Thanks, Brother love. It's sure easy to spot the born again Christians from the "professed" Christians on this board. The professed Christians are loyal to the pope. The born again Christians are loyal to God. It's too bad one has to make a choice. But when someone takes the name that Jesus said is reserved for only ONE, then one does indeed have to make a choice.

Its too bad you propose a false dichotomy.  Its too bad people don't listen to the Bible about obeying their appointed leaders in authority.

David Koresh said that he worshiped no one but God either. Our actions are what shows who we worship in our hearts, not our words. I know of NO born again Christian who calls the pope Holy Father. A born again Christian is born of the spirit and his new Father is God. Until you are born of the spirit, you will continue to only know your earthly fathers. The ones whose allegiance is to the pope have no reverence for their only Father in heaven. They only pay Him lip service. Otherwise, they would object to calling anyone in the world Holy Father just as Jesus objected to it. Again, you don't have to believe Jesus, Christopher. I do. You can put your faith in the pope.

Interesting!  So the apostles were not "born again" christians either, since they called themselves "fathers" of their disciples!

Wow, the Gospel according to Heidi!  What was it that St Paul said about those that preach a different Gospel again?  Something about a curse?

Having no other Gods before our Father in heaven is false teaching? Boy are you out in left field, Rich. That's what all my posts have been about. I can see why you're worried about your salvation! You need to read the bible from start to finish, particularly Christ's words, since you disagree with so many of them. In them, you will find out that Jesus knows a lot more than you do. Apparently the catholic doctrine hasn't gotten you past the first commandment.

Let me break it down for you one more time.

Catholics do not worship anyone but God.

Read that again, slowly.  

Then if you feel the need to start yet another thread about how your own private interpretation of the Bible and the Church's teachings are correct, feel free.

The Church is often accused of having “traditions of men” but the accusers often miss this essential point:

'The Church' ....? Do you mean the Body of Christ? Or do you mean the Catholic church?

Yes.

ROFL! But I've never heard of the Body of Christ being accused of it nearly as often as the Catholic church....

Are you going to attempt to answer the question or not?

And here is just one about the Eucharist:

John 6:55 - Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

There is no place in Scripture where the LORD'S SUPPER and WATER BAPTISM are linked together either as ordinances or as sacraments for the Church.

Let's investigate that claim.

Here is one about Baptism...I have about 50 others if you care to listen to me for once.

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, is what actually saves us; it is not just symbolic or superficial like a bath. Also, the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision.

The Church is often accused of having “traditions of men” but the accusers often miss this essential point:

'The Church' ....? Do you mean the Body of Christ? Or do you mean the Catholic church?

Yes.

If the written word is more important than the Church, then why did Christ establish a Church to "go and teach all nations?"  Where in the Bible did Jesus, or anyone, say to write down His teachings?

Jesus never wrote anything, aside from some scribbles in the dust that were not preserved.  We don’t have any idea what he wrote in the dust at the attempted execution of Mary Magdalene at the hands of sinners with stones.  Not once did Jesus ever tell anyone to write down His teachings and form the Bible.  What He did tell them was to go and teach people through the spoken word, which would be empowered by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:18-20

It is evident from Paul’s writings that he listened to the teachings of Jesus from the other apostles and pasted them on to his disciples.  Thus the word of mouth was an essential mechanism for passing on the Word of God.  

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

But here is the key.  The word of mouth teachings and the traditions passed on to the believers must come from those with authority, not just from anyone who decided to take the task upon them.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. - Colossians 2:8

The Church is often accused of having “traditions of men” but the accusers often miss this essential point:  Without the authority to teach, the teachers among men are the ones passing on the actual “traditions of men,” which are contrary to the Bible.   Ideas like “faith alone,” and “scripture alone” are simply not taught in the Gospel.  They cropped up 1500 years after the Gospel was preached via the private interpretations of men.

I read it and it is clear that the catholics think that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ instead of wine and bread.  Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me." Remembrance of what? What should eating His flesh and drinking his blood remind us of? Why specifically, "eating and drinking"? He didn't simply tell us to remember His death for us. He said "eating and drinking specifically. Think it though, Christopher. If you have Christ inside of you in the form of the Holy Spirit, you should know EXACTLY what that means!

Wow, you read fast.

Anyway, if you knew what the Hebrew idea of "rememberance" was and how it differed from our modern term, you might understand our view.

Heidi-

Here are my thoughts on it.  I hope you take the time to read it.

http://www2.ministries-online.org/s0uljah/defense/eucharist.html

Then what do you think Christ meant by communion? Do you even have a clue?

I have a clue.  Do you promise to read it all if I give you my view of it?

Well, I just ried to access the open website on catholicism and found out that i am not authorized to do so.! This is just an information page where listings of anything dealing with catholicism is open to the public. Any one of you could access that page, PROVIDED you believe in the infallibilty of the pope. I'm beginning to be truly frightened. I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Where is this coming from?

You are welcome to come to my website and learn about Catholicism.  I also offer to teach you anything you want to know.  There are no secrets.

Did Mary, have any other children?

Brother Love

  <))><

Mary did not have other children after giving birth to Jesus and there are a few things to consider in order to answer the question.

Cultural Context

There would be no need to explain the perpetual virginity of Mary to a first-century Jew that believed in Jesus the Christ. God Himself came from the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) and to tread on holy ground was unthinkable to a Jew. Once you understand this cultural reference it is east to understand why Joseph would not violate the Ark. (Anyone touching the old ark in the Old Testament died, remember?) Also, it is prophecied in the Old Testament that the Lord would come through a ONE-WAY gate, so to speak, and that gate is Mary.

Language Barriers

Take a look at this verse of Scripture...

"For he must reign, until he has put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:23-25) Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign?

Of course not...so let's look at the often quoted verse used to assert that Mary and Joseph had relation after Jesus' birth...

"...no marital relations with her until she had borne a son..." does not imply that after she had borne a son that they had relations. It could be read that way, but given the culture context and the other evidence that we have from the early church writings, it is pretty clear that Mary remains a virgin. It is written this way simply to emphasize that Joseph respected holy ground.

Also, it is worth noting that in ancient Aramaic, the original language of the Gospels, there was no word for "cousin." People that were not siblings were often called "brothers" and we have examples of this throughout the Bible.

For more information: http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/02ws/ws021121.htm

James was older than Jesus

James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, is often cited as being one of Jesus' brothers, as in Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19. Hegesippus (c. 180 AD) and Eusebius (c. 300 AD) also mention James as "the Lord's brother", but Eusebius (who wrote a history of the Early Church based on primary sources no longer available to us), specifically identifies him as "the son of Joseph", and Hegesippus mentions that James was past the age of eighty when he was martyred in 62 AD. This would make James more than twenty years older than Jesus, and as Luke plainly tells us, Jesus was Mary's "first-born son". Ergo, if Hegesippus is correct, then James had to be a step-brother, unless Joseph was building time machines in his carpenter's shop.

When I see a priest, I just say Hail Mary

Brother Love

    <))><

Do you want to address my Biblical arguments about calling people 'father' or just make jokes?

Well, I just ried to access the open website on catholicism and found out that i am not authorized to do so.! This is just an information page where listings of anything dealing with catholicism is open to the public. Any one of you could access that page, PROVIDED you believe in the infallibilty of the pope. I'm beginning to be truly frightened. I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Where is this coming from?

You are welcome to come to my website and learn about Catholicism.  I also offer to teach you anything you want to know.  There are no secrets.

Did Mary die and then go to heaven?

Or did Mary, go to heaven alive?

Brother Love

     <))><

The Church hasn't stated one way or the other.

Well, I just ried to access the open website on catholicism and found out that i am not authorized to do so.! This is just an information page where listings of anything dealing with catholicism is open to the public. Any one of you could access that page, PROVIDED you believe in the infallibilty of the pope. I'm beginning to be truly frightened. I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Where is this coming from?

You are welcome to come to my website and learn about Catholicism.  I also offer to teach you anything you want to know.  There are no secrets.

Did Peter have a wife?

Brother Love

    <))><

Of course Peter had a wife.

I suppose you are now going to say something like "AHA!  The first Pope was married, so your priestly celibacy rules is wrong!"

Am I right?  I'll save you the time...priestly celibacy is simply a discipline, it is not a Dogma nor a Doctrine.  It has changed over time.  Big deal.  It is optional even now and Eastern Rite Catholics don't have to follow it either.