Here is My Reasons

Why am I not Roman Catholic?
1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ... 310AD.

2. Wax Candles introduced in church about 320AD.

3. Veneration of angles and dead saints about 375

4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted 394AD.

5. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, 'Mother of God', as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in... 431AD.

6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in 500AD.

7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year 593AD.

8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ... 600AD. The Word of god forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1Cor.14:9).

9. The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about 600AD. (Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

10. The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 610AD. This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory I, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his, successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "Pope." Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26;Eph.1:22-23;Col.1:18;lCor.3:11)... is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real lst century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

11. The kissing of the Pope's feet began in 709AD. It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19: 1 0; 22:9).

12. The Temporal power of the Popes began 750AD. When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

13. Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized in 788AD. This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

14. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized in 850AD.

15. The veneration of St. Joseph began in 890AD.

16. The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV, in the year 965AD.

17. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV in 995AD. Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom, 1:7; I Cor. 1:2).

18. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed in the year 998AD.

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 7OOAD. This is against the plain teaching of the bible. (Read Matt.15:10 1Cor. 10:25; 1Tim.4:1-3).

19. The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and not to be repeated, but only commerated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Heb.7:27; 9:26-28; 10: I 0- 14).

20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, in the year 1079AD. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Tim. 3:2,5, and 12: Matt 8:14-15).

21. The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090AD. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans 1090AD. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ (Matt 6:5-13).

22. The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion ...1184AD.

23. The sale of Indulgence, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year 1190AD. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic, and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

24. The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215AD. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lords Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26).

25. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215AD. The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm. 51: 1 - 10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; John 1:8-9). 26. The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year in 1220AD. So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).

27. The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia in 1229AD. Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John5:39: lTim.3:15-17).

28. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, an English monk, in the year ... 1287AD. It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. It is fetishism.

29. The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance n 1414AD. The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matt. 26:27; I Cor. 11:26-29).

30. The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence in 1439AD. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8: 1).

31. The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed in 1439AD. The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matt. 28:19-20; 26:26-28).

32. The Ave Maria, part of the last half in 1508AD. It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixths V, at the end of the 16th century.

33. The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible 1545AD. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18).

34. The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent in 1546 These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Rev. 22:8-9).

35. The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles, in 1560AD. True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Gal. 1:8).

36. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854AD. The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psalm. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

37. In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility 1870AD. This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read II These. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18). Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18). 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILLII DEI." -V.5, I-1; C-100, l-l: v-5, 1-1; L-50, 1-1; 1-1-Total, 666.

38. Pope Pius X, in the year 1907, condemned together with 'Modernish", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church... 1907AD. Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864.

39. In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools... 1930AD.

40. In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God.... 1931AD. This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431AD. . This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2:1-5).

41. In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary ....1950AD

42. (Revelation 17:9)The Roman Catholic Church is the Woman of seven hills

Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, 1948, Volume 12, page 144, also tells us about the city of seven hills.
...the "City of Seven Hills."... the Capitoline, Palatine, Aventine, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, and Caelian hills.. . the seat of the papacy, the head of the great Roman Catholic Church.

43 THE PAPACY 8th head of the beast

1Egypt
2Babylon(Lion)
3Medo-Persia (Bear)
4Greece (Leopard)
5 Pagan Rome
6 Empirial Rome
7 Papal Rome(little horn power see daniel) 538AD vigiluis 2 - 1870 AD
8 Vatican- 1929 Lateran treaty Under Mussolini ( The beast that received wound on the head but healed will to perdition)

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

7He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

1. The teachings that you believe began when?
2. So what's your problem with candles?
3. Wrong. You don't know your history as well as you should. Have you not heard of Polycarp?
4. Wrong on the history again. Have you not read the Didache?
5. Wrong on doctrine. The worship of Mary is grave sin according to the Catholic Church.
6. So what?
7. You must not know the writings of the New Testament.

... that's enough for me. You clearly do not know the true teachings of the Roman Catholic faith. You are just regurgitating anti-Catholic sentiment.

Why not just work out your own faith with fear and trembling, as we are encouraged in the Bible?

Judge not lest you be judged.

And EVEN IF you are fully convinced of the wrongness of others, why not follow another exhortation given by Christ Himself:

Forgive others as you would have them forgive you.

http://www.holyghostchurch.com/pics/pope_worships_mary.jpg

Are you Catholic

Where inn the bible does it say we make statues of the saints.

Where in the bible does it say we go in the confession both

Where in the bible does it say Pope is the Vicar

Where in the Bile does it say priests are not allowed to mary

While I personally do not agree with the Roman Catholic's beliefs on many subjects and personally feel they are too steeped in religion ( AKA Jewish priests in AD33) many feel that this symbolism represents the true meaning of Christianity. That is one of the many reasons that there are so many religions around the world. There is really no reason to site all the things you feel are wrong with the Catholic church except to get an argument started.
Moderator, please think about closing this thread now!

Lenox:

I find it interesting that you ignore the brief response given to your list.

Is changing the subject the best you can do when questions or comments are given that you do not agree with?

I already know the answer: You are not prepared to give a response since all you have done is regurgitate anti-Catholic sentiment.

Try this on for size: Christ spoke of HIS Church. His Church is one. There are many who do not agree with YOU.

So does that mean that all who do not agree with what has been pumped into your head are not Christians?

Think about that...

So as for this thread on this forum. You ranted - and there was a response to your first 7 comments.

Would you like to stick with it?

If so, answer one or more of the responses to your first 7 "points".

... bear with lenox, folks, while he scrambles for his anti-Catholic literature to use for his retort. We will look forward to his response :)

Issaih8v20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It does not matter what religion the person is, any religion that does not agree with the Bible is not of God

It does not matter what religion the person is, any religion that does not agree with the Bible is not of God
And your religion is?

Issaih8v20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It does not matter what religion the person is, any religion that does not agree with the Bible is not of God
I agree.

And further, to clarify: that is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church - who teaches that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.

And so, back to your points?

I found the site where you copied all of your riveting misinformation from.The least you could do is give copyright credit to the original author.
That is not a very Christian thing to do.


LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES And HUMAN TRADITIONS (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm)

I found the site where you copied all of your riveting misinformation from.The least you could do is give copyright credit to the original author.
That is not a very Christian thing to do.
The Romanisation of Catholicism & the Petrine Deception (http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/romanisation-of-catholicism.html)

Thank you, artlady, for pointing that out. It is, then, as I guessed: just a regurgitation of anti-Catholic sentiment.. . and worse yet, further testimony to the world at how divided our faith is.

Thankfully, there are wonderful things happening today that some just do not see.

If you Can prove all the points I made are in the Bible Teaching then Roman Catholism is not Antichrist. Jesus warned

(a) Correct doctrine is foundational to biblical Christianity. The system of doctrine taught by Scripture defines God, Christ, salvation, ethics, sin and everything a person needs for faith and life (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Without correct doctrine the object of our faith is false and all is lost. (b) Correct doctrine is crucial because false and man-made doctrine drives out, replaces and nullifies true teaching (Mt. 15:1-9; Col. 2:8, 20-23).

I am a BibleChristian

And your religion is?

His copy and paste job came from a Baptist website.

LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES And HUMAN TRADITIONS (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm)

I am a BibleChristian
And very judgmental. WWJS?

If you Can prove all the points i made are in the Bible Teaching then Roman Catholism is not Antichrist. Jesus warned

(a) Correct doctrine is foundational to biblical Christianity. The system of doctrine taught by Scripture defines God, Christ, salvation, ethics, sin and everything a person needs for faith and life (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Without correct doctrine the object of our faith is false and all is lost. (b) Correct doctrine is crucial because false and man-made doctrine drives out, replaces and nullifies true teaching (Mt. 15:1-9; Col. 2:8, 20-23).

I am a BibleChristian


Sorry, lenox, it does not work that way.

The proof is on YOU. YOU made the claims, so back them up yourself.

Did they not teach you that?

I sais prove from the Bible if the points are wrong

And very judgmental.

Yes. I think lenox does not know scripture as well as he thinks he does: Matthew 7:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=31)

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

i sais prove from the Bible if the points are wrong
No, like RickJ said, the burden is on you to prove those points are correct. (I'm still chuckling about the candles.) Rick has been nice enough to refute the first seven. What say you about those first seven?

Prove the 43 points made about this faith made wrong.

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

This the Great Apostacy spoken in the latter days

Zzzzzzzzzz :rolleyes:

Lenox does not read replies. He just keeps regurgitating the crap that has been fed him.

Lenox, can you think on your own?

I would like to submit my quote for consideration.


“We need to promote greater tolerance and understanding among the peoples of the world. Nothing can be more dangerous to our efforts to build peace and development than a world divided along religious, ethnic or cultural lines. In each nation, and among all nations, we must work to promote unity based on our shared humanity.”
– Kofi Annan

I confess that I have not responded in a teaching way as I should have.

I offer an olive branch to lenox, who I should consider a brother.

Lenox, pick what you think is the "worst" of Roman Catholic Teaching: Tell us what you think we (Roman Catholics) believe - and tell us why you believe it is wrong - and let's go from there.

Fair enough for you ?

Amen, Artlady. Here is a similar exhortation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

Amen, Artlady. Here is a similar exhortation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

I like that.While much of my Catholic upbringing was very strict and difficult to comprehend,I always got the tenent of love your brother,and judge not lest ye be judged.

I would never consider maligning someone's religious belief.It is wrong on so many levels.

Thank-you for your insight.

Actually, we are Christian because the Catholic Church fathers kept the teachings together. We owe that Church a huge thank you.

I like that.While much of my Catholic upbringing was very strict and difficult to comprehend,I always got the tenent of love your brother,and judge not lest ye be judged.

I would never consider maligning someones religious belief.It is wrong on so many levels.

Thank-you for your insight.

When I see such definitive lists (all untrue of course) it always reminds me of Archbishop Fulton Sheen's quote, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church— which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Not only are the criticisms wrong, but so are the facts. You would think if he was going to malign someone, the least he could do is get the facts right. Not only that but there's so few of them. If lenox263 is a bigger person than what's indicated by this list then he'll find out for himself just how wrong he is?

Wow, wax candles? I never heard that one! How does burning candles become a big thing? And I pray to God every day that there is a daily Mass! Are these really supposed to be criticisms? I wonder if Lenox263 got his criticisms mixed up with the attributes of the Church.

I heard that the local First Baptist Church down the street just put in electric lights; I wonder what that does to them? I hope it's not bad; I've got friends who go to Church there. If I sound like I'm being cynical it's only because I am

JoeT

WHY I AM ROMAN CATHOLIC:
I am Roman Catholic because it is the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Church of Jesus Christ. It is that organization receiving Christ's breath and prevailing against the gates of hell since. Let me try to explain using some trite objections.



1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ ... 310AD.

It's true; those traditions of men should be avoided. But, the Roman Church isn't a tradition of men, but rather it was commissioned by Christ.


2. Wax Candles introduced in church about 320AD.

This really fascinates me. How is it that wax Candles is a bad thing? And what would really be interesting is to know how they came about in 320 A.D. Further, were they a newly invented? What is your idea of what a Christian should use for light? Are electric light bulbs acceptable? To be a good Christian according to Lenox263 must we use incandescent or fluorescent?


3. Veneration of angles and dead saints about 375
To venerate is to solicit the good will, or to revere. The Scriptures refer to payers to the dead. If people didn't pray to the dead what was this verse all about, “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” (2Macc 12:46)


4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted 394AD. there are scriptural references to Mass being said in Scripture, with offerings and the taking of the Eucharist. Literature in the first century suggests Mass, much like today's, was said. What's the significance of it being said daily? Are we not to worship God daily, or only on Wednesdays and Sundays?

And if there is no Mass, then why do we read in scriptures, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)


5. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, 'Mother of God', as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in .... 431AD.

Mary isn't worshiped. She is venerated. There is a difference. Let's see the woman that bore Christ is a mother. Christ is One Person in the Trinity; God. It can logically be said that Mary was the mother of God. "Mother of God was followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus held Mary to be Theotokos. This had been a belief of the Catholic faith since Christ. Irenaeus wrote regarding what came to be known as Theotoko, circa 175 A.D. So you point is what? Christ wasn't born of a virgin woman?


6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in 500AD.

And this means what? Are you afraid they'll catch a cold without coats? So what?


7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year 593AD.

Catholics hold that the doctrine of purgatory is Scriptural, while not directly called “purgatory” it can be inferred through scripture that there is such a thing, similar to the way we infer the Trinity in Scripture.


8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ ...600AD. The Word of god forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1Cor.14:9).

Get real! Latin was the common language. When Latin fell out of favor in the secular world the Church taught it to all the faithful and so that they could understand the Mass, and so that, like the One faith they held, there was only One language. This was done primarily because Latin was the Church's official language. It was only until after the second Vatican Council in 1964 that Mass was said in the language of the participants.


9 The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about 600AD. (Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

I've said to my neighbor, “I pray you, please cut your grass”. Am I going to hell for praying to my neighbor. Or maybe you don't understand what 'pray' means?


10. The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 610AD. This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory I, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his, successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "Pope." Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26;Eph.1:22-23;Col.1:18;lCor.3:11)... is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real lst century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

The first Pope was appointed by Christ, (Matt 16) It doesn't matter if Peter didn't go within 1,000 miles of Rome. It wasn't one of Christ's requirements - "Go to Rome" But, that's were his bones were found.


11. The kissing of the Pope's feet began in 709AD. It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19: 1 0; 22:9).

Acts 10:25-26 certainly doesn't say you shouldn't kiss the Pope's feet. What it said was that Peter lifted him up. It doesn't say 'thou shall not kiss feet.'

It's likely that kissing the feet came from venerating the Pope. The first written documentation of this honor was in “liber Pontificalis” which tells of Emperor Justin kissing the feet of Pope John I (523-526); a closer to the time of pagan Rome. Even still, at least 2 centuries had past since Rome was a pagan state.

The Kissing of the Feet:" And kings shall … worship thee with their face toward the earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet. And thou shalt know that I am the Lord, for they shall not be confounded that wait for him". Isaias 49:23

Then there is the Luke 7, where the woman kissed Christ's feet. Why did Christ allow this sinner to touch his feet? Are we not to emulate Christ's life? If a sinner can honor Christ in such a manner shouldn't we honor his Vicar in the same way?


12. The Temporal power of the Popes began 750AD. When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

No the temporal power of the Pope began in about 325 A.D. with the Roman Emperor Constantine. Unlike an invisible church, the Church holds that its powers are exercised under its commission by Christ; this commission spans both the spiritual world and the temporal. It might surprise you that the Church still rightly claims a certain temporal power.


13. Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized in 788AD. This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Relics are not 'worshiped.' And it was circa 325 when ST. Helena made searching for relics a Christian passion. However, there are many different traditions of Holy Relics which had once been associated with Christ. There are claims of certain relics of Christ, Peter, and some of the other Apostles. None of which are 'worshiped'.



14. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized in 850AD.

Eliseus used salt in the water (Cf. 2Kings 2:19 sqq.) Salting the Holy water is done as a blessing during high Mass. I understand that it was formulated into Gregorian Mass; both St. Augustine and John the Deacon write about it. Apparently it was not universal until St. Gregory.


15. The veneration of St. Joseph began in 890AD. It's my understanding that St. Joseph has always been venerated.


16. The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV, in the year 965AD.
Oh, my!


17. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV in 995AD. Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom, 1:7; I Cor. 1:2).

I'm sure Saints have been canonized since Peter the first Pope, even still if they are Saints they are only dead to the world. The baptized faithful in the Church are to be called Saints. And how is this a detriment to Catholics?


18. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed in the year 998AD.

Once again you need to get you facts straight. We do fast, sometimes on Fridays sometimes on other Holy days. Fasting can be found in Scripture and Catholics have fasted for two millennium.



Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 7OOAD. This is against the plain teaching of the bible. (Read Matt.15:10 1Cor. 10:25; 1Tim.4:1-3). I like that, a Pope of commerce. Ha! Where in the world does this come from?


19. The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and not to be repeated, but only commiserated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Heb.7:27; 9:26-28; 10: I 0- 14).

No, sorry about that, but the mass is a real participation in Christ's sacrifice. Read John 6:55 –59

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

A real presence of Christ; no ambiguity, no allegories, simply eat, drink. Christ said, “I am the bread of life.” Not, I am 'like' the bread, or the bread is 'like' me.


20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, in the year 1079AD. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Tim. 3:2,5, and 12: Matt 8:14-15).

Read 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35. Priests were ordained since Christ see St. Jerome, "In Isaiam", XIX, 18; St. Gregory the Great, "Moral.", XXXII, xx. Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity 7.

Your facts are wrong again.



21. The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090AD. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans 1090AD. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ (Matt 6:5-13).

Actually, it came from a 'cord of knots' used by monks to keep track of their prayer recitals.

Your date may be generally correct. There was a Countess Godiva of Coventry (c. 1075) who left in a will a statue of Our Lady and what may be a prototype of what we view as a Rosary today that was a cord with bone knotted in the string. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Rosary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm)

Hail Mary: HAIL MARY, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, (this is Scriptural see Luke 1) Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death (this half is a petition to pry for us). Amen.


Seditious those Scriptural verses, right?



22. The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion ...1184AD.

Should we discuss the hundreds of thousands killed by the Protestants in the 1500's and 1600's at the same time as we discuss the inquisition?


23. The sale of Indulgence, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year 1190AD. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic, and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.
While indulgences were sold, the sale of indulgences was never sanctioned by Rome. It was a political ploy by German's to break from Roman dominance. In short, there was more propaganda then fact.


24. The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215AD. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lords Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26).

This is insulting; it is not an absurdity, unless you consider Christ's own words absurd. I would refer you to John 6:55-59 once again. Furthermore, writings from the 1st century refer to the “Real Presence” of Christ in Eucharist.

JoeT

Originally Posted by lenox263 View Post
3. Veneration of angles and dead saints about 375
We didn't even venerate "angles" in high school geometry! We may have venerated a hypoteneuse or two though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Amen, Artlady. Here is a similar exhortation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?

15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Ephesians 4

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Any Religion not Identified WITH THE WORD OF GOD IN ALL ITS WAYS is not of God BUT OF THE SERPENT THE DEVIL(OPPOSER)

LEVIATHAN - jOINED wITH THE Serpent

When I see such definitive lists (all untrue of course) it always reminds me of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s quote, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church— which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Not only are the criticisms wrong, but so are the facts. You would think if he was going to malign someone, the least he could do is get the facts right. Not only that but there’s so few of them. If lenox263 is a bigger person than what’s indicated by this list then he’ll find out for himself just how wrong he is?

Wow, wax candles? I never heard that one! How does burning candles become a big thing? And I pray to God every day that there is a daily Mass! Are these really supposed to be criticisms? I wonder if Lenox263 got his criticisms mixed up with the attributes of the Church.

I heard that the local First Baptist Church down the street just put in electric lights; I wonder what that does to them? I hope it’s not bad; I’ve got friends who go to Church there. If I sound like I’m being cynical it’s only because I am

JoeT

The quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen is wonderful.It sums things up so well.I just thought the days of religious persecution were over. Shouldn't we be moving forward in our thinking?

The candles,I assume are considered to be Pagan in nature :rolleyes:

I live in a very multi diverse community and many of the African Americans here are Baptist and the loveliest people you would ever want to meet. I do not think Lenox 's stand is representative of them as a group. There will always be the fundamentalist few who give a poor representation of the group as a whole.

The Scriptures Specifically explains that this system is the Antichrist.

We didn't even venerate "angles" in high school geometry! We may have venerated a hypoteneuse or two though....

You’ve got an acute eye, I skimmed right over it. Not to go off on a tangent, but being students of Euclid we do love angles around here. Not to be obtuse, but we avoid venerating Hypotenuse. I’ve discovered a dirty secret about his past; his past linage is rooted in product of two squares!

JoeT

The quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen is wonderful.

Such is human wisdom which is great in the eyes of human nature I don't take my inspiration from Archibishops,Priets, Pastors, - There is only one inspirator that is the word of God not men. I do not need any man to me or do you The Lord Specifically told of this in the last days of trying to please men rather than God AND LISTENING TO THE TEACHING OF CARNAL Mind rather than the inspirational words of the spirit. Which specifically says to flee from Traditions of men which makes the Word of God of none effect. The Lord who are his who follow his teaching.

12Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

28And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

29If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

Please don't quote from archibishops or any other Quote the Holy Scripture that is the only Authority received from God

The quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen is wonderful… Please don't quote from Archbishops or any other Quote the Holy Scripture that is the only Authority received from God

It should be understood that Catholics don't worship a book, the Bible. Rather, Catholic teaching is based on God's revelations to man found both in the Traditions of the Church and Holy Scriptures, they must both be in harmony with each other. Consequently, Catholics are not restricted to 'Bible only'.

I'll be happy to stop writing if God's Truth makes you uncomfortable.

Have you ever considered where Scripture came from? How did Holy Scripture come to you from the first Christians, who where Catholic, to today? Scripture is written Catholic Tradition.

JoeT

The Anti-Christ will be a political leader.

The false prophet will LOOK like a Christ (horns like a lamb) but will teach Satan's doctrines. (speak like a dragon)

The whore riding on the beast will be the united world wide religion, headed up by --? Composed of ALL false and corrupted religions.

Lenox sure poked the hornet's nest. We should all PERSONALLY search the Scriptures to verify that OUR faith is firmly rooted there. You can't take ANYONE'S word for what is right without checking it out. Even mine!

Lenox sure poked the hornet's nest. We should all PERSONALLY search the Scriptures to verify that OUR faith is firmly rooted there. You can't take ANYONE'S word for what is right without checking it out. Even mine!
Or Lenox's...

And I do think God is a lot bigger than we give Him credit for. We continually stuff him into little boxes of our own interpretation.

Have you ever considered where Scripture came from? How did Holy Scripture come to you from the first Christians, who where Catholic, to today? Scripture is written Catholic Tradition.

JoeT

If this is true then you have a problem.

The RC traditions written in the Bible do not support the later RC traditions, and in some cases actually contradict them.

What now?

The Christian "Bible" was not recognized, as it is today, until about 300 years after Christ.

Prior to the recognition of the "Canon", Christians read and revered many other writings from the generation of the Apostles.

The Christian "Bible" was not recognized, as it is today, until about 300 years after Christ.

Prior to the recognition of the "Canon", Christians read and revered many other writings from the generation of the Apostles.

OK, but that still doesn't resolve the contradictions between what was written and later traditions.

Your belief in Papal infallibility will forever keep you and I from agreeing. No bad feelings, I hope.

No, it does not... IF we presume that "later traditions" conflict with what was written there.

Do you believe there is a conflict?

Galveston, what do you believe about "Papal Infallibility? What do you believe that this term means?

Your belief in Papal infallibility will forever keep you and I from agreeing. No bad feelings, I hope.
What does that have to do with the Bible, with the canon that was established? I don't think you know what papal infallibility means (and I'm a Protestant).

Galveston, don't pretend that you know what I believe about "Papal infallibility".

I am sure you have no clue.

I invite you again to confirm:
a. what you believe the term means, and
b. tell everyone here what you believe Catholics are taught about it.

Here is My Reasons

Why am I not Roman Catholic?

Because you don't understand Scripture.


1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible,

None of the Traditions taught by the Catholic Church are contrary to the Bible.


the most ancient are the prayers for the dead

We've never prayed to the dead. All the Saints are alive in Christ.


and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ... 310AD.

The sign of the Cross is contrary to Scripture? In what way?
1 Corinthians 1 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:


2. Wax Candles introduced in church about 320AD.

Actually much earlier than that. The practice was inherited from the Jews but it was really a practice of necessity. They had no electiricity back then. Only wax candles with which to create light.

However, the candles in Catholic Church serve a double function. They also represent the lamps which St. John saw in heaven.

Apocalypse 4
5 And from the throne proceeded lightnings, and voices, and thunders; and there were seven lamps burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God.


3. Veneration of angles

Angels were always venerated by the Jews:
Josue 5
14 And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come. 15 Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, add: What saith my lord to his servant?


and dead saints about 375

Those who leave this world in unity with Christ do not die but live.
Luke 20 37 Now that the dead rise again, Moses also shewed, at the bush, when he called the Lord, The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.


4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted 394AD.

This is from Scripture:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;


5. The worship of Mary,

We don't worship Mary. Never have, never will.


the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, 'Mother of God', as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in... 431AD.

Again, from Scripture:
Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Obviously, the term "mother of my Lord" means mother of God. Otherwise St. Elizabeth would not need the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say that. Nor would St. John have leaped in the womb if the child in Mary's womb were not Divine.


6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in 500AD.

Again, inherited from the Jews.


7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year 593AD.

The doctrine was defined then. But it was always practiced. Refer to the Old Testament book of Maccabees:
2 Machabees 12 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ... 600AD. The Word of god forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1Cor.14:9).

That is precisely why Latin was chosen. At the time that Latin was adopted as the official language, it was the most prevalent language in the world. Therefore it was the most well known of all tongues.

And your interpretation of 1 Cor 14:9 leaves a great deal to be desired. It is not a prohibition, but an observation. If one speaks and teaches in a tongue which no one understands, he won't help anyone but himself. Therefore St. Paul does not forbid it. But he explains that it would be more helpful to the Church if someone could interpret the teaching of the word spoken in a Spiritual tongue.


9. The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about 600AD. (Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)

In essence, the Angel offered a prayer of praise to Mary when he said:
Luke 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

A prayer which we imitate and continue. Otherwise known as the Hail Mary.

In addition, we see in Scripture that one saint prayed to another:
Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

Oh and the term "dead saint" is self contradictory. One is either a saint and alive in Christ. Or one is not a saint and is dead in his sins.


10. The Papacy is of pagan origin... Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real lst century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

You've believed a bunch of lies. The truth is that Jesus established the Papacy when He installed Simon as His representative. See Matt 16:18.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But let us proceed to prove that Peter represents God.

Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:

Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thereby giving Simon the authority to save. He can open and close the door to heaven, therefore, he can save.

And so, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is the representative of God before His People.


11. The kissing of the Pope's feet began in 709AD. It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19: 1 0; 22:9).

As stated in the previous response. The Pope represents Jesus Christ. When we kiss the Pope's feet, we kiss Jesus' feet. Do the Scriptures forbid kissing Jesus' feet?

Luke 7 38 And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.


12. The Temporal power of the Popes began 750AD. When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

But Jesus established the Kingdom of God in our midst.
Matthew 12 28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.


13. Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized in 788AD. This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

We only worship God. We venerate the Cross and images and relics in obedience to Scripture:
4 Kings 13 21 And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.

Acts Of Apostles 19 12 So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.


14. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized in 850AD.

Directly from Scripture:
Numbers 5 17 And he shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and he shall cast a little earth of the pavement of the tabernacle into it.


15. The veneration of St. Joseph began in 890AD.
This prayer is among the earliest prayers to St. Joseph, (from around A.D. 50) and also one of the best known:

Oh St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interests and desires....
Prayers to St. Joseph: To the Most Loving of Fathers (http://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/prayers-to-st-joseph.html)


16. The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV, in the year 965AD.

Baptism means washing. Did you think that bells have souls?


17. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV in 995AD. Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom, 1:7; I Cor. 1:2).

The term "dead saints" is an oxymoron. Saints are alive in Christ. Anyone who is not a saint is dead in their sins.


18. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed in the year 998AD.

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 7OOAD. This is against the plain teaching of the bible. (Read Matt.15:10 1Cor. 10:25; 1Tim.4:1-3).

Actually this is to remember the multiplication of the fish and at the same to time to fulfill Jesus' prophecy:
Matthew 9 15 And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.


19. The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice;

You say this because you don't understand Scripture. This is how St. Paul described the Mass:
1 Corinthians 5 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.


attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

Again, you say this because you don't understand the word of God:

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that hath promised), 24 And let us consider one another, to provoke unto charity and to good works: 25 Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

In other words, if you forsake the assembly, you trod underfoot the sacrifice of Christ and have esteemed His blood as unclean and have insulted the Holy Spirit.

Can't get much clearer:
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and not to be repeated, but only commerated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Heb.7:27; 9:26-28; 10: I 0- 14).

The Mass makes present the self same sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is how Jesus applies the graces of His sacrifice ONCE FOR ALL. It is not repeated. Is that even possible? Tell me, how can anyone grab hold of Jesus and put Him on the cross to kill Him again?

cont'd

cont'd


20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, in the year 1079AD. Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Tim. 3:2,5, and 12: Matt 8:14-15).

Again, this is from Scripture:
1 Corinthians 7 31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.


21. The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090AD. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans 1090AD. The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ (Matt 6:5-13).

No it isn't.
1. Jews were counting their prayers and using beads as aids in praying the 100 psalms since back in the Old Testament times.
2. The Rosary is a meditation on the life of Christ.
3. Neither of which is forbidden by Christ anywhere in Scripture.

The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you are twisting the Scriptures to your own condemnation.


22. The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion... 1184AD.

The Inquisition was a defense against Jews and Muslims who were attacking the Church of Jesus Christ.


23. The sale of Indulgence, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year 1190AD. Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic, and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Indulgence is the word for keeping your treasure in heaven:
Luke 12 33 Sell what you possess and give alms. Make to yourselves bags which grow not old, a treasure in heaven which faileth not: where no thief approacheth, nor moth corrupteth.

Mark 12 43 And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury.

Note that Jesus is advising that we should give the Church money (ie alms).


24. The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215AD. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lords Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26).

Spiritual truths are understood by the Spiritual man. Apparently your carnal mind has not believed what Jesus taught:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

That is the precise description of transubstantiation. Jesus said it.


25. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215AD. The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm. 51: 1 - 10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; John 1:8-9). 26. The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius in the year in 1220AD. So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).

How, I wonder, will the Church be able to forgive sins, if one does not confess them to a Priest?
John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.


27. The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia in 1229AD.

A mixture of truth and lies.

Were Bibles forbidden to the laity? Yes. Bibles which weren't interpreted correctly.
Bible Burning and other Allegations (http://users.binary.net/polycarp/burning.html)


Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John5:39: lTim.3:15-17).

No He didn't. He was challenging the Jews to check the Old Testament to see that He was there described. But He acknowledged that they didn't understand the Scriptures, that is why they didn't believe Him.


lTim.3:15-17

You mean 2 Tim 3:15-17. 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth.

2 Tim is about St. Paul teaching St. Timothy to teach and preach the word of God. 2 Tim 3:15-17 merely says that the Scriptures are profitable but not necessary for such a task.


28. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, an English monk, in the year... 1287AD. It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. It is fetishism.

Not so. It is recognizing that God works through even material things. Just as St. Paul could pass on his blessings though handkerchiefs and aprons.


29. The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance n 1414AD. The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matt. 26:27; I Cor. 11:26-29).

The Scriptures also recognizes the Church's authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19). It is by means of this authority that the Church forbade the cup to the laity in order to identify the heretics who believed the same heresy which you are repeating in that statement.

But Scripture is clear:
1 Corinthians 11 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

In other words, if we eat the bread unworthily, we are guilty of the body and the blood.
If we drink the chalice unworthily, we are guilty of the body and the blood.

The converse is therefore also true. If we eat the bread worthily, we have partaken the body and the blood. If we drink of the chalice worthily, we have partaken of the body and the blood.


30. The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence in 1439AD. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8: 1).

Purgatory is clearly explained in 1 Cor 3:15
11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.


31. The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed in 1439AD. The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matt. 28:19-20; 26:26-28).

Since you already believe in Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), I only need to prove five more:

CONFESSION
John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

CONFIRMATION

Ephesians 1 10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him. 11 In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. 12 That we may be unto the praise of his glory, we who before hoped Christ: 13 In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, 14 Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of his glory. 15 Wherefore I also, hearing of your faith that is in the Lord Jesus, and of your love towards all the saints,

MARRIAGE

Matthew 19 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

HOLY ORDERS
1 Tim 4 14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

ANOINTING OF THE SICK
James 5 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.


32. The Ave Maria, part of the last half in 1508AD. It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixths V, at the end of the 16th century.

The Ave Maria, in English, the Hail Mary is a prayer directly from Scripture.

Luke 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luke 1 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mother of my Lord is mother of God.


33. The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible 1545AD. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18).

I guess Scripture misunderstood that part. Let's see what St. Paul says:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Looks as though the Catholic Church is teaching Scripture. Whereas you seem to be rejecting Scripture.


34. The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent in 1546 These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Rev. 22:8-9).

Actually, Jesus taught from the Septuagint Old Testament which contains the Deuterocanon which you call the Apocrypha.

Luther took those seven books out in his attempt to discard anything which contradicted his teachings. He also attempted to throw out the book of Hebrews and the Epistle of James which he called the epistle of straw.


35. The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles, in 1560AD. True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Gal. 1:8).

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Nicene creed is a summary of Christian beliefs which is universally held by Catholics and Protestants. It was defined in the council of Nicea in the year 325 ad.


36. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854AD. The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psalm. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).

Although it was defined in the year 1854 in response to the objections of many Protestants over the doctrine which has always been held by the Church. The Bible does not say that all men without exception are sinners. Otherwise it would contradict itself:
Romans 5 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

And it would also contradict logic which says that children before the age of reason can't sin since they don't know what they are doing.

We can confirm this truth because Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without experiencing death. Yet Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." Therefore, neither Enoch nor Elijah sinned.


37. In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility 1870AD. This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read II These. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18). Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18). 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILLII DEI." -V.5, I-1; C-100, l-l: v-5, 1-1; L-50, 1-1; 1-1-Total, 666.

Nah. You're letting your demon inspired imagination run away with you. The Pope as representative of Jesus Christ must be infallible. Jesus sent him to teach His truths:

John 20 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

The Father sent Jesus to teach infallibly. Therefore Jesus sent His Church to teach infallibly.


38. Pope Pius X, in the year 1907, condemned together with 'Modernish", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church... 1907AD. Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864.

I never heard of this. Perhaps you could show an example. Otherwise we can relegate it to your warped imagination.


39. In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools... 1930AD.

We can see why today in the United States where Humanism reigns supreme as the institutional religion of the Public Schools.

cont'd

Cont'd


40. In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God... 1931AD. This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431AD. . This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2:1-5).

It is from Scripture:
Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

And it is logically explained.

Mary is Jesus' mother.
Jesus is God.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.


41. In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary... 1950AD

From Scripture:
Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:


42. (Revelation 17:9)The Roman Catholic Church is the Woman of seven hills

Another error which you make because you don't understand Scripture.

The Catholic Church is headquartered in the Vatican. On Vatican Hill. Only one hill.

Rome is associated with the Catholic Church because it is right across the Tiber. Rome sits on seven hills. But if we add Vatican Hill, that makes eight.


Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, 1948, Volume 12, page 144, also tells us about the city of seven hills.
... the "City of Seven Hills."... the Capitoline, Palatine, Aventine, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, and Caelian hills.. . the seat of the papacy, the head of the great Roman Catholic Church.

You forgot Vatican Hill. That makes eight.

In addition, the Protestant Bible, the King James says that the city upon which the whore sits itself sits upon seven mountains. Only one city meets that description:

Jerusalem. Lets look at this question in more detail:

Babylon described as a whore:

Revelation 17 1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Israel is described as a whore:

Hosea 9 1Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God,
Thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

Jerusalem described as a harlot (which is another word for whore):

Isaiah 1 21How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

Ezekiel 16 1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, ….15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon is clothed in finery:

Rev 17 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Jerusalem clothed in finery:

Ez 16 10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. 15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon kills the prophets and saints:

Rev 17 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs
Of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Jerusalem kills the prophets and saints:

Matthew 23 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Babylon is described as "that great city":

Rev 17: 18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rev 18: 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come.

The "great city" is the city in which Jesus was crucified:

Rev 11: 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. . The Kings of the earth gathered in Jerusalem to crucify Christ.

Rev 17: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication

Acts 4: 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Babylon and Jerusalem are built on seven mountains:

Revelation 17: 9And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:

Jerusalem is built on seven mountains: Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.

Babylon is destroyed by fire:

Rev 18: 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire

Jerusalem is destroyed by fire:

Ez 23: 25And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.


God calls His people out of that city:

Rev 18: 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Paul calls people out of Jerusalem:

Heb 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

The harlot, Jerusalem is redeemed:

Isaiah 2 1The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Revelation 21: 10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

All of that is directly from Scripture. . Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to Rome as a whore or harlot in Scripture. Try as I might I could find no reference to the Catholic Church as a whore or a harlot in Scripture.


43 THE PAPACY 8th head of the beast

1Egypt
2Babylon(Lion)
3Medo-Persia (Bear)
4Greece (Leopard)
5 Pagan Rome
6 Empirial Rome
7 Papal Rome(little horn power see daniel) 538AD vigiluis 2 - 1870 AD
8 Vatican- 1929 Lateran treaty Under Mussolini ( The beast that received wound on the head but healed will to perdition)


You are simply taking liberties with Scripture. You have absolutely no support for any of your conclusions. It is simply your Satan inspired imagination run amok.


12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

7He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Amen! It is the Catholic Church which made it possible for you to have the Bible which you so cherish. Remember that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Oh dear Lenox, seems people have been shopping for you...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/emiliamckay/canofwhoopass.jpg?t=1238615782

Ben, is that stuff MSG Free? If so, please tell me where to get some! :)

If this is true then you have a problem.

The RC traditions written in the Bible do not support the later RC traditions, and in some cases actually contradict them.

What now?


I don't understand, who says the Scriptures don't support RC Traditions? And which cases would those be that contradict them?

Yeah, what now?

JoeT

No, it does not...IF we presume that "later traditions" conflict with what was written there.

Do you believe there is a conflict?

Galveston, what do you believe about "Papal Infallibility? What do you believe that this term means?

Are you saying that when the Pope speaks "Ex cathedra" that is not equal to Scripture?

And as to some conflicts, I see that Jesus specifially said that NO apostle would exercise rule over the others.

Also Jesus told us to not call any man FATHER upon this Earth.

Jesus made it plain that His mother did not take precedence over any other believer.

And there is that thing about forbidding to marry.

I can give you Scripture if you want, but we have plowed this field before, so there's not mich point in it.

First I will address marriage, it is not scripture or doctrine for Priests not to marry, it is merely a church rule, Like some protestant churches only having communion once a year, that rule can be changed anytime.

The fact is there are married catholic Priests and were even a married Bishop at Vactican II.
Only the Roman Rite within the catholic church has this rule, and even then, many priests who are married but come from Lutheran, Anglican, and Orthodox are allowed into the Roman Rite as a married priest, From my own line of succession, is one of the married Bishops who went back to Rome.

Also all of the Eastern Rites that are in communion with Rome allow married Priest. This is only a rule that is used in administration, as the Methodist require their pastors to go to the churches, the district order them to go, with the local church having little say,

Next the term Father is not a real title, it comes from common usage, and is used by Anglican, Orthodox, Epispial and more. In fact I would almost think there are more christian pastors called father than are not.
The actual title is priest or rector but the title father is used as a title of love and respect.

So the issue of marry is silly since it is not a issue, it has not part of their scripture, it is merly a church management tool, and the issue of father was one of title and giving them special status because of their title. Read the rest of the verse not just the one line.

I can give you Scripture if you want, but we have plowed this field before, so there's not mich point in it.

Bring it, please. I'd like to compare the Scripture upon which you base your belief to the one upon which we base ours.


Are you saying that when the Pope speaks "Ex cathedra" that is not equal to Scripture?

Yes. The Pope speaks in the service of the Word of God to explain the Word of God. He is the servant of the Word of God. Not Its equal nor Its master.

Ex Cathedra means from the Chair. We find that Jesus made this statement when speaking to the Jews:

Matthew 23:2
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Why did Jesus' make this statement? Because God had appointed Moses' as His representative before the people:

Exodus 19:9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

Note that Moses' understood and would SIT before the people that they might know God's will:
Exodus 18:14
And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

Exodus 18:15
And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

This role has now been given to Simon Peter by Jesus Christ:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus is the Rock. And by giving Simon His name, Jesus has signified that Simon is His representative to the people:

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


Also Jesus told us to not call any man FATHER upon this Earth.

The commandment says, honor thy father...

How does one honor his father if he can't acknowledge him.

Apparently the Apostles did not have any problem acknowledging fatherhood:
Philippians 2:22
But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.

Here St. Paul describes himself as a father to Timothy.

1 Thessalonians 2:11
As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Here he describes himself and the other elders as fathers to their flocks.


Jesus made it plain that His mother did not take precedence over any other believer.

Please provide the Scripture. Because Jesus did not contradict Scripture and Scripture says that Mary is blessed above women.

Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


And there is that thing about forbidding to marry.

The Church forbids no one to marry. Anyone who wants to be a priest has a choice. He can marry or do whatever. But if he is to be a priest, he must keep God first:

1 Cor 7 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Are you saying that when the Pope speaks "Ex cathedra" that is not equal to Scripture?
Do you know when any pope has spoken "ex cathedra" and what he said?

Do you know when any pope has spoken "ex cathedra" and what he said?

Yes.

Yes.
I was speaking to gal. I know you know, De Maria.

I was speaking to gal. I know you know, De Maria.

Interesting topic. Maybe a new one. However, the only two ex cathedra statements I have been able to find are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

What strikes me about these two pronouncements are 1) their minutiae, and 2) the impossibility to challenge them.

One longs for ex cathedra statements re important matters.

Are you saying that when the Pope speaks "Ex cathedra" that is not equal to Scripture?

Ex Cathedra was defined by the first Vatican Council, Sess. IV: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

The only declaration made Ex Cathedra regarding doctrine that comes to mind immediately is that of is Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. If my memory serves me right it may be the only case.

Pope Pius declared:

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Speaking Ex Cathedra shouldn’t be confused with the infallibility of the teaching authority of the universal Church, magisterium universale et ordinarium. In speaking Ex Cathedra those words are taken to be infallible. The doctrine of infallibility is found in the following verses, Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 16:18; John 14, 15, and 16; I Timothy 3:14-15; and Acts 15:28 sq. Infallibility of the Magisterium is based on Christ’s commissioning of His Church as a visible organ, with the universal authority to impose solemn obligations in order to be a member of a corporate unity in faith and morals taught, and governed in official service to the Church. We hold that Divine assistance protects the Pope from the liability of error in the doctrine of morals and faith.

Practically speaking, Christ does not leave us without establishing a means by which we can infallibly rely on matters of faith. Thus in commissioning His Church we receive a Tradition taught by Christ Himself through the Apostles and their successors, Holy Scriptures memorializing firsthand accounts of witnesses along with a theology and the Holy Church itself to infallibly teach and govern over the faithful. What’s at stake is the eternal disposition of the soul and the Catholic Church gives us that absolute assurance of salvation so often touted by others.



And as to some conflicts, I see that Jesus specifically said that NO apostle would exercise rule over the others.
Peter was specifically made the first Pope, a rock of a Pope in Matt 16:18.


Also Jesus told us to not call any man FATHER upon this Earth.

This argument is as counterfeit as they come. I suppose you don’t call your dad ‘father’. What’s suggested in Matthew 23:7-8 is to avoid those who would ask for obedience of faith as the Father in Heaven asks for obedience. Do you realize how just plain dumb this argument is?


Jesus made it plain that His mother did not take precedence over any other believer.

If Hevenly Angels give the deference of an obedient servant, I’ll certainly do no less. Refer to Luke, Chapter 1; “Hail Mary full of Grace blessed art thou among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”

Tell me who in Scripture, besides Christ, is addressed by a Heavenly figure with such veneration, respect, and honor?



And there is that thing about forbidding to marry.

Marriage is not forbidden in the Church, rather marriage is encouraged. Unlike many Protestant Churches, devoice is strongly discouraged.


I can give you Scripture if you want, but we have plowed this field before, so there's not mich point in it.

We’ll do as many fields as you have time for.

JoeT

...
And as to some conflicts, I see that Jesus specifially said that NO apostle would exercise rule over the others....

I just noticed that I missed this in my previous response.

That's not exactly what Jesus meant however:
Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them. 26 It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: 27 And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.

What did Jesus mean?

As I understand it, Jesus is telling the Apostles not to exhalt themselves over others, not to become bullies who throw their weight around. This is how I understand the term lord it over them

And Jesus says that if one of us is greater, he must be our minister. The one who is first must be our servant.

And this is the title of the Supreme Pontiff. He is the Servant of the Servants of Christ.

He serves Christ by serving Christ's flock:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Originally Posted by galveston -- And there is that thing about forbidding to marry.

De Maria said: Marriage is not forbidden in the Church, rather marriage is encouraged. Unlike many Protestant Churches, devoice is strongly discouraged.
I think (without going back to look at the context) that gal is talking about priests not being allowed to marry. Having grown up in a family with a minister father, I understand that as a very important "rule" -- very practical. I remember how absorbed my dad was in the life of his parishes. In fact, he told my mother when he asked her to marry him that his life, his first reponsibility, would be the church, and their marriage and family would have to come second. Amazingly, he was able to balance all three of those very well. Church members, wife, and children rarely felt neglected. He was an unusual man.

Btw, the mainstream Protestant churches are very much against divorce, but like the Catholic Church, do their best to reach out to divorced and cohabiting parishioners.

Are you saying that when the Pope speaks "Ex cathedra" that is not equal to Scripture?

And as to some conflicts, I see that Jesus specifially said that NO apostle would exercise rule over the others.

Also Jesus told us to not call any man FATHER upon this Earth.

Jesus made it plain that His mother did not take precedence over any other believer.

And there is that thing about forbidding to marry.

I can give you Scripture if you want, but we have plowed this field before, so there's not mich point in it.

Since there were so many replies to this post, I quote it again and give Scripture.

Matt 20:25-27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(KJV)

I see where you use the arguent that the Pope is a minister to the priesthood. Are you saying that he does not exercise authority over them, and over all the faithful Catholics? I think he does. Apostolic authority is ONLY in the spiritual realm, and Papal authority goes beyond that as proven by just how far it was extended just a few hundred years ago.[I]

[I]Do you really think Jesus was refering to your NATURAL father when He said call no man father? He also told them not to be called "rabbi". Jesus was teaching against the human desire for titles.Do you not refer to the Pope as HOLY FATHER? That title belongs to God alone.

Matt 12:48-50
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

With these words, Jesus declared that not even His mother held a position superior to that of those who believe in Him.

I will concede that there are married priests, since Chuck says that it is so.

Now the tradition that conflicts with Scripture.

Matt 12:47
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
(KJV)

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(KJV)

John 7:3-5
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
(KJV)

The tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary flies in the face of these Scriptures.

Thank you for giving us the "Ex Cathedra" statements. The immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. What basis is there for either one of these ideas, other than in the mind of a Pope? There is no tradition written or otherwise to support them, and they are both of recent origin.

Galveston, if "Scripture Alone" is all that one needs, then there would not be over 10,000 different "denominations" (aka "sects") of Christianity.

Think about that.

I have to shake my head as to how dumb lenox has to be, if he really believes the hatred he is posting.

I would challenge that the catholic church reads the actual bible more during their church service than almost any other church, With new testement readings, old testment readings, gospel readings each service, They have it planned to do basically the entire bible over a three year period in readings.

Most churches barely read one or two passages and then the pastor spends the next 30 minutes explaining that one verse.

And I assume Lenix forgets that without the catholic Church the bible would have been lost perhaps, it was they the copied, protected it for centeries.

Plus of course attacking other christians is not a christian thing, so most that do nothing but post hatred have no real doctrine beyond that of hatred.

If mean by "dumb": Not knowledgeable, then I have to agree.

Thankfully, this sort of "if you don't believe what I believe, then you are evil or doomed to hell" sentiment is far less than it was when I was a kid... but sadly, we have here evidence that it is still going on :(

Also the poster does not like to follow rules, since after being banned under one user name, they have returned under this name.

Galveston, if "Scripture Alone" is all that one needs, then there would not be over 10,000 different "denominations" (aka "sects") of Christianity.

Think about that.

Surely, Brother, you realize what a weak argument that is?

This is not uncommon. Members who realize that we are serious about the rules - and follow them (see the Help link at the top and right of every page) are welcome to return.

None of us (forum administrators or moderators) are perfect, so we will forgive others as we wish to be forgiven ourselves ;)

Surely, Brother, you realize what a weak argument that is?

No, I don't recognize how weak that argument is.

The biggest reason that I don't recognize it is that I do know that the Bible, as you know it, was not what it is today until about 300 years after Christ.

So what did the earliest Christians rely on?

More info for those of you who rely on "the Bible alone" (aka "Sola Scriptura):

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine. It’s the basis of most Protestant “denomination” doctrine.

If we believe in this doctrine, then we should find it in the Bible: If we say that all doctrine should be found in the Bible, then we should find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Bible, right?

Right. That would be logical…but the problem is that we do not find this in the Bible.

The scripture passage so often cited by proponents of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3: 15-17, however you shall see that Paul teaches nothing of the sort:

2 Timothy 3: 15-17:
“…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Here there is not even the slightest implication that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. Indeed, it affirms the value of Scripture - and that it is from God (which Catholics are taught), however nothing implies that it is all we need. To say that Scripture is “useful” is one thing, but to say it is the only writing that ought to be followed is another altogether.

Not only is the idea of Sola Scriptura not found in Scripture, itself, the New Testament, in fact, teaches against it:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
” So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Corinthians 11:2
“I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.”

2 Timothy 1:13-14
“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.”

2 Timothy 2:1-2
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as Sola Scriptura.

Thank you for giving us the "Ex Cathedra" statements. The immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. What basis is there for either one of these ideas, other than in the mind of a Pope? There is no tradition written or otherwise to support them, and they are both of recent origin.

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is recent? Really?

Here are a few of the ancient Christian writers who believed in this doctrine:
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius of Salamis, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome (who devoted an entire work to the subject), Augustine, John Damascene, and Cyril of Alexandria.

You're of course more than welcome to look them up on your own. It will do you good to read the writings of some early Christians. Very informative.

I am always astounded that so many people who claim that Christianity is an important part of their lives don't take the time to learn about its history.

Galveston, if "Scripture Alone" is all that one needs, then there would not be over 10,000 different "denominations" (aka "sects") of Christianity.

Think about that.

Sadly, Rick, that ship has sailed. There are already well over 30,000 Protestant denominations alone.

You are correct, Akoue. The idea that Mary was "ever virgin" is what many, if not most, early Christians believed.

Here are some quotes from early Christian writers:

The Protoevangelium of James


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, 'Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.' And Anne said, 'As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.'.. . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, 'Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?' And they said to the high priest, 'You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.'.. . [A]and he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, 'Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.. . And Joseph [was chosen].. . And the priest said to Joseph, 'You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.' But Joseph refused, saying, 'I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl'" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph].. . And saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, 'Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.' And the priest said, 'How so?' And he said, 'He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth'" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, 'Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?'.. . And she wept bitterly saying, 'As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man'" (ibid.).



Origen


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word.. . Might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).



Hilary of Poitiers


"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, 'Woman, behold your son,' and to John, 'Behold your mother' [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).



Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] 'Virgin' is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).



Jerome


"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are.. . Following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it.. . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).



Didymus the Blind


"It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).



Ambrose of Milan


"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).



Pope Siricius I


"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).



Augustine


"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).



Leporius


"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).



Cyril of Alexandria


"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).



Pope Leo I


"His [Christ's] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary's only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary's earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary's birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus' adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary's vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ's brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus' stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ's brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary's virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

Source quoted is here (http://catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp).

Sadly, Rick, that ship has sailed. There are already well over 30,000 Protestant denominations alone.

Yes, Sad but true that we are so divided - despite that Christ's Apostles taught unity - and an embracing of what they taught.

I have to shake my head as to how dumb lenox has to be, if he really beleives the hatred he is posting.

I would challege that the catholic church reads the actual bible more during thier church service than almost any other church, With new testement readings, old testment readings, gospel readings each service, They have it planned to do basicly the entire bible over a three year period of time in readings.

Most churches barely read one or two passages and then the pastor spends the next 30 minutes explaining that one verse.

And I assume Lenix forgets that without the catholic Church the bible would have been lost perhaps, it was they the copied, protected it for centeries.

Plus of course attacking other christians is not a christian thing, so most that do nothing but post hatred have no real doctrine beyond that of hatred.

I have to admit, I don't see any great difference between what lenox has posted here and the claims that are routinely made about Catholicism by some other frequent posters. In fact, the only real difference--so far as I can tell--is that lenox has posted these ridiculous claims all together in a single list rather than inserting them one or two at a time into a number of separate threads. The content and "quality" of the claims seems remarkably similar to stuff we see here all the time, though I have to admit that lenox has done us all a favor by assembling them as he has done. Taken together, as opposed to a few at a time, it's much easier to appreciate the absurdity and historical flimsiness of the anti-Catholic propaganda by which many uninformed souls are so often gulled.

Yes, Sad but true that we are so divided - despite that Christ's Apostles taught unity - and an embracing of what they taught.

Exactly right. I've been surprised how many professing Christians don't appear to take Christian unity as a goal toward which we should all be striving. I suspect you and I agree that the disunity of Christians is itself a sin which we ought all to endeavor to remedy. It is so encouraging to see the progress that is being made on a great many fronts, especially between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox patriarchates.

Amen and amen. Christ's Church is ONE. There are no ifs ands or butts. He did not preach sects or "denominations"...

Those that He chose as His leaders preached (in the Bible) against divisions.

(psst: See the first item in my signature).

... and for those of you who might accuse me of going against the rules, I am not. In my 7000+ posts here you will NOT find me referring to my personal websites on more than what you can count on one hand... and they'll all be here in the "discussion" forums where the rules are admittedly relaxed a bit :D

Since there were so many replies to this post, I quote it again and give Scripture.

Matt 20:25-27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(KJV)

Another version of the same teaching in the KJV says:

Mark 10:42
But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.


I see where you use the arguent that the Pope is a minister to the priesthood. Are you saying that he does not exercise authority over them, and over all the faithful Catholics? I think he does. Apostolic authority is ONLY in the spiritual realm, and Papal authority goes beyond that as proven by just how far it was extended just a few hundred years ago.[I]

Jesus did not hinder the Church from exercising authority over her disciples. He warned against the abuse of authority.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matthew 28: 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


[I]Do you really think Jesus was refering to your NATURAL father when He said call no man father? He also told them not to be called "rabbi". Jesus was teaching against the human desire for titles.Do you not refer to the Pope as HOLY FATHER? That title belongs to God alone.

If that were true, St. Paul would not have called himself our father:
1 Thessalonians 2:11
As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Therefore St. Paul recognized the spiritual fatherhood of the Priesthood to their flock.

We not only refer to the Pope as Holy Father but to all our Bishops and to the Saints:

Here's an example:
TESTAMENT OF THE HOLY FATHER ST. FRANCIS.
The opuscule which St. Francis called his Testament is a precious document of the highest authority...
The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi: Part I. Admonitions, Rules, etc.: VI. Testament of the Holy Father St. Francis (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/wosf/wosf09.htm)

This refers to St. Francis of Assisi.


Matt 12:48-50
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

With these words, Jesus declared that not even His mother held a position superior to that of those who believe in Him.

In order to understand the Catholic interpretation of this verse we have to determine whether Jesus was here speaking in real terms or metaphorically.

Now according to your last words, you say that this verse applies to all who believe in Jesus. You and I believe in Jesus. Yet you and I weren't there. Therefore Jesus must have been speaking metaphorically when He said:
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, I'm a man, so I can't be anyone's mother in real terms. Nor have I ever heard of any individual who is simultaneously mother, brother and sister to anyone else. Therefore, I vote that Jesus is here speaking metaphorically.

Now, if I haven't convinced you that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, then I really don't know how to proceed.

But if I have convinced you that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, then all we have to do is decide. Is metaphorical dignity equal to real dignity?

I say that real dignity is greater than metaphorical dignity. This is obvious because no Angel has appeared to me and proclaimed my favor or my blessedness before God. Yet this did happen to Mary.

And Scripture does not say of anyone save Mary that they are to be proclaimed blessed throughout all generations.


I will concede that there are married priests, since Chuck says that it is so.

Now the tradition that conflicts with Scripture.

Matt 12:47
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
(KJV)

Matt 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(KJV)

John 7:3-5
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
(KJV)

The tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary flies in the face of these Scriptures.

In order to understand this verse, you must:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Have you done a thorough study of the language of the Scriptures and of history? Or are you simply repeating the fables of men?

If not, that explains why you fail to realize that the word "brother" has meant much more than "brothers of the womb" from time immemorial. Good friends call themselves "brothers" even today. In fact, if we examine the Scriptures, we see the word brother used to describe the relationship between Abram and Lot. Yet we know that Lot is Abram's nephew.

And a closer examination of Scripture proves that James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are sons of another Mary, not Jesus' mother, but Jesus' aunt. At best, they could be considered half brothers if they were Joseph's children. But that is even disproved in Scripture. Yet we don't need to delve there because you are challenging Mary's perpetual virginity.

Here is what else Scripture says about those individuals who are called Jesus' brethren:

According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:

Matthew 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

First, we see that Jesus' mother has a "sister". From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus' mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:

John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:

Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.

Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.

Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:


Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the "sisters" of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.

Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.

Sometimes she is called "the other" Mary.

Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre.

OK, so far we've established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus' mother.

What about Simon and Jude.

Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:

Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.

Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,

Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.

If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:

Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean: 19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.

Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus kin.

Therefore, they're existence does not disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.


Thank you for giving us the "Ex Cathedra" statements. The immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. What basis is there for either one of these ideas, other than in the mind of a Pope? There is no tradition written or otherwise to support them, and they are both of recent origin.

You should have said that you know of no tradition written or otherwise. The Tradition for both of these doctrines is as old as Scripture.

First of all, the Immaculate Conception is based in part on the Proto Evangelium:
Genesis 3:15 (King James Version)

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Therefore, since enmity always existed between the Woman, Mary and Satan, then there was never any covenant between them. Therefore, Mary never sinned.

The Assumption is based on the fact that St. John saw Mary in heaven:
Revelation 12

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

There you go. Anyone can now compare the Scriptures upon which you base your beliefs and the Scriptures upon which I base mine. They can now make an informed decision.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You are correct, Akoue. The idea that Mary was "ever virgin" is what many, if not most, early Christians believed.

Here are some quotes from early Christian writers:

The Protoevangelium of James


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).



Origen


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).



Hilary of Poitiers


"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).



Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).



Jerome


"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).



Didymus the Blind


"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).



Ambrose of Milan


"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).



Pope Siricius I


"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).



Augustine


"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).



Leporius


"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).



Cyril of Alexandria


"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).



Pope Leo I


"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

Source quoted is here (http://catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp).

All this (dogma of perpetal virginity)is in contradiction to the plain historical record that Jesus had (half) brothers and sisters. The Greek word for brethern is adelphos and is taken from alpha and delphus. So what we have is "one womb" which would more accurately show a sibling of the same mother than some more distant relative, although that is possible also. But the Scriptures showing his relatives all use the same word. I will settle for the first definition rather that a more remote one.

AND if you read my post, that wasn't one that I said was recent.

As to your argument about the number of "protestant" churches: Baptist churches are independent and even ordain at the local level, so there are going to be a LOT of them.

The Pentecostals have several different organizations because they sprang up after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (1900) in several different parts of the country. What these different groups teach is interchangeable, except for the United Pentecostal which does not accept the Trinity.

And there is not really a lot of difference in what the vast majority believe. The differences are mostly about less important details and structure of the orginazation.

Catholic, Protestant ? What the...

It is still about God and Jesus Christ... right?

Then let us love one another as He has us :)






G&P

All this (dogma of perpetal virginity)is in contradiction to the plain historical record that Jesus had (half) brothers and sisters. The Greek word for brethern is adelphos and is taken from alpha and delphus. So what we have is "one womb" which would more accurately show a sibling of the same mother than some more distant relative, although that is possible also. But the Scriptures showing his relatives all use the same word. I will settle for the first definition rather that a more remote one.


I would disagree with your interpretation. In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:

17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn’t that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.

JoeT

I remain unconvinced, as do you. I am going to drop the subject, only because it is unproductive.

I do want to clarify this in exiting.

I will defend the fact of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ with everything within me. It doesn't bother me whether Mary remained a virgin or whether she and Joseph later had a house full of children.

What IS important is that Jesus of Nazareth IS the Son of God.

All this (dogma of perpetal virginity)...

Not only was Mary immaculate but she was the Mother of God and the perpetual virgin.

The virginity of Mary has been part of Catholic theology since Christ. Below we see the Council of Ephesus declare the Virgin Mary Mother of God as well as declare that Christ was begotten not made. To believe in anything other than Theotokos is to believe that Jesus Christ was made and not begotten:

Mary birthed God, “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Cf. Luke 1) The fact that God resided in the womb of Mary is why Mary’s womb was like the Holy of Holies in Moses’ Tabernacle (Cf. Ex 32?-40). To suggest that God resided in an unclean temple simply would have been unimaginable in Christ's time and is as unimaginable as Moses failing to keep the Tabernacle ritually clean. Thus, we conclude that Mary received a special grace from God and made immaculate (without sin).

If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema. . Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)

Given the verse, Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN This establishes that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. How does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary’s Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. Thus Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies. This Tabernacle would have remained pure as did Mary in her of life celibacy. Being literally full of grace, literally, full of Christ, would we, could we, expect less.

I’ll go a step further, not only was Mary Ever Virgin, so was Joseph.

… Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication… the conclusion is that [Joseph] who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.

Thus Mary was immaculate and virgin and Mother of God.


She was the selfless handmaiden of God, blessed among women, full of grace; the “Mother of my Lord.” (Cf. Luke 1) What other person in the New Testament is honored this way?


God was infused into Christ at the moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, who was man with God infused. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according to “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33)


Mary birthed Christ. Just as we call the woman that gave birth to us, we call Mary the Mother of Christ; conceived in her womb she brought forth a son, the Messiah

JoeT

I remain unconvinced, as do you. I am going to drop the subject, only because it is unproductive.

I do want to clarify this in exiting.

I will defend the fact of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ with everything within me. It doesn't bother me whether Mary remained a virgin or whether she and Joseph later had a house full of children.

What IS important is that Jesus of Nazareth IS the Son of God.

I wonder why you are unconvinced. Do you deny the Scripture which says that James and Joseph are the children of Mary of Clophas?

Do you deny the Scripture that says that Mary of Clophas is the sister of Mary the Mother of our Lord?

If Scripture doesn't convince you, what will? Obviously you are clinging to man made tradition or else you would be able to provide the Scripture to refute this.

....What IS important is that Jesus of Nazareth IS the Son of God.

I concur.

[QUOTE=De Maria;1643347]I wonder why you are unconvinced. Do you deny the Scripture which says that James and Joseph are the children of Mary of Clophas?

Chapter and verse, please.

Try these on for size.


John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(KJV)

Matt 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)

Luke 10:22
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)

John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(KJV)

Define "God" as applies to the birth of Jesus. I know, not on topic, but someone touched on it in an earlier post.

[QUOTE=De Maria;1643347]I wonder why you are unconvinced. Do you deny the Scripture which says that James and Joseph are the children of Mary of Clophas?

Chapter and verse, please.

Sorry, I assumed you had read my previous response on this topic. Here it is again:

According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:

Matthew 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

First, we see that Jesus' mother has a "sister". From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus' mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:

John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:

Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.

Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.

Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:


Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the "sisters" of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.

Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.

Sometimes she is called "the other" Mary.

Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre.

OK, so far we've established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus' mother.

What about Simon and Jude.

Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:

Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.

Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,

Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.

If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:

Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean: 19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.

Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus kin.


Try these on for size.

What are you reading into these Scriptures? I don't see anything disproving the perpetual virgiinity of Mary.


John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(KJV)

Matt 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)

Luke 10:22
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)

John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(KJV)

Sooo?


Define "God" as applies to the birth of Jesus. I know, not on topic, but someone touched on it in an earlier post.

Do you mean that God the Father gave His only begotten Son that all who believe in Him may be saved?

Otherwise, I have no clue what you are getting at.

I notice that you work some Catholic tradition in to prove your point.

The verses I posted last simply show that to call Mary the "mother of God" is convoluted reasoning.

Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.

Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus, which is the reason He referred to Himself as the "son of man".

I have read your replies to this objection before. The RC has had millennia to perfect its dogmas. That doesn't mean they are right, though.

Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.
Of course He did! What do you think the Trinity is? Trinity = God. Jesus is one Person in the Trinity. The other two Persons are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Holy Spirit = God. Trinity = Three Persons = God.

The Book of John starts with the affirmation that in the beginning Jesus as Word "was with God and ...was God" (John 1:1). John 8:58, "before Abraham was born, I am!"; 10:30, "I and the Father are one"; 10:38, "The Father is in me, and I in the Father"; and 20:28, "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.

The Word, the second Person of the Trinity, existed before Mary. Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who did not exist before Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. If he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, he could not have pre-existed Mary. Also, to say otherwise is to reject a transformationist christology.


Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus,

This is Nestorianism. Jesus Christ had, from the moment of his conception, both a human nature and a divine nature. In giving birth to Jesus, who had both a human and divine nature from the moment of his conception, Mary gave birth to both the human nature and the divine nature. This is why the Council of Ephesus called her "Theotokos".

I notice that you work some Catholic tradition in to prove your point.

There's one point that needs to be made here. It's only with the discipline of Catholic Tradition (capital T/Dogma) that one can come to the fullness of the meaning in Sola Scriptura; the authority of the Holy Magisterium. Consequently, all matters of faith come from Catholic Tradition in harmony with Holy Scripture.


The verses I posted last simply show that to call Mary the "mother of God" is convoluted reasoning.

The verses quoted had nothing to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary.


Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.

Christ was God. To believe anything else is simply unchristian.

Moses was commanded to make a sanctuary wherein God would dwell. It was kept Holy; wherein the Holy of Holies resided. “And they shall make me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in the midst of them” Exodus 25:8 God's words are timeless, immortal. His Words don't begin and end. He proclaimed a priesthood that would perpetually keep his Tabernacle clean; there shall “be priests to me by a perpetual" Exodus 29:9

And it was foretold that a virgin would encompass a Man, “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN “ (Jeremiah 31:22) And when this Man/incarnate God should be encompassed in the womb of Mary, would this not make Mary the Tabernacle, her womb the Holy of Holies? May literally was full of God, full of grace. How then do you debase her and still hold her Son Holy? Would not this Tabernacle be any less immaculate then the Tabernacle kept clean by the eternal order of priests?

Mary birthed God; He was “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Cf. Luke 1) The fact that God resided in the womb of Mary is why Mary's womb was like the Holy of Holies in Moses' Tabernacle (Cf. Ex 32-40). To suggest that God resided in an unclean temple simply would have been unimaginable in Christ's time and is as unimaginable as Moses failing to keep the Tabernacle ritually clean. Thus, we conclude that Mary received a special grace from God and made immaculate (without sin).


I have read your replies to this objection before. The RC has had millennia to perfect its dogmas. That doesn't mean they are right, though.

The RC's dogma are correct because She was commissioned by Christ, authorized by God, to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Her faith in Christ doesn't depend on your approval; God's truth remains absolute whether you believe.

JoeT

I notice that you work some Catholic tradition in to prove your point.

The verses I posted last simply show that to call Mary the "mother of God" is convoluted reasoning.

That is also from Scripture:
Here, St. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit recognizes that God is in Mary's womb and says:
Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

And the child in her womb also leaps for joy when she arrives. Certainly, they wouldn't have responded thus if they did not realize the Divine nature of that child.


Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.

Actually, He did. He referred to Himself as I AM.


Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus, which is the reason He referred to Himself as the "son of man".

That's the Nestorian heresy.


I have read your replies to this objection before. The RC has had millennia to perfect its dogmas. That doesn't mean they are right, though.

Neither does that mean that they are wrong. And the fact that they have succeeded for so many years lends a great deal of credence to the possibility that they are right.

Besides, we believe Jesus promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Which lends Divine guarantee to ensure that the Church is right.

Your various replies are educational They are giving me a better understanding of what Catholics believe.

Now, one more Scripture, and I hope to move on to another related subject.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

That word "till" says to me that Joseph took Mary as his actual wife after the birth of Jesus. What say you?

That word "till" says to me that Joseph took Mary as his actual wife after the birth of Jesus. What say you?
Lutherans believe this verse means the marriage was consummated after the birth of Jesus. A betrothal back then meant nearly the same as a marriage except the two didn't live together until marriage papers had been signed.

Your various replies are educational They are giving me a better understanding of what Catholics believe.

Now, one more Scripture, and I hope to move on to another related subject.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

That word "till" says to me that Joseph took Mary as his actual wife after the birth of Jesus. What say you?

No, this doesn’t mean that the marriage of Joseph and Mary were consecrated after the birth of Jesus. Mary was Ever Virgin. I’ll explain using the words of St. Jerome to show that the Great TILL controversy was resolved in Catholic faith over 1700 years ago. That is to say, a Virgin Mary is not a newly held tenet of the Church.

Our reply is briefly this,— the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not. Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? 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 His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

The word of God says in Genesis, And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day. Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day. We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 A.D. CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)

I agree with St. Jerome, that not only was Mary Ever Virgin, so too was Joseph. Jerome continues:

But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. Ibid

JoeT

[I]No, this doesn't mean that the marriage of Joseph and Mary were consecrated after the birth of Jesus. Mary was Ever Virgin.
I said consummated, not consecrated (HUGE difference), and mentioned that is the Lutheran understanding. Their betrothal made them married in the eyes of the Jewish faith.

Why did the Catholic Church decide Mary couldn't have married sex? God charged Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Does married sex taint her?

I said consummated, not consecrated (HUGE difference), and mentioned that is the Lutheran understanding.

They are two different words after all.That is why you are most likely an excellent librarian.

I said consummated, not consecrated (HUGE difference), and mentioned that is the Lutheran understanding. Their betrothal made them married in the eyes of the Jewish faith.

Why did the Catholic Church decide Mary couldn't have married sex? God charged Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Does married sex taint her?


Same difference to the Catholic (or Jew). Marriage isn't wholly consecrated until it is consummated. Consummation becomes the final act of a consecrated marriage.


Sex dosen't 'taint' married individuals. Read a few of my past posts; Mary was a Tabernacle (Like that built by Moses), the Holy of Holies. She was pure because, as Mother of God She was literally full of Grace.


JoeT

Your various replies are educational They are giving me a better understanding of what Catholics believe.

Now, one more Scripture, and I hope to move on to another related subject.

Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)

That word "till" says to me that Joseph took Mary as his actual wife after the birth of Jesus. What say you?

To the Hebrew mind, the word "till" (i.e. heos) does not necessarily connote a change in relationship after the designated time. It only denotes what has occurred unto that time.

Read the BLB:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2193&t=KJV)

Here's an example in another part of Scripture:
In fact, this is the same way heos hou continues the action of a number of instances in the LXX. For example, in Genesis 8:5 it states:

The water decreased steadily UNTIL [heos hou] the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

Obviously, heos hou does not intend to cease the action of the main clause ("the water decreased steadily"), rather it allows that the water continued to decrease even after the tenth month. Otherwise, the earth would still be flooded.
Catholic Apologetics International (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/svend-funeral.htm)

So, the sentence:

Knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son, simply means that he knew her not before she brought forth her first born son but does not necessarily mean that the relationship changed after ward.

In addition, we consider that Jewish tradition would render St. Joseph unrighteous if he had conjugal relations with Mary.

Coupled with this fact, we don't believe that St. Joseph had conjugal relations with Mary because St. Joseph is described in Scripture as a righteous man.

Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Since God had already taken possession of Mary, St. Joseph would not have transgressed God's prior rights to Mary.

Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately. His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife <(paralambano gunaika)> but not cohabiting with her. For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.
Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm)

Therefore, we conclude that the sentence:

Knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son, simply means that he knew her not before she brought forth her first born son but says nothing about him knowing her after she brought forth her son.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Same difference to the Catholic. The marriage isn’t wholly consecrated until it is consummated. Consummation becomes the final act of a consecrated marriage.


Sex dosen't 'taint' married individuals. Read a few of my past posts; Mary was a Tabernacle (Like that built by Moses), the Holy of Holies. She was pure because, as Mother of God she was literally full of Grace.


JoeT
It just seems to me that this idea of Mary as "ever virgin" puts a bad light on married sex, like she was too good for it.

It just seems to me that this idea of Mary as "ever virgin" puts a bad light on married sex, like she was too good for it.


Why? That just doesn't make any sense.

Why? That just dosn't make any sense.
Of course it does. God comanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Why was she exempt from that? She was a human just like you and me.

Of course it does. God comanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Why was she exempt from that? She was a human just like you and me.

She wasn’t exempted from anything. Mary took on the role of the New Eve. She consciously accepted God’s will in obedient love. “And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word” Luke 1.

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Luke 1

JoeT

It just seems to me that this idea of Mary as "ever virgin" puts a bad light on married sex, like she was too good for it.

More like He was too good for it.

Ezekiel 44:2
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

More like He was too good for it.
Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, but still a human being with all the wants and needs of one. To deny her sexual feelings and desires seems counterproductive. She, of all people, would be mortified that a church decided to pronounce her, a self-described humble servant of the Lord, sinless and swept into heaven bodily.

Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, but still a human being with all the wants and needs of one. To deny her sexual feelings and desires seems counterproductive. She, of all people, would be mortified that a church decided to pronounce her, a self-described humble servant of the Lord, sinless and swept into heaven bodily.

It’s precisely Mary’s humility that made her the handmaiden of God. She wasn’t self-described, she was acclaimed by an angel of God, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Wouldn’t the “fullness of grace” be much more heartwarming than her human desires? Any animal can reproduce. Only one woman encompassed Christ, why deny her that Glory?

JoeT

It's precisely Mary's humility that made her the handmaiden of God. She wasn't self-described, she was acclaimed by an angel of God, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Wouldn't the “fullness of grace” be much more heartwarming than her human desires? Any animal can reproduce. Only one woman encompassed Christ, why deny her that Glory?

JoeT
She called herself "servant." That's self-described in my book. So you are tossing away her human desires so you can put her on a pedestal? You have consigned her to a sexless life so you can call her "ever virgin"?

Any animal can reproduce? She did produce Jesus the normal way mothers have babies. Nothing was original in the process. Jesus didn't pop out of her forehead like Athena did out of Zeus's. I'm guessing she had labor contractions for any number of hours. I'm guessing they hurt like labor contractions hurt. I'm guessing she got all sweaty with the effort and probably grunted and even screamed between moans. I'm guessing she spent labor thinking and worrying about all the things we mothers think and worry about. The fact that this baby was the Son of God was probably far down on her list, after "how much longer will this labor last" and "will he nurse readily" and "will he have all his fingers and toes". There wasn't much glory going on during labor, and, according to NT stories that included mention of her, not much glory otherwise either -- no room in the inn, losing track of her Son in Jerusalem, being scolded by her Son at the Cana wedding, standing at the foot of the cross on Golgatha.

She called herself "servant." That's self-described in my book. So you are tossing away her human desires so you can put her on a pedestal? You have consigned her to a sexless life so you can call her "ever virgin"?

If you’re talking about here soliloquy, I don’t see the same significance. She is eulogizing God’s glory that such as her should be so honored. Are you imprinting your own bias onto Mary? Should she have been more like you to pass muster?


Any animal can reproduce? She did produce Jesus the normal way mothers have babies. Nothing was original in the process. Jesus didn't pop out of her forehead like Athena did out of Zeus's.

Yes, but how does a virgin do this and remain virgin? Remember, Mary is EVER virgin. So, you see Catholics see more of a mystery in Christ’s birth than the birth of an ordinary man.


I'm guessing she had labor contractions for any number of hours. I'm guessing they hurt like labor contractions hurt. I'm guessing she got all sweaty with the effort and probably grunted and even screamed between moans. I'm guessing she spent labor thinking and worrying about all the things we mothers think and worry about. The fact that this baby was the Son of God was probably far down on her list, after "how much longer will this labor last" and "will he nurse readily" and "will he have all his fingers and toes".

I’m sorry; I just can’t envision an all loving God bringing harm to His Mother, even in birth. Remember, we are talking about a God who became man, allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified so that you could be free of sin. Would such a God bring pain to His earthly mother? I think not. There was much more to Christ’s birth than the presence of the Magi.


There wasn't much glory going on during labor, and, according to NT stories that included mention of her, not much glory otherwise either -- no room in the inn, losing track of her Son in Jerusalem, being scolded by her Son at the Cana wedding, standing at the foot of the cross on Golgatha.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? You start with saying that Mary held herself above mere mortals and now you complain of her humanity. I’m confused; which way is it to be?

JoeT

If you're talking about here soliloquy, I don't see the same significance. She is eulogizing God's glory that such as her should be so honored. Are you imprinting your own bias onto Mary? Should she have been more like you to pass muster?
She called herself God's servant. My bias for WHAT? She was like me and that's the glory of it, of her calling.

Yes, but how does a virgin do this and remain virgin? Remember, Mary is EVER virgin. So, you see Catholics see more of a mystery in Christ's birth than the birth of an ordinary man.
A virgin is a woman who has never been penetrated vaginally by a man. Mary had this Baby Jesus and was still a virgin. I have no problem with that. But why consign her to virginity and no sex life for the rest of her life? That makes it look like there is something wicked about married sex.

I'm sorry; I just can't envision an all loving God bringing harm to His Mother, even in birth. Remember, we are talking about a God who became man, allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified so that you could be free of sin. Would such a God bring pain to His earthly mother? I think not. There was much more to Christ's birth than the presence of the Magi.
So you don't think she experienced labor contractions, didn't sweat and moan and cry out during labor? She was fully human! She wasn't upset and worried when Jesus was missing in Jerusalem? She wasn't a bit put out at first when her Son scolded her at the wedding? She wasn't heartbroken at the foot of the cross? You would deny her her humanity?

You start with saying that Mary held herself above mere mortals and now you complain of her humanity.
I didn't say she held herself above mere mortals. I said she WAS a mere mortal.

Bottom line here.

My original point is that for Catholics, Tradition trumps Scripture. That has been fully demonstrated in the above posts, several different times and ways.

And this on a subject that has absolutely NO bearing on the Person and Lordship of Jesus Christ or our relationship with Him.

There are other Traditions that DO deal with VITAL spiritual issues, and therefore more important.

Like the Tradition of Immaculate Conception.

Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)

(Mary was saved by FAITH, just like everyone else.)

Ps 14:2-3
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)

Rom 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)

Rom 3:12
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)

Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

There is nothing clearer in Scripture than the universal need of salvation.

If ONE person can be born of man without a fallen nature, then ALL can be born of man without a fallen nature.

Do you deny that Mary was conceived in the ususl manner?

Once again, Tradition trumps Scripture?

This is important, because if it were possible for God to grant salvation to any human without the sacrifice of Jesue Christ, then what He did at Calvary was Unnecessary.

Which way do you see it?

Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, but still a human being with all the wants and needs of one.

You are expressing what you feel. It is difficult to express to some that those who love God with all their heart, do not need human companionship. Least of all, a sex life, to be happy.


To deny her sexual feelings and desires seems counterproductive.

You confuse sex and love.

Yes, between married humans, sex is the physical expression of love. But neither St. Joseph nor St. Mary loved each other more than they loved God. They loved God more and were united to Him in a profound union. They, in fact, did not fit the description in St. Paul's lament for they who are married:

Romans 7 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

They in fact, lived as he suggested that we should live:
29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Why? Because they lived as though they were married to God.


She, of all people, would be mortified that a church decided to pronounce her, a self-described humble servant of the Lord, sinless and swept into heaven bodily.

I doubt it. Humility does not mean a refusal to acknowledge the gifts one receives from God. In fact, that is a form of pride.

True humility proclaims the grace on has received of God and gives thanks for it.

My original point is that for Catholics, Tradition trumps Scripture. That has been fully demonstrated in the above posts, several different times and ways.

You are wrong.

Many non-Catholic Christians believe similarly but this is incorrect. It is an "urban legend".

Bottom line here.

My original point is that for Catholics, Tradition trumps Scripture. That has been fully demonstrated in the above posts, several different times and ways.

That is not what we've said. We've said, in so many words, that Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God.

However, you seem to believe that Scripture trumps Tradition. Could you show me from Scripture?


And this on a subject that has absolutely NO bearing on the Person and Lordship of Jesus Christ or our relationship with Him.

It has a tremendous bearing in our relationship with Christ. But we read Scripture differently. As you know, we read the spirit and the letter of Scripture. Whereas you are taught to eschew the spirit and read only the letter. But this itself is against Scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


There are other Traditions that DO deal with VITAL spiritual issues, and therefore more important.

Like the Tradition of Immaculate Conception.

Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)

(Mary was saved by FAITH, just like everyone else.)

Mary was saved by GRACE, just like everyone else. And she maintained her salvation THROUGH her faith and works:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


Ps 14:2-3
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)

Rom 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)

Rom 3:12
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)

You forgot one more verse from Romans, which we should not ignore but include in order that we can get a balanced understanding of Scripture on this topic:

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Therefore, Scripture acknowledges that not all have sinned. This is confirmed in logic because we know that many have died in the womb and as infants. And they certainly did not sin before they could have intended to offend the Will of God.


Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)

There is nothing clearer in Scripture than the universal need of salvation.

Correct. That is why Mary was saved at the moment she was conceived.


If ONE person can be born of man without a fallen nature, then ALL can be born of man without a fallen nature.

Correct.


Do you deny that Mary was conceived in the ususl manner?

Do you mean in a sexual relationship between Sts. Joaquim and Anna, her father and mother? No.

Do you mean do I believe that she was conceived without original sin on her soul? Yes.


Once again, Tradition trumps Scripture?

Show me where Scripture says that she was conceived with original sin on her soul.


Scripture does not say that Mary was conceived in the usual manner.

This is important, because if it were possible for God to grant salvation to any human without the sacrifice of Jesue Christ, then what He did at Calvary was Unnecessary.

Which way do you see it?

As the Church teaches it.

We are not necessary. God is self contained and can exist without us. Therefore if we are unnecessary, then it is certainly unnecessary that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity should need to become man and be sacrificed on the Cross to save us.

That simply shows the extent of God's love for us. That He did something for us which was unnecessary for Him. HIS LOVE FOR US IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION!

You are expressing what you feel. It is difficult to express to some that those who love God with all their heart, do not need human companionship. Least of all, a sex life, to be happy.
But all you say in your post is based on church tradition (with capital letters?), not with any Scriptural backing, especially specifically to Mary and Joseph. It's a lovely, romantic thought that the two of them did not live together as normal married people but walked around wearing halos and looking blessed. My idea of them is that they were deeply immersed in the everyday pleasures of work, family, and marriage, including marital sex.

Why? Because they lived as though they were married to God.

There is absolutely no Biblical evidence that they did.

Show me where Scripture says that she was conceived with original sin on her soul.
Show us where it says she was conceived sinless.

Why weren't Mary's parents conceived sinless too?

Show us where it says she was conceived sinless.

Why weren't Mary's parents conceived sinless too?

Genesis 3:15 will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The Holy Mother is the New Eve. She is the woman whose seed crushes the head of the serpent.

Luke 1:28 chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace. You can't be full of grace if you're not immaculate. Maybe the Angel was wrong? Nah!

Tradition also speaks volumes of Mary being immaculate. If you care to, I'll let you look these up yourself. (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)


And finally we have the decree of Pius IX (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm)


JoeT

Genesis 3:15 will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
There is much debate regarding that interpretation.

Maybe the Angle was wrong? Nah!
That's not what the "angle" meant. Are we doing geometry now?

As a Christian, I'm full of grace -- God's grace.

Tradition also speaks volumes of Mary being immaculate.
But the Scriptures never mention it.

And finally we have the decree of Pius IX (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm)
Who?

There is much debate regarding that interpretation.

That's not what the "angle" meant. Are we doing geometry now?

As a Christian, I'm full of grace -- God's grace.

But the Scriptures never mention it.

Who?

I was taught that Euclid was angling for Saint Hood. So, I was help’en.

There is much debate regarding that interpretation.

Plain Latin is too much for you? I can understand angles Greek, so what’s so hard about plain Latin to English.


That's not what the "angle" meant. Are we doing geometry now?

Uhm What part of ‘full of grace’ do you not understand? The last I heard is it meant ‘full of grace.’ There are no angles here!

As a Christian, I'm full of grace -- God's grace. [/QUOTE]


But the Scriptures never mention it. I've got the Church and the Apostles also. I hope you don't fly much - like on airplanes - because they aren't in Scripture either. [/QUOTE]


Who?
Pope Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm) --- Pope Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134b.htm) ---


JoeT

Plain Latin is too much for you? I can understand angles Greek, so what's so hard about plain Latin to English.
Ummmm, it's not Latin. It's Greek. It is translated as "Yo, God has chosen you."

And that's your proof that Mary was sinless?

Ummmm, it's not Latin. It's Greek.

Oops

Oops
And I am supposed to believe you after that??

And I am supposed to believe you after that?????

Well wasn't it you who said that Catholics weren't infallible?

Well wasn't it you who said that Catholics weren't infallible?
You're so darn cute, Joe!

[QUOTE=lenox263;1638334]Here is My Reasons

Why am I not Roman Catholic?

My friend Lenox 263,

I have just come across your interesting and somewhat biased (in my opinion, of course) post.

Allow me to refer to it for a while.

First, I assume you are a Christian, which implies that both you and I (who am a Roman Catholic follower) agree in the most important argument of them all... i.e.: we both believe in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and therefore, God Himself!

This said, let me try to give you my opinion to the different points you raise.

1 – The Encyclopedia clearly points out that Tertulian, around the tear 200, in Carthage, already said: "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross"...

Furthermore, not only Catholics use the sign. Martin Luther's positive personal view, prescribed the use of the sign in Book of Common Prayer and the defense of the sign of the Cross in Anglican Canon Law in 1604.

As for the prayers for the dead these, according to Catholic teachings, are bound up inseparably with our belief in the doctrine of purgatory and the more general doctrine of the communion of the saints, which is an article of the Apostle's Creed. Other than that Scripture references concerning the dead are numerous and rather explicit.

But I think, this is beside the point. Even if both the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross were dated ONLY one year ago, could you please explain what is wrong with them?

2. (Wax Candles) - No matter how much I try I fail to see any connection with when they were introduced and the RCC or any other denomination. Please explain, if you can!

3. (Veneration of angels and dead saints) - The First Commandment says “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.. (... ) Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5). It is of course obvious that the emphasis of this law is in the first and last clauses -- "no strange gods", "thou shalt not adore them". Angels and saints are NOT gods. In addition, venerating them is absolutely optional.

4. (The Mass, as a daily celebration) - The earliest surviving account of the celebration of the Eucharist or the Mass in Rome is that of Saint Justin Martyr (died c. 165), as mentioned in chapter 67 of his First Apology . However, you should realize that the Catholic Mass is nothing but the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice that Jesus established in the Last Supper. So we could generously grant Jesus the privilege of having said the First Mass!

5. (The worship of Mary) - Of course, if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, then there is no need to discuss the subject. John said “Jesus is the ‘only-begotten Son’” (John 3:16)... It is just a matter of Faith.

6. (Priests began to dress differently... ) – Fantastic! And in the 21st century we ALL dress alightly different than they did in the 1st century! So what?

• 7. (The doctrine of Purgatory) - And.. If you do not like the idea, do you accept that of Heaven and Hell?

8. (The Latin language:.) - 1 Cor. 14:9 clearly states: “Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the ai “ Latin in the 16th century WAS NOT an unknown language, nor it is now. As a matter of fact, Latin has been traditionally used as a common language for members of the church from different countries to understand each other. The Popes encyclical letters are originally written in Latin, although the Mass right now is celebrated in the language of each country...

9. (The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone::.) - Praying to saints and to the Virgin Mary is NOT compulsory. It is just a matter of personal devotion. It is like is you are in a big Hospital with a famous head doctor responsible of everything, but you have become more familiar with one of the nurses for those things that are not so. Important.

10. (The Papacy is of pagan origin... ) - We, Catholics, believe in Jesus’ words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.(Matthew 16:18) Jesus Christ repeats his mandate to Peter (John, 21, 15) Luke cites a mandate from Jesus to Peter to “strengthen his brothers” (Luke, 22, 31). As for St. Peter having lived in Rome, Lutheran Adolf Harnack stated, “Tendentious-Protestant and tendentious-critical prejudice questioned the martyrdom of Peter in Rome. Both errors led to the truth”. Still, each one is entitled to his/her own beliefs on the subject. But this does not alter our belief in the Son of God.

11. (The kissing of the Pope's... ) - Holy Mackerel! People also used to walk backwards when exiting from the Hall Throne. Would that be a reason for becoming a catholic or else? Nowadays, nobody kisses the Pope’s feet anymore..

12. (The Temporal power of the Popes... ) - I would say that there have been many Popes that as human beings as they were giving priority to their earthen whims rather than to Jesus’ message. They have most likely already received their punishment from the Almighty. We all know that no Church (whether Catholic or else) is perfect, as it is ruled by men. What is perfect is Jesus’ Message and Law...

13. (Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized in 788AD). - So what? What is that supposed to imply?

14. (Holy Water... ) - I honestly cannot imagine what are you driving at? Most Catholic Churches in Spain do not use Holy Water any more... So what?

15. (The veneration of St. Joseph began in 890AD... ) - Awe-inspiring problem! Can’t see how we have survived with that event upon our consciences..

16. (The baptism of bells... ) - Had I known it before I should have given up being a Catholic and would have become a Budhist. They only touch them with their hands...

17. (Canonization of dead saints... ) - (Rom, 1:7) says. 7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” Are you sure you understand the meaning? Called to be saints does not mean ALL of us. I, for one, am a Catholic, and I’m far from being a saint, unfortunately...

18. (Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed in the year 998AD) - Fasting for religious and spiritual reasons has been a part of human custom since pre-history. It is mentioned in the Bible, in both the Old Testament (the Tanach) and New Testament, the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, and the Upanishads. Fasting is also practiced in many other religious traditions and spiritual practices. In fact, Jesus himself fasted 40 days in the desert, and this is what we commemorate in our Lent.

19. (The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice... ) - I’m not going to argue over this point... I think you should read again the chapters you point out.

20. (The celibacy of the priesthood... ) - That is right.. Clerical celibacy is practiced mainly by Roman Catholic priests and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox bishops and Eastern Catholic bishops. However, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox tradition consider the rule of clerical celibacy to be a dogma, but instead as a rule that could be adjusted if thought appropriate.

21. (The Rosary... ) - To tell you the truth, I have the feeling you have just copied the whole list you exposed in your post from some Internet web, and you have not red the citations you mention. (Matt 6:5-13) “ 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.. ”
The Rosary has nothing to do whatsoever with what those this message was addressed to, were doing...

22. (The Inquisition... ) - What you say is absolutely true. Even so, the most extraordinary and glorious thing about Catholicism is perhaps that DESPITE the many failings and misdeeds made by catholic Popes, bishops and priests along its history and the many transgressions of God’s Law, we constantly make, Jesus’ message continues to be the same (it could not be otherwise) and the number of Catholics keeps on growing all over the world.

23. (The sale of Indulgence... ) - Again you are right! One of the transgressions I mention before. Actually, this is what induce Luther to start his reform.

24. (The dogma of Transubstantiation... ) - As you say, this a dogma, and as such I’m not going to debate it. If you do not believe it, it is fine with me. I cannot prove it is true any more than you cannot prove it is false...

25. (Confession of sins... ) – Wrong. John 20:23 says: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

27. (The Bible forbidden to laymen... ) - another faux pas of that Pope... You are not pretending that now we cannot read the Bible, are you? What really matters is not to make mistakes (we all do) but to be able to correct them... Henry VIII killed Thomas More and split with the Catholic Pope Clement VII because he refused to authorize his divorce from queen Catalina of Aragon to marry Anne Bolena. Subsequently, he founded the Church of England, of which he proclaimed himself the head... I would consider that also a faux pas... and yet...

28. (The Scapular... ) - These sort of practices were common many years ago... Not any more...

29. (The Roman Church forbade the cup... ) - Again this is history... At present, it is possible to have the Holy Communion both with the bread and the wine. You only have to ask it.

30. (The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma... ) - Yes, but the blood of Christ cleans ONLY the sinners who truly repent of their sins. The purgatory is supposed to exist ONLY for those who are not clean enough to enter the Kingdom.

31. (The doctrine of 7 Sacraments... ) - Again, I think you should read more carefully your own citations.

32. (The Ave Maria.. ) - And what is wrong with it? Just another beautiful prayer that we like to say after the Lord’s Prayer... but, of course, if you think the Virgin was just another woman, what can I say?
33. (The Council of Trent... ) - That was in the XVI century, perhaps now they would have agreed on something else...

34. (The apocryphal books... ) - The Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah either...
35. (The Creed of Pope Pius IV... ) - Gal. 1:8 says "But, even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! “ That I know the Tridentine Creed does not say anything regarding the Gospels... It goes without saying that St. Paul was referring to other Gospels than those from the 4 evangelists.

36. (The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary... ) - No point in discussing this point either; if you don’t believe it, and obviously, you don’t... Your privilege. As far as we are concerned it is a matter of faith. While we cannot prove it you, nor anybody else, can prove the contrary either. But, even assuming she was not born without the original sin may I ask you what would be the difference?

37. (In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility... ) - Only when he is Ex-Catedra... Those Bible students you mention have a great imagination... Once again, I think you do not read your Bible carefully enough...

38. (Pope Pius X, in the year 1907... ) - And 1616 Pope Paul V condemned Galileo Gallilei to ostracism... So what? I have said Popes are human beings, haven’t I? Do you know any religious head who is perfect?

39.( In the year 1930 Pius XI... ) - See the above!

40. Read your Bible, please. Still, no point in discussing this.

41. (In the year 1950... ) - Same as above...

42. [(Revelation 17:9) The Roman Catholic Church is the Woman of seven hills... ] – If you do not mind my saying so, I believe that you most certainly DO NOT understand the implications of St. John’s text, and I’m not going to explain them to you for lack of space and time, and also because I am not talented enough to enter the intricacies of the Book of Revelation.

Let me just add, hoever, that whatever denomination you may belong to, the important and basic point is that you must also believe in Jesus Christ and in his Message, the same as we do.

When I lived in the States (in Queens, NY) in the same street where I lived there were 3 Christian Churches of different denominations just because they had a few peculiarities that differentiate them.

I think you should consider us as having some peculiarities which are not, after all, so important insofar we ALL believe in the same basic principle. In One GOD who created everything and in Jesus Christ, GOD incarnated, who died in the Cross to redeem mankind from its sins... :p:p

Let me sum up a response to several posts at one time.

I agree with Wondergirl in her appraisal of what Mary went through to deliver Jesus. Catholic tradition on that point certainly wasn't formulated by any MOTHER!

I am not Nestorian. I do believe that Jesus is very God and Perfect man. I am sure none of you will argue that Mary birthed I AM. What she birthed was the human body that I AM lived in and ministered through while He walked on Earth. Since she did NOT birth I AM, then it is convoluted reasoning to call her the Mother of God.

You are strong on Tradition and quote Popes and others about various subjects. I see that you draw from meetings held in Alexandria. The church used writings from Antioch, as they found the writings from Alexandria to be corrupted.
A mere 60 years after the ascention of Jesus, the church had become corrupted. This can be seen from the writings of Apostle Paul and from the letters to the churches that Jesus dictated to John while he was on Patmos.

As to the Immaculate Conception, if the Apostles believed it, why did NONE of them write about it? (Such things are why Voltaire made his infamous statement)

What makes you believe that the Holy Spirit does not teach me the truth revealed in the Bible? If I warn you that your ship has a leak, don't you think you should at least check for water in the hold?

NOW, lets examine the claim of the bodily assumption of Mary. Give me your best Scriptures.

Let me sum up a response to several posts at one time.


NOW, lets examine the claim of the bodily assumption of Mary. Give me your best Scriptures.

As far as we Catholics are concerned the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary is a dogma defined by Pius XII, in 1950.

Therefore, those who are not Catholic can either believe it or not, as they please; by the same token, I question their right to decide what we can or should believe...

Still, from a history point of view we can find references late 3rd century in the “Liber Requiei Mariae and in some writing of St. Meliton, bishop of Sardis, in Asia Minor (2nd century AD). St. John of Damascus (8th century AD) also mentions that during the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, emperor Marcian claimed that when the apostles went to Mary’s tomb, they found it empty!

Some of the Church Fathers believed that the Virgin Mary was assumed while still alive, others that she was assumed after she had died. Both views are permitted under the infallible definition of Pius XII.

Come what may, accounts of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven have been circulating since the 5th century.

Also, some catholic theologians use the symbology of the Book of Revelation, chapter 12, The Woman and the Dragon, as referring to this mystery.

Another apocrypha texts going back to the 4th century is the “Six Books” Dormition Narrative, as well as the “De Obitu S. Dominae”, attributed to St. John .

Some other saints like St. Gregory of Tours, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. John Damascene, also mention this event.

Still, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven became an established belief across the Eastern, Western, Coptic and Oriental churches from at least the late 7th Century.

However, as in the 1st century there were neither video-cameras nor mobile telephones with incorporated cameras that would have allowed the apostles to film what was going on in those days, we may, as well accept Mary’s Assumption as a fact.

If we truly believe that Mary was chosen by God to give birth to His Son, because of her freedom from original sin, we may as well believe that She may have rewarded by God with her Assumption to Heaven, can’t we?

What I find really funny is that stubbornness to deny this possibility when it is clear –at least it is to me- that true or false it hurts nobody. One thing is sure, though! So far, nobody has been able to find neither the Virgin Mary’s tomb nor her remains...
I would say it is far more difficult to belief in Jesus Christ’s resurrection and yet we all believe in that, so why should not we believe in Mary’s Assumption?
:):)

The 12th chapter of Revelation is sometimes used to prove the assumption (ascension) of Mary into Heaven.

The truth is that the woman in chapter 12 of Revelation is national Israel. Please keep in mind that this vision of ch 12 was totally symbolic. She cannot be Mary, as shown below.

Rev 4:1
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
(KJV)
The woman is seen giving birth. It has been about 90 years since Jesus was born, and the verse above plainly says that those things John will see are to be hereafter or future. This woman is not seen until the middle of the Great Tribulation.

Rev 12:1-6
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This is a symbolic picture of national Israel after her acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. That will happen at the mid point of the Great Tribulation. Note that while the vision was seen in heaven, the woman is actually on Earth, as shown in vs 6 and vs 14.
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

This shows part of the spiritual war that started when Satan rebelled against God and shows how many angels follow him.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

This is not Jesus. Jesus went back to Heaven as a resurrected adult about 57 years earlier. Note that overcomers are promised that they will reign with Jesus as kings. This man child represents the 144,000 young people (virgins) selected from the 12 tribes of Israel.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
(KJV)

The woman will remain on earth for 3 ½ more years, until the personal return of Jesus Christ.

Rev 12:13-17
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Many Bible scholars think Israel will take shelter in the ancient city of Petra.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

From this we know that not all Israelites will get to the wilderness refuge, but will face the rage of Satan.

The 12th chapter of Revelation is sometimes used to prove the assumption (ascension) of Mary into Heaven.

The truth is that the woman in chapter 12 of Revelation is national Israel. Please keep in mind that this vision of ch 12 was totally symbolic. She cannot be Mary, as shown below.

Rev 4:1
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
(KJV)
The woman is seen giving birth. It has been about 90 years since Jesus was born, and the verse above plainly says that those things John will see are to be hereafter or future. This woman is not seen until the middle of the Great Tribulation.

Rev 12:1-6
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This is a symbolic picture of national Israel after her acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. That will happen at the mid point of the Great Tribulation. Note that while the vision was seen in heaven, the woman is actually on Earth, as shown in vs 6 and vs 14.
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

This shows part of the spiritual war that started when Satan rebelled against God and shows how many angels follow him.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

This is not Jesus. Jesus went back to Heaven as a resurrected adult about 57 years earlier. Note that overcomers are promised that they will reign with Jesus as kings. This man child represents the 144,000 young people (virgins) selected from the 12 tribes of Israel.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
(KJV)

The woman will remain on earth for 3 ½ more years, until the personal return of Jesus Christ.

Rev 12:13-17
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Many Bible scholars think Israel will take shelter in the ancient city of Petra.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

From this we know that not all Israelites will get to the wilderness refuge, but will face the rage of Satan.

In fact, I rather agree to your statement. You will notice, however, I say that "some theologians" connect this chapter 12 od the Book of Revelation with the Virgin Mary. Not all of them.:):)