "The sanction of Rome supports the affirmation of the theologians who deny that any man can be saved without the protection of the Virgin, and assert that even God obeys her 'commands'.

Quoted and paraphrased form;

Primer for Protestant, James Hastings Nicholas, (New York Association Press, 1949), p. 64
 
Consider;

Cardinal James Cardinal Gibbons, wrote;

"Never will our prayers find readier acceptance than when offered through [Mary].....She would be the instrument of God in feeding us with Divine grace, in clothing us with the garments of innocence, in sheltering us from the storms of temptations, in wiping away the stains of sin from our soul."

"The Faith of Our fathers", by James Cardinal Gibbons , (New York; P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1917), PP, 142-43

michael,

Now, let me see if I understand you are correctly in saying that what ever a cardinal (a posiiton second only to the pope,) writes is not to be taken as official church teaching??

If this is so, why would a cardinal write, somehting like this if it was not official teaching of the church??  Would you have any idea??

I simply think you,  don't know what the offiial church teaching is.  

Please give me reliable information which corroborates what you have said, if I were a faithfull member of this organization, I would be more enclined to believe the Cardinal ,before listening to what you are saying.

I say put your money where your mouth is and show me, with sound teaching of the church, that what the Cardinal has printed is not the official....teaching...

Consider this other;

In Our Lady of the Rosary, a pamphelet issued in 1944 with the imprimatur of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Spellman of New York are found these words of petition to Mary:
 
Sweet Heart of Jesus, be my love.
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.
O Mary Immaculatre, great Mediatrix of all men......
O Mary Immaculate, Refuge of Sinners, to whom we will go
        if not to you?

Ref;  Ins and Outs of Romanism  James Cardinal Gibbons, (New York; Association Press , 1949), pp 155-156.   

Shiow me this is not the official teaching of the RCC, I simply refuse to believe you since you aren't even qualified to comment on this subject, seen it is evident you are not even aware of what is the true teaching.

I wouldn't be to proud  and quick to claim to belong to this institution, if I was as ignorant about the institutions teaching's as you seem to be.


There you have it, I have given you enough information which any asstute observer as ytourself, should be able to examine and refute, mind you It is old enough to keep you from saying that this might be something new you were not aware of.

Hoping to hear from  you.


Blessings in your searching out of these truths, or lies whatever you would label them.

Petro

dykolos,

You have the wrong perception, I am not slamming him, as much as the false information he is espousing, in defense of the indefensible.

I am being kind to him, by keeping him honest.

Just as I have corrected your presumptiuons, I welcome anyone to correct me, using sound teaching of the scriptures, however, I do require correct reading and quotations from scripture.

I am apt to learn and interested in increasing in the knowledge and Faith in the object of my Faith and that would be Jesus.

So if you ever hear me make a statement wich is erroneous please feel free to correct me..

I believe in equal opportunity..

Blessings,
petro  

Petro in the first place you haven't 'corrected' any of my 'presumptions'!

In the second place, the post above the one addressed to me, I have to say, it seems rather sad...and kind of desperate.

It's clear you are quote mining from your probably rather large collection of bookmarked anti-Catholic sites. You know, the ones that call the RCC the Great Whore of Babylon and such.  Can't you find one with some more up-to-date material? I mean, a couple books and a pamphlet from the 40's and a book from 1917! Are the pickings really that slim?

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

Here's a free add-on for Internet Explorer that you can use to spell-check:

http://www.iespell.com/

Why? they will keep bringing you bqack.

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

To 'borrow' a quote from someone else:

"Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against [an] individual ...."

(bold is my addition)
 ;)

"The Church and not the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth."
 
The church are the faithful in Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

This is the pillar and ground of the truth the church upholds and presents. But some need additions to Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. Why?

 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.
 16.  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

First I need to point out that in your previous post you claimed these points were considered infallible by the Church.  But when I caught you in your error you change your tune to claim they are just official teachings.  But I will show below that, that is not ture either.  I just wish you would stand still for a moment and stick to one story so you could see your errors as easily as everyone else does.


Yes I would deny it until someone presented some scientific evidence to prove otherwise.  I am certainly not going to let the your rantings influence my opinion, because I don't have to accept you as an authority anymore than you accept me.  And I have never seen any claim to that affect by anyone let alone an unbiased source.


I do not deny the problem exists, I do deny it is any greater than in any other cross section of society.


The arrogance you must have, to feel that you can better claim for the Church what is an is not its own official teachings.  They plainly offer a disclaimer to show that this seal does not automatically include the writings within official Church teachings and you claim the disclaimer is invalid just so you can build your little strawmen so you attack can be successful.  That approach does not show a sincere search for the truth going on within your motives.


Ok here is a website for you
http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html

On it the author, a Catholic Priest says,

"When an author of a religious book or article presents his work to the local bishop for review, the bishop gives the work to a knowledgeable priest, who reads it and, if corrections are needed, returns it to the writer.  When the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections, he marks it with his "Nihil obstat" (Latin for "no problem".) If the bishop is satisfied, he gives the work his "Imprimatur" (Latin for "let it be printed").
 
If the writer belongs to a religious order or congregation, the rules of the order may require a first review by a member of the order.  If the reviewer here is satisfied, he grants the work an "Imprimi potest" (Latin for "it can be printed".)
 
Commonly, the three symbols are in this order: IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR.  After the Imprimatur, one usually finds these words: "The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.  No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR agree with the content, opinions or
statements expressed."

See not one mention of these representing official Catholic teachings.

I hope you accept Father Mateo from the Catholic Information Network, as an authority but since you don't accept the Churches own disclaimer I don't know what you will accept.


Don't be so quick to try to squirm out from under your error.  You have done nothing to lay the foundation for what is official teachings.  I have shown above you are ignoring the Churches own statements just so you don't have to change your world view.  You seem to have made up your mind and don't want anyone to confuse you with facts.  If you were truly searching for the truth you would be glad to have a concrete target to attack, such as the Catechism.  I surely wish Calvinism offered such a source to pin down instead I have to try to hit your bobbing and weaving doctrine and even if i prove it wrong you can always say well that isn't what Calvinism claims because it won't actually put anything in print for fear of the errors showing plainly through.  At least the Catholic Church has the courage of its convictions.

dyskolos,

You said Bethlehim, was not a city, the Bible says it is a city, and I have shown you two verse that plainly tells us both names refer to a city.

No doubt you believe the teaching of this Jewish website, otherwise why would you make such a claim.

I say stay away from such websites, consider what the Bible teaches and believe it.

By the way, the quotes out of Gen. I shared with you are out of the "Tanakh".


Any text taken out of context is a pretext.

Sorry, but the Bible is correct, you are not..

Blessings,
Petro

I have given you solid information in so far as Ligouri's writings, you haven't shown anything which refutes they weren't.



Yes I would deny it until someone presented some scientific evidence to prove otherwise.  I am certainly not going to let the your rantings influence my opinion, because I don't have to accept you as an authority anymore than you accept me.  And I have never seen any claim to that affect by anyone let alone an unbiased source.


I do not deny the problem exists, I do deny it is any greater than in any other cross section of society.
Well, what else can you say, that would convince anyone you are current in current events, it is no secret, even books have been written by editors, who have written other articles for the RCC, about the matter, and priests themselves have spokne and written  about the problem, of, course the church isn't going to put their Nihil-Obstat, Imprimatur seal of approval on such writings now, would they?


The arrogance you must have, to feel that you can better claim for the Church what is an is not its own official teachings.  They plainly offer a disclaimer to show that this seal does not automatically include the writings within official Church teachings and you claim the disclaimer is invalid just so you can build your little strawmen so you attack can be successful.  That approach does not show a sincere search for the truth going on within your motives.
Well, them you ought to make sure you quote from a Catechism that has such a seal, because they all do not possess them, when and if you purchase a Catechism, which supposedly has official church teaching and does not posses the seal.

So if and when you quote your source show me the seal.


Ok here is a website for you
http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html

On it the author, a Catholic Priest says,

"When an author of a religious book or article presents his work to the local bishop for review, the bishop gives the work to a knowledgeable priest, who reads it and, if corrections are needed, returns it to the writer.  When the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections, he marks it with his "Nihil obstat" (Latin for "no problem".) If the bishop is satisfied, he gives the work his "Imprimatur" (Latin for "let it be printed").
 
If the writer belongs to a religious order or congregation, the rules of the order may require a first review by a member of the order.  If the reviewer here is satisfied, he grants the work an "Imprimi potest" (Latin for "it can be printed".)
 
Commonly, the three symbols are in this order: IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR.  After the Imprimatur, one usually finds these words: "The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.  No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR agree with the content, opinions or
statements expressed."

See not one mention of these representing official Catholic teachings.
Ridiculuos assumption, the "New American Bible" possess's the seal, because of its translation, and marginal comentaries, that support, official church teaching, for instances at Mathew 1:25, the marginal commentary makes the point;

"Moreover the New Testament makes no mention of children of Joseph or Mary." NAB

While the Scriptures clearly state at ;

Mk 6
3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters our neighbors here?"They found him too much for them. NAB

And again at;

Mat 27
56  Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Of course this is in contradiction to what was written in the margin at Mat 1:25, but most importantly, the marginal reference is a set up for the teaching, Mary was perpetually a virign, which was never taught in the early church, but has become official teaching in recemnt generations.


You may accept this, I don't. Clearly the contradicition is in the practice.



Don't be so quick to try to squirm out from under your error.  You have done nothing to lay the foundation for what is official teachings.  I have shown above you are ignoring the Churches own statements just so you don't have to change your world view.  You seem to have made up your mind and don't want anyone to confuse you with facts.  If you were truly searching for the truth you would be glad to have a concrete target to attack, such as the Catechism.  I surely wish Calvinism offered such a source to pin down instead I have to try to hit your bobbing and weaving doctrine and even if i prove it wrong you can always say well that isn't what Calvinism claims because it won't actually put anything in print for fear of the errors showing plainly through.  At least the Catholic Church has the courage of its convictions.

Smoke screen.....................Calvinism is not the subject here at all is it?




Petro

Refute they weren’t what?  Infallible?  I most certainly have shown they are not considered infallible.  Refute they weren’t accurate?  We can discuss Ligouri’s writings after you admit your mistake and are ready to address them as fallible writings of a scholar, not as some ultimate target of weakness in the Church’s doctrine.  Liguori’s writings are written in a form that is meant to engender reverence and when take in their entirety they do, but when phrases and even paragraphs are dragged out of context, as you intend to do, they can easily be misinterpreted.  Plainly put, until you understand the basics of Catholic teachings (which you don’t) you cannot understand the light in which Ligouri intends his comments to be viewed.


Writing about a problem and showing specific statistics of the magnitude you claim, are two different things to anyone who is objective and doesn’t have a secret agenda to push.  Priest and Catholic editors writing about a problem and you claiming to know specific percentages are a far cry from one another.  I never denied a problem I did deny the magnitude you wanted to claim without a reliable source.



I am not the outsider misrepresenting the position of the Church.  I am an active member of the Church, I am a reader and Eucharistic minister, I lead Bible studies in my parish, I have read the entire Catechism cover to cover.  Yes, the official Catechism and it has the Impimi Potest of Cardinal Ratzinger, the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”.  I know what the Church teaches.  You on the other hand have access to anti-Catholic rhetoric and websites of dubious authenticity and want to claim to know Catholic doctrine from spotty quotes taken out of context.  You just continue to spout your misconceptions and I will correct them, if you need a source to aid your understanding, I will provide one.


This is just more of your rhetoric.  You attack a completely unrelated concept like the use of Imprimatur seals based on a disagreement you have with interpretation.  You know quite well that the Catholic Church interprets those verses to be referring to more distance relatives, such as cousins, due to the vagueness of the original languages and cultures concerning these relationships.  To make this about seals is merely grasping at straws.

As for Mary’s perpetual virginity I would direct you to the following website which shows quotes from many early Church Fathers defending the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  So it appears that it certainly was taught in the early Church.

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


How so?  How does the catholic Church say one thing and practice another with regard to imprimatur or other seals?  They claim the writings have been reviewed for errors but then place a caveat that says even with this review they do not claim the writings present the official, infallible, teachings of the Church.  This is just a common sense approach admitting to man’s fallibility that extends even to reviewing texts as one would expect. Just because you want more does not make it the right way to handle a situation.


Calvinism is certainly the subject between us Petro, as much as Catholicism is, for Calvinism appears to others as adding to the Gospel as well with its doctrine of no freewill.  I have answered every question you have asked of me and shown in every case were our doctrines disagreed that your interpretation was wrong.  You on the other hand have answered none of my questions doing everything you could not to take a stand or offer an opinion, even on verses you claimed supported you position, whatever it was suppose to be.  And if I dared guess what that position was you would criticize me for assuming.  No the honesty and courage of the Catholic Church to publish a Catechism should and will be rewarded by you through addressing it if you want to continue this debate in a mature fashion.  You will not be allowed to focus on some random quote of your own choosing which you are not ready to understand.  I will do the same for you in the remainder of this discussion if you ever have the courage to state your position formally through interpretation of scripture.

Oh brother. Not much point in continuing, is there? The only 'teaching' I'm concerned with on that website is about written Hebrew. Clearly you didn't even bother to check it out. Sadly you don't seem to understand what our 'discussion' was about.

Er, how is that a slam exactly? Honest criticism is what it was. Personally I don't feel too much like slogging through Petro's unorganized, unfocused, poorly written and poorly presented posts. If he actually wants people to pay attention to what he says, he should put forth some effort.

'the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be a sure norm for teaching the faith."

Is faith something that is taught or is it something that comes upon hearing the word of God when ones heart is pricked and responds to that heard word?

michael_legna,

I'm still reading through the links.
Right now I'm looking at the Joseph aspects since those are new to me.
The second site is a compendium of many more Church Fathers statements supporting the idea.

On the second site http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm), in the 8th paragraph, it states that Joseph was also a virgin and then explains that belief.  ???

Any thoughts on it?  :-\



Dyskolos,
Er, how is that a slam exactly? Honest criticism is what it was. Personally I don't feel too much like slogging through Petro's unorganized, unfocused, poorly written and poorly presented posts. If he actually wants people to pay attention to what he says, he should put forth some effort.

No one else seems to have a problem following his thoughts.  ;)  Who is it that has required you to 'slog' through anything?  ???
So 'honest criticism' of an individual is acceptable to you, but 'honest criticism' of a religion is not?

I have to admit that is new to me.  I have never heard that taught anywhere but it makes sense if you accept Jerome's first postulate.    

In looking through the quote it appears Jerome is arguing that since there is no record of Jospeh having a wife previously he for one does not accept the idea, in fact rejects it.  His next postulate is that because Joseph was a holy man he certainly did not have relations prior to marriage with Mary.  His final postulate is that since Mary remained a virgin (an idea Jerome fully accepts - which is the point we are discussing) Joseph did not have relations with her (or anyone outside of wedlock - since he was a holy man) therefore Joseph must have remained a virgin too.  This is logically consistent if you accept the first premise - that Joseph never married prior to Mary.  However I do not know that even with this sound line of reasoning it is official Church teachings.  The Church just doesn't know for sure if Joseph had a prior marriage, though it remains a possibility.


I know this wasn't directed to me but for what it is worth, I agree with you.  I have to spend alot of time slogging through his poorly formed arguments and I see alot of his criticisms to be other than honest criticism of a religion.  He often uses strawman arguments and avoids presenting his alternative views just to keep the attack one sided.  Not something one does when sincerely searching for the truth.

So I am supposed to take your biased memory and inability to offer any source (let alone a verifiable unbiased one) as proof of that serious an accusation?  Where were you during the Salem witch hunts?  Our country is based on a lot fairer justice than you want to hand out it seems.  As for the idea that a statistic being 12% higher than what the Priests are willing to admit, one has to immediately wonder how this is a knowable statistic if they aren’t getting from the Priests?  Who are they believing?  Who else knows the level of homosexuality in the seminaries?   I will do the research but when I find that your numbers are inflated I am sure it will do nothing to your prejudicial opinion to report them back to you.


Nonsense, your own Church history proves that the Catholic Church has always taught that man has a free will.  Otherwise why did Calvin need to start his own Church?  Or did Calvinism only start in the last 50 years?  

The Catholic Church does not support Peligianism.  If you think so you either don’t understand Peligianism, or don’t understand Augustine’s concept of predestination and freewill or else don’t understand the subtle differences between them or maybe all three.  My bet is on the latter.

michael_legna,

In looking through the quote it appears Jerome is arguing that since there is no record of Jospeh having a wife previously he for one does not accept the idea, in fact rejects it.  His next postulate is that because Joseph was a holy man he certainly did not have relations prior to marriage with Mary.  His final postulate is that since Mary remained a virgin (an idea Jerome fully accepts - which is the point we are discussing) Joseph did not have relations with her (or anyone outside of wedlock - since he was a holy man) therefore Joseph must have remained a virgin too.  This is logically consistent if you accept the first premise - that Joseph never married prior to Mary.  However I do not know that even with this sound line of reasoning it is official Church teachings.  The Church just doesn't know for sure if Joseph had a prior marriage, though it remains a possibility.

In order to understand the Joseph aspects of the RCC, where do I go to find the official stance? I'm not trying to argue for, or against, the Joseph aspects. Just trying to get a clearer understanding.... I'm also going in with the assumption that the official stance is what most in the RCC would adhere to. Is that a correct assumption?  ???

I know this wasn't directed to me but for what it is worth, I agree with you.  I have to spend alot of time slogging through his poorly formed arguments and I see alot of his criticisms to be other than honest criticism of a religion.  He often uses strawman arguments and avoids presenting his alternative views just to keep the attack one sided.  Not something one does when sincerely searching for the truth.

But then you'd be attacking something other than what 'Dyskolos' was. His first response was:

which is a personal attack.

The official position of the Church can be found in the Catechism.  You can find one on line at the following link...

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

I also have one I built from copying and pasting the text on that site into a MS Access database so it is searchable.  It is 3.6 Mb in size but I could try sending you a copy if you would like it.  Don't know how my e-mail host will feel about something that large but I am willing to give it a try.


I wish that were true, but with billions of Catholic's world wide I cannot vouche for how good the average Catholic's understanding is of official Church teachings.  That is why one should always choose a Church based on the correctness of it's doctrines not on how the followers adhere to them.

michael,

I have been awaiting the result of your research....where is it??

Have you done the research which disproves the factual information I have provided??

Here are sound results of a study conducted by honest people.


 Http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1611/sins1badulteryfornication.html


7. Incest, Intrafamilial Child Abuse, Molestation

Sexual abuse by the clergy:


"It is widely believed among those familiar with the church that the Catholic priesthood today, especially priests under age 40, are disproportionately gay, given the norm of society. Estimates of the gayness of the Catholic clergy vary considerably from somewhat above the norm to more than 50 percent of the Catholic clergy. Some say that among the newly ordained this figure may even run higher."




I am posting this to show you, this is not just something I pulled out of thin air, as you can see I was even lower than these and,

since you are in denial about these truths,

you must first come to the reality of this matter an accept it, before you can accept the truth of Gods Word.


Catholics would deny this report and argue that the percentages are much lower since they do not consider pedophiliacs as being homosexuals, but the reality is that pedophiliacs are for the most part homosexuals, those that pray on young boys at least and should be included no doubt this is why the percentage figures are much higher, you really do not believe the Catholic church would release an accurate report , do you??

Be honest know, post what your church is telling you..I am interested in hearing it.


Blessings,
petro

Petro did you read the article and look at the sources before you claim honesty and objectiveness for the study?  This study was done at the behest of the Christian Science monitor, run by the Christian Scientist.  Do you really think they are objective and honest when evaluating the Catholic Church?  Comeon Petro get a grip!

Here is some objective research for you.

"Ms. Demarest's numbers conform with estimates by Thomas Plante, a California psychologist at Santa Clara University who treats priests who have molested minors. "The best data we have is that approximately 5 percent of priests have a predilection toward minors," he declared. "That seems consistent with other clergy who are not priests (such as Protestant ministers or rabbis)." Moreover, Plante cites research suggesting that among the general population, 8 percent feel sexually attracted to children – a higher percentage than among priests or other clergy. Such numbers, or course, reflect those who feel sexually drawn to contact with kids, rather than indicating the percentage who actually act upon this inclination.

The Washington Post, an establishment liberal journal with no reason to whitewash the church, approvingly cites Gary Schoener, a psychologist in Minneapolis whose Walk-In Counseling Center has consulted with more than 1,000 victims of sexual abuse by clergy. He also affirms that the percentage of abusers among Catholic priests is no higher than among Protestant ministers."

You can read the whole article at the following website

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26955


The numbers you offer are just lies by organizations with a prejudice against the Catholic Church.

 Supprise Sex in marriage is  not a sin.  Sex is a creation of God.

Bad grammar bad spelling? Whining sinifling crybabies If ya dont like the style of the posts dont read em.

Whoa!  Reba - you go girl.  ;D
Righteous anger?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now Read:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The Crusader

And your point is?

Do you think those verses address the issues you quote from the others?

If so how do you see them addressing those specific issues?

I can't even tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Ollie.

Don't tell me you are another one of those like Petro who is afraid to provide their doctrinal interpretation of the verses they suggest for fear of being shown to be contrary to the rest of scripture.

"the sum total of the Church's beliefs from the gospel"
 
Michael,

God's word reveals that there is one faith.

Your statement seems to infer the church at Rome has more than one.

Can you clarify?

"Ditto."

We can't all be prose artists. All God's people have something to offer as a gift.

"Ditto."

The Catholic Church also believes that there is only one faith (though there are many details to that faith).  But I think your confusion is in the semantics.

I think we are just talking different usages of the term.  The faith can mean our set of beliefs, or it can mean (for lack of a better word) the feeling we have when we believe.  

We have faith (in the sense that we believe with our heart) and we have a faith (in the sense that we have a set of understandings of what God desires from us).  I was talking about the later.  When we defend our faith we are not defending our sense of belief but the substance of what we believe.   That is what I meant when I said - "Like when you defend the faith, you are not defending the saving faith you recieve by cooperating with grace, you are defending the teachings of Christ in the Gospel."

ollie,

Translating what michael is stating here, is this;

Since the pope is supposedly the very christ incarnate on this earth according to RCC teaching , its faithful should defend their faith which is in the INFALLIBILITY of what the pope and church magisterium teaches as though it was Jesus teaching it.

This is the saving faith he refers to.... You may have faith but unless the object of your faith is not the church teaching, your faith is in vain.

Go figure..............The bible does not teach anything about the infallibility of the pope nor magisterium, nor praying to dead saints, or in the presence of  images, relics, nor saying mass for the dead, nor the immaculate concepcion in Mary, or her bodily resurrection to heaven, or her co redemtress position to Jesus,   etc,  etc,  etc.....................................

Blessings,


Petro

Gee Petro you are as bad at translating as you are at interpreting.  The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is Christ incarnate - where do you come up with these strange ideas?


Not all of what the Catholic Church teaches is thought by the Church to be infallible.  But yes some are considered to be infallible based on the promised protection of the Holy Spirit by Christ.  Those teachings are defended as if they came from God because they did.  But those are few and far between the rest is defended by true believers because we accept the Church as the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and as the final authority in disputes (Mt 18:17) just as Paul did when He appealed to the Church (Acts 15:2).


That is just common logic Petro, if the object of your faith is not in the Gospel then your faith is in vain.  I believe the teachings of the RCC can be found in the Gospel or the Tradition and/ or Magisterium's teachings without being contradictory to the Gospel and you do not.  You believe in sola scriptura even though that is not in the Gospel.  Where is the logic in that?

Michael,

You didn't know this either??

You deny this is true, because you are ignorant of the facts, this is what the RCC claims and teaches...

Http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but He is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ that speaks. Does the Pope accord a favor or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who pronounces the anathema Or accords the favor.

(Protestant Alliance Magazine, March, 1922)."


"Further, from the same Magazine of February, 1922, We read:-"

"OUR LORD GOD THE POPE."-These words appeared in the Roman Canon Law: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685."

"LORD GOD THE POPE.-Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."

"THE POPE AND GOD THE SAME.-Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."- Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

"THE POPE, BEING GOD, CANNOT BE JUDGED".-Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

See the progression??


Of course you will deny this since, it is clear you do not believe it, but this doesn't mean anything, since you don't even believe Jesus's own words, what you believe or don't believe won't change the truth at all..unfortunately..

If you will acknowledge the truth, the Spirit of God can begin to do that work necessary for salvation in you..

God Loves You, and desires that you might know and believe Him, not men..

It is written;

Let every man be a liar, but let God be true.

Blessings,

Petro

Petro, dear Petro, what have I told you before about relying on biased outside agency for your information on the Catholic Church.  A quote from an anti-Catholic website hardly proves that the Church claims this is their doctrine.  

Show me a quote like this from the Official Catechism not some fly by night hate monger and then we can talk.  Once again have the courage to attack the real position of the Church and not hand picked strawmen if you are sincerely interested in the truth and not just puffing yourself up.

Michael,

I have given you church teaching by those who know it.

If you dispute the the pope is  Christ veiled in the flesh, or your lord god, you are a heretic according to what pope john XXII has decreed.

Note below;


"OUR LORD GOD THE POPE."-These words appeared in the Roman Canon Law: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685."

I say it is up to you to show this is not so.

I will show you further proof, that the homosexual percentages claimed by the church are not reliable, what makes you think, the catechism is, concerning this teaching??

Blessings,

Petro [tr][/tr]

Here is another site which states the truths, of what Rome teaches.

http://www.lightministries.com/id523.htm

It is sad that any attempt made to bring you to the truth, is met with the same retohric most all catholics use to reject it.

There millions of ex RC's who have come to the truth of Gods word, but first, one must be lilling to accept what Rome teaches to be truth as they see it, and not biblical,

In your haste to defend the undefendable, you dismiss truth, by claiming anything and everything that is truthfull teaching of this institution, is classified as anti-catholic.

You can deny one point, but it its the monunental evidence that exists, that cannot be dismissed as nonsense.

Her are two more;

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."

Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".


“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

 Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm

You are an outsider, these quotes are made by insiders, who know.........you don't..

In order to come to the truth; michael..............

You simply have to be receptive to the truth, ............... pure and simple.

Blessings,

Petro

No you gave me quotes from a Protestant and anti-Catholic site.  They do not know the teachings.  You have to go to the original source - you can't trust the quote from an intermediary, that is like quoting from Readers Digest.


You can say anything you want Petro, that does not make it true.  Until you provide a reference to the original source I don't have to accept or prove anything.  How do I know this isn't pulled out of context, something I can only check once I know the original source.  

Here is a link to the Code of Canon Law - if you can find that quote there (which is a reputable source) then I will discuss it with you.  Until then I cannot trust the quote from your biased source.

I know what the Church has taught me and there has never been any mention of the Pope as God.  So when you provide something so off the mark and foreign I simply cannot trust it, especially considering your past errors in expressing the position of the Church on other matters and your reliance on questionable sources.


Sorry I can't understand the grammar here.  What are you asking?  I await any unbiased statistics you care to offer.  But I wonder why you have yet to respond to the unbiased appraisal of the situation I offered.  

Why is it you demand I respond to every quote you pull up from 500 years ago but you yourself fail to respond to the vast majority of my points?

michael,

The source is your pope quotes..

Who else would make outlandish claims like this..

Petro

No the source of the quote (which is only claimed to be from a Pope) was an anti-Catholic website, which is also the "who else would make outlandish claims".

" Man has added many things and ordinances to the word of God and His son Jesus Christ.

Why, when Christ is all sufficient to salvation from sin and to life in God??"


Has this been answered?

Petro,

Once again I do all the leg work for you.

Here is every reference within the Catechism of the word Pope.  Find anything in it if you can that says the Pope claims to be God.

10 It is therefore no surprise that catechesis in the Church has again attracted attention in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which Pope Paul Vl considered the great catechism of modern times. The General Catechetical Directory (1971) the sessions of the Synod of Bishops devoted to evangelization (1974) and catechesis (1977), the apostolic exhortations Evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and Catechesi tradendae (1979), attest to this. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked "that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed"13 The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, made the Synod's wish his own, acknowledging that "this desire wholly corresponds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches."14 He set in motion everything needed to carry out the Synod Fathers' wish.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

192 Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches,8 e.g., the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed;9 the professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent;10 or the symbols of certain Popes, e.g., the Fides Damasi11 or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI.12

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
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.135

869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:
Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.432

End of Part 1

Here are the rest of the references.

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).

939 Helped by the priests, their co-workers, and by the deacons, the bishops have the duty of authentically teaching the faith, celebrating divine worship, above all the Eucharist, and guiding their Churches as true pastors. Their responsibility also includes concern for all the Churches, with and under the Pope.

1354 In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.
In the intercessions, the Church indicates that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, his presbyterium and his deacons, and all the bishops of the whole world together with their Churches.

1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.189
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.190

1462 Forgiveness of sins brings reconciliation with God, but also with the Church. Since ancient times the bishop, visible head of a particular Church, has thus rightfully been considered to be the one who principally has the power and ministry of reconciliation: he is the moderator of the penitential discipline.66 Priests, his collaborators, exercise it to the extent that they have received the commission either from their bishop (or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church.67

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."19

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.


So you see - nothing in the official teachings of the Church declare the Pope to be God.  Once again you show yourself to have been misled by those who know nothing of the Church and yet have been taught to hate it.

End of Part 2

For what purpose is this necessary when God's will for man is revealed in the writngs of Paul, Peter, John, James, etc., etc.?

It almost seems blasphemous to appoint someone, some human to interpret God's word when God has already delivered it to man through His Holy Spirit.

Do you think God would deliver it as mumbo jumbo so as not to be understood by men and therefore need an organizational interpreter to interpret the Holy Spirit?
 This all appears so worldly and of man and not of God. It becomes in and of itself so involved in worldly struggles to seek and have wordly power over people of the world.

Come on guys you all know using lots and lots of words makes one right.

Yes.

er...

No.

michael,

The Rc catechism does not address this matter you say, but clearly as you can see, popes, bishops and others at high levels within this institution obviously believe otherwise, they teach more than what is written in the Catechism, and since you only adhere to the catechism, you do not really know the full teaching of the matter.

Is this what you are trying to say??

It is clear to me..and anyone who can read plain english..priests, bishops, popes agree with canon law, and glossical teaching.




Petro

michael,

You can only deny some of these quotes, but you can't blame all of these on false quotes or erroneous mis-interpretations to lesser unlearned individulas within romanism.

Note this one;

 http://www.lightministries.com/id523.htm#pope


"Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods."

 Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope)."

Petro

How can it be answered until you show some proof that man has added anything to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  How is anyone to know who that claim is directed at unless some specifics are offered?

First I cannot plainly see this as you have not provided a reliable, verifiable quote from an unbiased or official source.  Secondly, the Catechism is the full teaching on the matter.  As Pope John-Paul II stated it is "a sure norm for the teaching of the faith"  that means that if you understand the contents of the Catechism you understand the doctrine the RCC espouses.


It is only clear to you because you trust the "plain english" you got from a anti-catholic site.  But even if they did provide the quote correctly and not out of context or full of errors, it does not mean that is the doctrine of the Church.  If a Priest or Bishop or even a Pope teaches something that is contrary to the official Catechism (except that the Bishops are speaking from with a Council or the Pope is speaking ex cathedra - which happens very infrequently)  then they are not teaching official doctrine and we are not under obligation to accept their teachings in that matter.  

The faith and doctrine of the Catholic Church does not rest with anyone one man's statements in isolation.  If all of the Catholic's around the world believe the Pope to be just a man (and they do) and one or two Cardinals or even Popes speaking for themselves claim he is God (though we have no verifiable evidence this has ever happened yet) then the Church doctrine is still that he is just a man.  No one can change Church doctrine from what it written in the Catechism except the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) or a Council of Bishops in communion with the Pope.  So even if your bizarre quotes turn out to be accurate they do not reflect the teachings of the Church, but only the erroneous teachings of one man.  

You need to get over the idea that Catholic's see the Pope as some mystical figure, Petro.  If you knew the turmoil in the Church over celibate priest, birth control, male only priesthood, and a host of other issues you would know that we do not worship the Chair of Peter.

Good point, Michael.

Rather it should be stated as thus:

"Man has added many things and ordinances to the word of God and His son Jesus Christ."

I am afraid no amount of reliable proof will convince you, since it is clear you are brain washed

As you can see, Every quote below shows you the refenrence, where you can find the excat quote, yet you are fixed on the the sight providing the reliable information.

You really should address the refernce and prove this is not so.

Here they are again for you;

http://www.lightministries.com/id523.htm#pope

"The Pope is God On This Earth"

""Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth."

Christopher Marcellus in Oration addressing Pope Julius II, in Fifth Lateral Council, Session IV (1512), Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618, (From Latin in Mansi SC, Vol. 32, col. 761), (also quoted in History of the Councils, vol. XIV, col 109, by Labbe and Cossart).

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, "Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium", Column 140, Paris, 1685. (In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, "Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam" ("Our Lord God the Pope") can be found in column 153).

"It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII." Statement from Fr. A. Pereira."


"Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods."

Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope)."

Can you refute this is not written, by whom  the reference sources state they are written by??

Quit blowing smoke,

As I stated before;  

Just because you deny the RC teaches these things, doesn't mean they don't,

Even their diferent Orders within the institution teach things that are not refuted by the church, and are not found in the catechism, as you stated earlier elsewhere, their teaching is not found in any one given source, but is found in many places.

How do you reconcile, the fact the church at the level of the see considers the Pope to be sitting in the place of God, and that according to you it is not taught in the catrechism??

Yet the words are crystal clear, that is to say to those that can read, plain english...

You may have trouble understanding this, but most Christians who know what scripture teaches don't.. they see these teachings for what they are.

Petro

michael,

Here is another two outlandish claims quote;

 "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."

Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".


     “...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm

Are these true claims of the RC.

Petro

michael,

Aside from teaching Mary was a perpetual virgin (which she wasn't) the RC teaches she is and intermediary and dispenses salvation, it matters little whether the catechism teaches it or not the preleates do.

Here is a site for you:

Http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0256au.htm

Of course you will yell foul, anti-catholic sites,

My response is yea sure..

From Pope Leo XIII's  Enclyclical

Pope Leo XIII - Octobri Mense - On the Rosary - 22 September 1891

4. But since the salvation of our race was accomplished by the mystery of the Cross, and since the Church, dispenser of that salvation after the triumph of Christ, was founded upon earth and instituted, Providence established a new order for a new people. The consideration of the Divine counsels is united to the great sentiment of religion. The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.[5] With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.[6] Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God! What a correspondence with the frailty of man! We believe in the infinite goodness of the Most High, and we rejoice in it; we believe also in His justice and we fear it. We adore the beloved Savior, lavish of His blood and of His life; we dread the inexorable Judge. Thus do those whose actions have disturbed their consciences need an intercessor mighty in favor with God, merciful enough not to reject the cause of the desperate, merciful enough to lift up again towards hope in the divine mercy the afflicted and the broken down. Mary is this glorious intermediary; she is the mighty Mother of the Almighty; but—what is still sweeter—she is gentle, extreme in tenderness, of a limitless loving-kindness. As such God gave her to us. Having chosen her for the Mother of His only begotten Son, He taught her all a mother's feeling that breathes nothing but pardon and love. Such Christ desired she should be, for He consented to be subject to Mary and to obey her as a son a mother. Such He proclaimed her from the cross when he entrusted to her care and love the whole of the race of man in the person of His disciple John. Such, finally, she proves herself by her courage in gathering in the heritage of the enormous labors of her Son, and in accepting the charge of her maternal duties towards us all.

Your assignment is to find the words emboldened, and then prove this is not written on a catholic website, or not believed by the faithfull.

If this is not RC teaching, why is it being spoken of matter of fact like by the pope??

It matters very little if this written in th catechism, the catechism like tradition is only one source of teaching against another.

What pope Leo XIII said in this encyclical is blasphemous in as much to what the Word God teaches.

You deny this...


Petro

PS  If you don't like that website, look at this one;

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/octobri.htm

Same thing...??

michael


Here is another Catholic website, which teaches the same thing, that Mary is an intermediary, and intercessor, and even make the claim she is able to restrain judgement from God, since she can do what she wills with God

Imagine that!!!


MARY IS SO TENDER AN ADVOCATE THAT SHE DOES NOT REFUSE TO DEFEND THE CAUSE EVEN OF THE MOST MISERABLE.

Http://www.fatima.org/library/cr15pg08.html

"Oh, with what efficacy and love," says St. Bernard, "does this good advocate interest Herself in the affair of our salvation!"

St. Bonaventure, considering the affection and zeal with which Mary intercedes for us with the divine Majesty, in order that our Lord may pardon us our sins, help us with His grace, free us from dangers, and relieve us our wants, says, addressing the Blessed Virgin, in the words of an ancient writer: "We know that we have as it were but One solicitous in heaven for us, and Thou art this one, so greatly does Thy solicitude for us exceed that of all the saints." That is, "O Lady, it is true that all the saints desire our salvation, and pray for us; but the love, the tenderness that Thou showest us in heaven, in obtaining for us by Thy prayers so many mercies from God, obliges us to acknowledge that in heaven we have but one advocate, and that is Thyself; and that Thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our welfare."

Truly unfortunate should we poor sinners be, had we not this great advocate, who is so powerful and compassionate, and at the same time "so prudent and wise, that the Judge, Her Son," says Richard of St. Laurence, "cannot condemn the guilty who are defended by Her."

And therefore St. John Geometra salutes Her, saying, "Hail, O court, for putting an end to litigation." For all causes defended by this most wise advocate are gained.
"But," continues the same saint, "should any one fear to go to the feet of this most sweet advocate, who has nothing in Her of severity, nothing terrible, but who is all courteous, amiable and benign, he would indeed be offering an insult to the tender compassion of Mary. And he adds, "Read, and read again, as often as you please, all that is said of Her in the Gospels, and if you can find the least trait of severity recorded of Her, then fear to approach Her. But no, this you can never find; and therefore go to Her with a joyful heart, and She will save you by Her intercession.

"Be comforted then, O you who fear," will I say with St. Thomas of Villanova: "breathe freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and judge, is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for She can do what She wills with God; most wise, for She knows all the means of appeasing Him; universal, for She welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one."


There all sorts of sites that spew this nonsense...

Mary is not God, yet she possess power over god, to read these claims.

How in the world do you square these teachings up,  michael??

Please, don't say, they are not teachings, it makes you out to be a person who doesn't live in reality, or totally ignorant of what your religion teaches.

Petro

Is it just me? It's starting to sound like the government.
'Official' teachings vs 'Unofficial' (but accepted) teachings.  ???

Michael,

What does the following highlighted areas in the quote below mean?

It is a quote from the Vatican's website, under "Congregations" and "Evangelization of the People".

Having to do with the  Roman church and evangelization:

"Moreover, today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the Catholic Church sets out anew with confidence to travel a new stretch of the road on her journey to meet the world since there is still a long way to go and the road to be traveled is beset with difficulties. It is a way that is full of mystery and fascinating, full of snares but safe, because Our Lady, Star of Evangelization, is her traveling companion."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cevang/documents/rc_con_cevang_doc_20030221_press-conf-mission_en.html



Is this saying that the church of Rome's "lady, star of evangelization" keeps the church safe on the church's journey to evangelize the people of the world?

Who is such a lady and why would she have this power to keep the church safe? Who authorized this power?
Why is not God through His Christ enough for the safety of the church?

Why must this "lady be added to keep the church safe? Why is such needed?

Petro you really have no understanding of fairness, decorum or debating principals if you think it is my burden to prove whether your sources are reliable or not.  What nonsense!  If I offer a quote from Hitler saying you eat worms, it is not up to you to prove that quote is from a lying, unreliable source.  It would be up to me to verify the claim through an impartial source that could be relied upon.  So the ball is still in your court.  

I find it amusing that you have the entire Catechism at your disposal and you can't find anything to attack in it, prefering instead to use straw man attacks in the form of quotes of questionable origin.  There is no possible way these quotes can be defended until I have access to the context in which they were made in.  

I have had to defend point after point of your attacks as you move again and again trying to find even one issue where you are right.  All the while you sit back immune to questions since your denomination doesn't have the courage to place their doctrines in writing.  We have been over this before and I told you that I would not respond to these issues unless you could substantiate them in the Catechism, as it is the Official teaching of the RCC and I feel no need to defend opinions or statements that fall out side of that statement of faith just for your amusement.


I have a pretty good library but even I don't have access to these books and documents.  If they are so easy to get then you should provide them instead of relying on some reader digest type of condensed attack of Catholicism.


It is not my responsibility to verify your sources for you.


Requiring fairness is not blowing smoke.

As you can see I have several people asking legitmate questions based on legitimate concerns over differences in scriptural interpretations or based on quotes from legitimate sources; so until you can provide something of substance I will only correct you in your understanding when you post your errors and will not put out the effort to support it other than on my own word and far deeper understanding of the Church than you have.  After all that is more effort than you are putting out.

michael,

There is nothing to debate, since the Bible teaches nothing of this sort, ultimately it boils down to mans teachings being elevated to and taught as doctrines of God.

Jesus warned against such things;

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  Mat 15:7-9

There is nothing to debate, as for decorum, it should only be observed when valid points or questions arise, since these are false assertions and not valid neither decorum, nor debate should be given consideration, after all we are not discussing the stock market but the issues of life on which hang in the balance the souls of men.



So, where is your reliable sources, that proves these statements I have given you, claimed by catholicism are false, you have dismissed what I have given you as ture statements approved and accepted by the rome, which you deny.

Examine yourself, and use your own spoken of standard to refute the evidence I have presented that demands a verdict.

Your responses thus far have been insufficient and not acceptable to claim anti catholic bias to every clear piece of evidence presented which proves what is taught at the highest levels of this insttitution.

It is clear to me you simply do not accept what is taught, or are simply ignorant of it.

Which is it??  

Be Honest..

You have got to face reality, sooner or later.

You can't teach Christians because it is the Holy Spirit which teaches the children of God.




Petro

We are pursuing the truth of the matter, or at least I am, and that means that there are rules of acceptable evidence and behavior so one side doesn't appear to win the argument unfairly.  Thus when one side does appear to have shown their position to be correct it is not just due to some misuse of phoney facts.


Petro are you really this ignorant of how to discuss things intelligently?  I don't have to provide sources to dispute something that has never even been properly supported in the first place.  It would be like me asking you where are your sources to show you don't eat worms?  Come on pay attention and think through these concepts or get someone to teach you how to honestly and fairly debate a topic.


I would if you had presented any evidence to this point.  as far as examining myself I have and I know that the Church does not teach that the Pope is God, never has and never will.  If you have quotes that appear to say so they are either phony, or taken out of context, or misunderstood due to the era they were written in when a more flowery form of speech was used and the writers of that time never intended them to mean what they appear to mean in our day.

The arrogance you maintain by claiming to know the teaching of my Church better than I do when I have read the entire Catechism and you admit you have not is amazing.  Pride goeth before the fall Petro.

michael,

If you would at least acknowledge the truth of what is taught in your institutions highest levels, there would be something to discuss further, but clearly you won't even admit this is so, you are unteachable, I can see this clearly.

Your lofty heady logical conclusions, which amount to the wisdom of this world have taken you into bondage, you have no free will being incontinent.

It is also clear,  you are not honest, this is where I get off, allow me to shake the dust off the soles of my shoes herein, let your own blood be upon your own head, I am free from it..

Petro

You mistake your finding a couple of quotes from questionable sources taken out of context as representing what the Church teaches at it's highest levels when you show yourself not to understand even the rudimentary issues of the Church's doctrine.


Get off?  If you are being true to your own doctrine, you have to admit that you were never on!  

Since we have no free will you could not have been expecting anything from this discussion.  But since you obviously did expect to change my mind it is clear you don't even believe your own doctrine, that we have no free will.   Petro stop being hypocritical and abandon a doctrine you know in your heart cannot be true.

In general terms it means the the RCC acknowledges the fact that God continues to use the Saints of the Church after death as vessels of honor.  That He can act through them to assist and guide and protect those on earth.  Similarly to the way He uses and will use Michael, the Prince of the Angels and protector of the Israelites.

The Lady is the Virgin Mary and the Church is saying that it believes God has choosen her to come with messages and guidance to help us in these troubled times.

If you accept the RCC concept of the communion of saints this statement does not seem to be at all of concern.  It is merely God acting through His Church.  God can do things anyway He wants because He is all powerful.  Why did He choose to do things this way?  I don't know.

Interesting thoughts, Michael.

It is very difficult for me to corrolate it to God's purpose and plan or
put other saints equal to or in the same capacity as God and His Christ.

Thanks,
 Ollie