[arcura]

Sainjoan,
Yes I believe that.
Is one of the many reasons I converted from PROTESTantism to Catholicism.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[rhadsen]

De Maria,

You may have missed this post. Looks like you've been away for a while, and there has been a lot of traffic since then meaning that this probably got buried:

De Maria,

Yes, I can get wordy. I tried to keep things clear by underlining any questions that I had.

Early on in this thread I pointed out the fact that despite your claim about the rich man in Luke 16:24 being in Purgatory, none of the Fathers share your view. In your most recent post you indicated that they could not have used the term "purgatory" in their writings about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because that word was not known to them, so they used the term "hell." Very well, if that's true, then some quotes by the fathers in which they describe the rich man as being in "hell temporarily" will suffice. Can you produce such quotes?

Now, regarding the chasm in Luke 16:26. I mentioned that it seemed to indicate that the rich man's fate was sealed. You replied, "Does that say the chasm is fixed permanently? Where?"

I'll freely admit that the text does not say that directly. But, turnabout is fair play. Can you show me where it says that the chasm isn't fixed permanently? Where?

You also asked me if there was any love in the hell of the damned. I'll freely admit that there probably is not. However, this is a parable. Jesus is telling this story to get his point across. He may, or may not be telling the story about an actual historical event. He may or may not change some details to get his point across. Now, you may say that the rich man can't be in hell because there is no love there. However, consider the following details from the story:

The Pharisees had a love of money. It appears that Jesus told this story about them in their presence. Part of God's will is that we help the poor. Will disregarding that will mean still being in God's grace and friendship? The rich man apparently was excessive and extravagant. He showed no concern for Lazarus despite the fact that it was clearly within the rich man's ability to help Lazarus. What does God say about that De Maria?

1 John 5:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

Matthew 25:21-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Does the rich man call Abraham "father?" Yes he does, but isn't it presumptious for him to do that when he ignored the example of Abraham? By his calling Abraham "father" despite not living with love for his neighbor, and his request for Abraham to send Lazarus on his own personal task, it seems that he is continuing in his disregard for others even after death. Rather than an apology to Lazarus, we see here a request for a special favor in the way of a visitor from the afterlife to warn his kin. The rich man still seems to think that he is in charge! Tell me De Maria, is disregard for God's will, disregard for the poor, consistent with being in God's grace and friendship?

I did not say, "spirits must be modified to determine what it means." I did say that the word translated "spirits" unless modified represents non-human spirit beings. (I'm not sure how you mixed that up, maybe you are skimming instead of reading?) Since you seem to disagree De Maria, with my contention that 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about humans, can you provide a verse in the New Testament where the word "spirits" not modified by an adjective or other word in the same sentence clearly indicates a deceased person? As you saw in the five verses that I provided (Matthew 12:45; Acts 23:8,9; Luke 10:20; Ephesians 2:2; Hebrews 1:14) there is no way one could misinterpret those verses as speaking about humans.

Are you attempting to claim that Noah's contemporaries that died in the flood really were in God's grace and friendship by posting a translation that reads, "Which had been some time incredulous…."?

Where exactly did you see me practicing , as you call it, "esegesis?"

Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, De Maria, if those whose works don't burn end up with the same thing as those whose works burn, how is that a reward?

Rob

[N0help4u]

Nope... the gift of salvation is free... but do our actions (specifically our sins) affect this gift?

If you don't believe it does, I'd be curious to see some Biblical support for the idea that sin has no consequence and our actions won't be judged.

So you are saying an atheist that refuses to accept that Jesus died for their sins
Yet lives a life that would make some Christians HAS the gift even though they reject it

Or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?

MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how
God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.

[Peter Wilson]

Well, it shouldn't seem odd to you at all.... you've all been educated by the same faith tradition and "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught".

Scott, I was brought up a roman catholic, and even wanted to become a priest at one time.
I was taught from the catechism through my school years, never from the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible, instead of Catholic literature, of what you have been taught to believe, then you would be a very odd catholic.
Of all the catholics that I know, and that includes my family, who go to church every week, don't, ever, read a bible, and most catholics don't even own one!
I have spoken to many priests over the years, and have asked them a number of questions about spirituality, and all, except one, had no idea.
One even said to me, "Wouldn't it be terrible if what we have believed all our lives, turned out to be wrong."
He was serious when he said this, I thought,"If he doesn't believe it, then where does that leave me?"
If you look at the true history of the roman church, then you would find out about the murder, rape, sodomy, that was not only committed by some of the popes themselves, but was given the blessing to anybody that would do the same to the prostestants.

Here is an extract from Babylon, Mystery Religion- by Woodrow.

The inhuman Inquisition
So OPENLY CORRUPT did the fallen church become in the Middle Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in protest. Many were those noble souls who rejected the false claims of the pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus for salvation and truth. These were called `heretics" and were bitterly persecuted by the Roman
Catholic Church.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This document stated that heretics were to be "crushed like venomous snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil authorities were ordered to burn heretics. "The aforesaid Bull `Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints and caused great pain.
Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots" which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" was a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were arranged in such a way and under such pressure that the accused were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words meaning, "Glory be only to God.
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating joints of the body. While such torture was being employed, priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross.
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the sentence of Milan. At the place of execution, a monk presented a cross to him, to whom Gamba said, 'My mind is so full of the real merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned.
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where, quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The religious intolerance that prompted the Inquisition caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of Beziers was taken by men who have been promised by the pope that by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it is reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to take other towns of the area. In this siege, it is estimated that 100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from cliffs or stripped of clothing and dragged through the streets. Similar methods were used in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men, women, and children. The command was carried out with terrible cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every description.
Ten thousand Huguenots (Protestants) were killed in the bloody massacre in Paris on "St. Bartholomew's Day", 1572. The French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great rejoicing and Pope GregoryXlll, in grand procession, went to the Church of St. Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint to make coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a band of Huguenots, with horror on their faces, were fleeing. The words Ugonot- torum Stranges 1572 which signify "The slaughter of the Huguenots, 1572", appeared on the coins.
An illustration from Ridpath's History of the World, as seen on the next page, shows the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to brand him and blind his eyes.
Some of the popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the Romish church lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of indulgences, or people worshipping statues as idols, or popes living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused because these things were done contrary to the official laws of the church, what can besaid about the Inquisition? It cannot be explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and confirmed by pope after pope! Can any believe that such actions were representative of Him who said to turn the cheek, to forgive our enemies, and to do good to them that despitefully use us?



(Continued)


Peace:)

[Peter Wilson]

Papal Immorality
IN ADDITION TO the conclusive evidence that has
been given, the very character and morals of many of the popes would tend to identify them as sucessors of pagan priests, rather than representatives of Christ or Peter. Some of the popes were so depraved and base in their actions, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Such sins as adultery, sodomy, simony, rape, murder, and drunkenness are among the sins that have been committed by popes. To link such sins with men who have claimed to be the "Holy Father", "The Vicar of Christ", and Bishop of bishops", may sound shocking, but those acquainted with the history of the papacy well know that not all popes were holy men.
Pope Sergius III (904-911 the papal office by murder. The annals of the church of Rome tell about his life of open sin with Marozia who bore him several illegitimate children.' He was described by Baronius as a "monster" and by Gregorovius as a "terrorizing criminal.
Says a historian: "For seven years this man...occupied the chair of St. Peter, while his
concubine and her Semiramis-like mother held court with a pomp and voluptousness that recalled the worse days of the ancient empire."
This woman—Theodora—likened to Semiramis (because of her corrupt morals), along with Marozia, the pope's concubine, `filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers. The reign of Pope Sergius III began the period known as "the rule of the harlots" (904-963).
Pope John X (914-928) originally had been sent to Ravanna as an archbishop, but Theodora had him returned to Rome and appointed to the papal office. According to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona who wrote a history about fifty years after this time, "Theodora supported John's election in order to cover more easily her illicit relations with him. His reign came to a sudden end when Marozia smothered him to death! She wanted him out of the way so Leo VI (928-929) could become pope. His reign was a short one, however, for he was assassinated by Marozia when she learned he had "given his heart to a more degraded woman than herself" ! Not long after this, the teenage son of Marozia—under the name of John XI—became pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Some, taking Liutprand and the `Liber Pontificalis' as their authority, assert that he was the natural son of Sergius III (a former pope). Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter. But in quarreling with some of his mother's enemies, he was beaten and put into jail where he died from poisoning.
In 955 the grandson of Marozia at eighteen years of age became pope under the name of John XII. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes him as "a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium... On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope...John XII took bloody vengeance on the leaders of the opposite party, Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand struck off, Bishop Otgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost nose and ears...John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumor, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery." The noted Catholic Bishop of Cremona, Luitprand, who lived at this time wrote: "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows—they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul." The Catholic collection of the lives of popes, the "Liber Pontificalis," said: "He spent his entire life in adultery."
Pope Boniface VII (984-985) maintained his position through a lavish distribution of stolen money. The Bishop of Orleans referred to him (and also John XII and Leo VIII) as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth" and as "antichrist sitting in the temple of God." The Catholic Encyclopedia says he "overpowered John XIV (April, 984), thrust him into the dungeons of Sant'Angelo, where the wretched man died four months later... For more than a year Rome endured this monster steeped in the blood of his predecessors. But the vengeance was terrible. After his sudden death in July, 985, due in all probability to violence, the body of Boniface was exposed to the insults of the populace, dragged through the streets of the city, and finally, naked and covered with wounds, flung under the statue of Marcus Aurelius...The following morning compassionate clerics removed the corpse and gave it a Christian burial.
Next came Pope John XV (985-996) who split the church's finances among his relatives and earned for himself the reputation of being "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
Benedict VIII (1012-1024) "bought the office of pope with open bribery." The following pope, John XIX also bought the papacy. Being a layman, it was necessary for him to be passed through all the clerical orders . in one day! After this, Benedict IX (1033-1045) was made pope as a youth 12 years old (or some accounts say 20) through a money bargain with the powerful families that ruled Rome! He `committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims on the graves of the martyrs, a hideous criminal, the people drove him out of Rome.' The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter." "Simony"--the buying and selling of the papal office—became so common, and corruption so pronounced, that secular rulers stepped in. King Henry III appointed Clement II (1046-1047) to the office of pope "because no Roman clergyman could be found who was free of the pollution of simony and fornication"!
A number of the popes had committed murders, but Innocent III (1198-1216) surpassed all of his predecessors in killing. Though he did not do the killing personally, he promoted the most devilish thing in human history—the Inquisition. Estimates of the number of heretics that Innocent (not so innocently) had killed run as high as one million people! For over five hundred years, popes used the inquisition to maintain their power against those who did not agree with the teachings of the Romish church.
In conflicts with cardinals and kings, numerous charges were brought against Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Says The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc... Protestant historians, generally, and even modern Catholic writers... class him among the wicked popes, as an ambitious, haughty, and unrelenting man, deceitful also and treacherous, his whole pontificate one record of evil." It is not necessary to insist that all charges brought against him were true, but all cannot be dismissed either. During his reign the poet Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption." He assigned Boniface (along with Popes Nicolas III and Clement V) to "the lower parts of hell."
Though seeking to put emphasis on certain good traits of Boniface, "Catholic historians... admit, however, the explosive violence and offensive phraseology of some of his public documents." An example of this "offensive phraseology" would be his statement that "to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together." On other occasions, apparently in those "explosive" moments he called Christ a "hypocrite" and professed to be an atheist.
Yet—and this sounds almost unbelievable—it was this pope that in 1302 issued the well-known "Unam Sanctum" which officially declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved, and says: "We, therefore, assert, define and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome." Because there have been sinful popes, being "subject" to the pope has raised a question. Should a sinful pope still be obeyed? The Catholic answer is this: "A sinful pope... remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience. "
From 1305 to 1377 the papal palace was at Avignon, France. During this time, Petrarch accused the papal household of "rape, adultery, and all manner of fornication." In many parishes men insisted on priests keeping concubines "as a protection for their own families!"
During the Council of Constance, three popes, and sometimes four, were every morning cursing each other and calling their opponents antichrists, demons, adulterers, sodomists, enemies of God and man. One of these "popes", John XXIII (1410-1415) "was accused by thirty seven witnesses (mostly. Bishops and priests) of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft, and murder! It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated three hundred nuns. His own secretary, Niem, said that he had at Boulogne, kept a harem, where not less than two hundred girls had been the victims of his lubricity." Altogether the Council charged him with fifty-four crimes of the worst kind.
A vatican record offers this information about his immoral reign. "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ.. . he was publicly called the Devil incarnate." To increase his wealth, Pope John taxed about everything—including prostitution, gainbling, and usury. He has been called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne."
Pope Pius 11 (1458-1464) was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He "spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women, encouraged young men to, and even offered to instruct them in methods of, self-indulgence." Pius was followed by Paul 11 (1464-1471) who maintained a house full of concubines. His papal tiara outweighed a palace in its worth. Next came Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) who financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders and "used the papacy to enrich himself and his relatives. He made eight of his nephews cardinals, while as yet some of them were mere boys. In luxurious and lavish entertainment, he rivaled the Caesars. In wealth and pomp he and his relatives surpassed the old Roman families.
Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) was the father of sixteen children by various women. Some of his children celebrated their marriages in the Vatican. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions only "two illegitimate children, Franceschetto and Teodorina" from the days of a "licentious youth. Like numerous' other popes, he multiplied church offices and sold them for vast sums of money. He permitted bull fights on St. Peter's square.
Next came Rodergio Borgia who took the name of Alexander VI (1492-1503), having won his election to the papacy by bribing the cardinals. Before becoming pope, while a cardinal and archbishop, he lived in sin with a lady of Rome, Vanozza dei Catanei; and afterward, with her daughter Rosa, by whom he had five children. On his coronation day, he appointed his son—a youth of vile temper and habits—as archbishop of Valencia. Many consider Alexander VI to be the most corrupt of the Renaissance popes. He lived in public incest with his two sisters and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. On October 31, 1501, he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican, the equal of which for sheer horror has never been duplicated in the annals of human history.
According to Life magazine, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as cardinal had fathered three sons and a daughter. On the day of his coronation he celebrated the baptism of his two great-grandchildren. He appointed two of his teenage nephews as cardinals, sponsored festivals with singers, dancers, and jesters, and sought advice from astrologers.
Pope Leo X (1513-1521) was born December 11, 1475. He received tonsure at age 7, was made an abbot at 8, and a cardinal at 13! The illustration given above shows the Bull of Pope Leo X. On one side of the leaden seal appears the apostles Peter and Paul, on the other the pope's name and title. The word "bull" (from a Latin word linked with roundness) was first applied to the seals which authenticated papal documents and later to the documents also.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Pope Leo X "gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements that were provided in lavish abundance. He was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure... He loved to give banquets and expensive entertainments, accompanied by revelry and carousing. "
(Continued)

Peace:)

[Peter Wilson]

(Continued)
During those days, Martin Luther, while still a priest of the papal church, traveled to Rome. As he caught the first glimpse of the seven-hilled city, he fell to the ground and said: "Holy Rome, I salute thee." He had not spent much time there, however, until he saw that Rome was anything but a holy city. Iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. Priests told indecent jokes and used awful profanity, even during Mass. The papal court was served at supper by twelve naked girls. "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome," he said, "they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, `If there is a hell, Rome is built over it'."
One day during Luther's visit to Rome, he noticed a statue on one of the public streets that led to St. Peter's—the statue of a female pope. Because it was an object of disgust to the popes, no pope would ever pass down that certain street. "I am astonished", said Luther, "how the popes allow the statue to remain." Forty years after Luther's death, the statue was removed by Pope Sixtus V.
Though The Catholic Encyclopedia regards the story of pope Joan as a mere tale, it gives the following summary: "After Leo IV (847-855) the Englishman John- of Mainz occupied the papal chair two years, seven months and four days, he was, it is alleged, a woman. When a girl, she was taken to Athens in male clothes by her lover, and there made such progress in learning that no one was her equal. She came to Rome, where she taught science, and thereby attracted the attention of learned men...and was finally chosen as pope, but, becoming pregnant by one of her trusted attendants, she gave birth to a child during a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran... There she died almost immediately, and it is said she was buried at the same place."
Was there really a female pope? Prior to the Reformation which exposed so much error in the Romish church, the story was believed by chroniclers, bishops, and by popes themselves. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts which stood in Siena cathedral. Under Clement VII (1592-1595),and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacharias. The heretic Hus, in defence of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess, and no one offered to question the fact of her existence." Some have questioned how Pope Clement could have a female pope, named Joan, "transformed" into a male pope, named Zacharias, centuries after she had died!
Having mentioned the gross immorality that has existed in the lives of some of the popes, we do not wish to leave the impression that all popes have been as bad as the ones mentioned. But we do believe this evidence seriously weakens the doctrine of "apostolic succession", the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church because it can trace a line of popes back to Peter. Is this really an important point? If so, each of these popes, even those who were known to be immoral and cruel, must be included. There is even the possibility of a female pope to make the succession complete! But salvation is not dependent on tracing a line of popes back to Peter—or even on a system of religion claiming to represent Christ. Salvation is found in Christ himself.

End of quote.

If you want to belong to a church with this sort of history, you are welcome to it.
Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees, that they were guilty of the blood of the prophets because they agreed that their forefathers put them to death.
Even so, as it talks about Mystery Babylon in Revelation 18

4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people, (looks like there is some of God's people in there, are you one of them?)
So that you will not share in her sins,
So that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
And God has remembered her crimes.
6Give back to her as she has given;
Pay her back double for what she has done.
Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
7Give her as much torture and grief
As the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
And I will never mourn.'
8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
Death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
For mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
"With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.
22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters,
will never be heard in you again.
No workman of any trade
will ever be found in you again.
The sound of a millstone
will never be heard in you again.
23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world's great men.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints,
and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Peace:)

[De Maria]

Grandma gives you a gift, a birthday present, free, no strings, doesn't dangle it in front of you and demand a payback. You tell her thank you and mow the lawn for her out of love.

Same with God and you. He sent His Son to die on the cross--free, a gift, no strings. You tell Him thank you and then do your best to treat others with the same kind of unconditional love.

Well, yeah. But that is only one side of the equation. Lets go back to Scripture:

Romans 3:5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.

6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Its in more than one place so lets post another Scripture from another perspective but meaning the same thing:
Rev 20 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

Ok, now lets round out your equation.

Jesus died for our sins and we, being grateful, also die to our sins and work for His Kingdom.

However, some of us begin to work then decide we like it better if we work for the pleasure of our flesh than for the Kingdom of God. According to these Scriptures, what becomes of those who do not work for God's Kingdom?

I'll give you a hint:
John 15 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.

Two hints:
Matt 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

(Continued)

Gosh Peter??

Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?

Besides, I think that's against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[N0help4u]

I don't understand why all the debate over wondergirl saying salvation is a free gift
YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations
What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.

[De Maria]

So you are saying an atheist that refuses to accept that Jesus died for their sins yet lives a life that would make some Christians HAS the gift even though they reject it

Yes. Actions speak louder than words.

St. Justin Martyr on the topic of righteous atheists:

CHAPTER XLVI -- THE WORD IN THE WORLD BEFORE CHRIST.

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them;

or what about the 'Christians' that maybe only profess to accept that gift yet burn grandma's house down?

They are spoken of in Scripture are they not?

Hebrews 10 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.

MY point was that Wonder girl was specifically using grandma offering a free gift to explain how God offers the free gift and then it is up to us what we do with the free gift accept it or reject it and then you threw out another scenario of how someone might use the free gift. Her point was not on how we use the free gift and the consequences of what we do.

As I understood her point, it was to say that we are once saved always saved. Therefore, she illustrated the gift and the appreciative response. But she did not represent the nonappreciative response.

What are the consequences of the person who receives the gift and rejects it. It seems clear, in Scripture, that if we reject the gift BY OUR DEEDS, we will be rejected in turn.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

I don't understand why all the debate over wondergirl saying salvation is a free gift

There is no debate over salvation being a free gift. Salvation is a free gift. The debate is over your understanding of what constitutes the free gift of salvation.

Let me put like this. At work, our company frequently gives out pins and watches for years of service and for performance. These are gifts.

How could they be gifts, they are given out based on merit of some sort?

First criteria. We must be employees to be eligible to receive these gifts.
Second criteria. We must produce some verifiable effort.

So, this is remuneration of a sort.

True, but the company is making a free will gift because no one is forcing the company to give any gift whatsoever. There is no contractual requirement that they must recognize anyone at all except to pay them their due wages.

It's the same with God's salvation.

First criteria. We must have faith. Faith does not merit the grace of salvation but without it we won't be saved.

Second criteria. Works. Our works of righteousness do not merit our salvation. But without them we don't demonstrate faith. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.

YEAH we get that it does not mean that all accept the free gift or anything else.
It isn't the 'other side of equation because then you are saying it is a free gift with equations

That is correct. It is a free gift with conditions. The conditions are in Scripture. You want to eat, you got to work. If you don't work you don't eat.

What you are suggesting is more the extensions of the extenuating circumstances of people who reject or misuse the free gift so I don't understand the 'debate' or whatever it is when we DO understand and agree with what you are saying.

Do you? Then why do you seem to be objecting? Do you believe that faith without works is a saving faith or not?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[N0help4u]

Exactly the point we are getting at it is free but then up to you how to use it or even accept it

[Wondergirl]

As I understood her point, it was to say that we are once saved always saved. Therefore, she illustrated the gift and the appreciative response. But she did not represent the nonappreciative response.

Wondergirl did NOT say that--"once saved aways saved." Nothing like adding to the text...

Now you want a nonappreciative response? That wasn't the question on the table at the time, so I will write another Grandma example to illustrate that.

[N0help4u]

NO De Marie NOBODY is saying once saved always saved!
We ARE agreeing with you on THIS point it is how you choose to use the free gift doesn't mean once saved always saved

[Wondergirl]

Let me put like this. At work, our company frequently gives out pins and watches for years of service and for performance. These are gifts.

No, they aren't. They are rewards for service, a whole 'nother animal.

It would be like God saying, "Youse guys have been so loving and kind lately and so full of goodness, so I'm gonna send My Son to die on the cross for you. What a peachy-keen bunch you are!"

It's the same with God's salvation.

Sorry, Charlie. It's not the same at all.

Now if the employees came in late and played Free Cell instead of doing their work and hung out in the cafeteria for hours at a time, then went home early, and the company owners gave them merit pay increases and gift certificates to local restaurants... that example is a lot closer to what God did for us in Christ.

First criteria. We must have faith.

Sorry, not true. The Bible says God sent His Son IN SPITE OF man's lack of love and faith--"while we were yet in our sins." That bumper sticker, "I found God" is all wrong. It should be, "God found me." God comes to each of us wherever we are.

Second criteria. Works. Therefore faith without works is dead and we won't be saved.

Again, not true. Yes, faith without works is dead, but works don't save us. Only Christ's death on the cross saves us. The works are our thank you to God.

It is a free gift with conditions.

No conditions. Salvation is a free gift just like Grandma's birthday gift was. Both were out of unconditional love. Neither God nor Grandma dangle strings alongside their gift.

It's really difficult to imagine that someone would give us something that's totally free, isn't it. We've always been warned to look behind the gift, to look for the condition, the string, the obligation. Nothing is free in this life, they say. Watch out for all those free offers--they're gimmicks to suck you in. I guess that's why people just can't believe God would give us something totally for free. That's not how the world operates. But then... God is not of this world and doesn't play by earthly standards and expectations, does He.

[JoeT777]

Scott, I was brought up a roman catholic, and even wanted to become a priest at one time.
I was taught from the catechism through my school years, never from the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible, instead of Catholic literature, of what you have been taught to believe, then you would be a very odd catholic.
Of all the catholics that I know, and that includes my family, who go to church every week, don't, ever, read a bible, and most catholics don't even own one!
I have spoken to many priests over the years, and have asked them a number of questions about spirituality, and all, except one, had no idea.
One even said to me, "Wouldn't it be terrible if what we have believed all our lives, turned out to be wrong."
He was serious when he said this, I thought,"If he doesn't believe it, then where does that leave me?"
If you look at the true history of the roman church, then you would find out about the murder, rape, sodomy, that was not only committed by some of the popes themselves, but was given the blessing to anybody that would do the same to the prostestants.
Peace:)

Seems strange that a man would be so compassionate for the supposed evils done 600 or 700 years ago, immediately abandon the faith of his family; that for want of a book, that could be purchased for a few dollars, he could give up the real presence of Christ? I suspicion there's more to it than that.

Even still, my “zeal” forces me to make sure that other readers understand that there is at least two sides to every story.

The Black Legend

The first inquisition came out of southern France where the majority was Cathars. Catharism is a sect with strong Gnostic elements that thrived in the 11th through the 13 centuries. Holding dualist and Gnostic faiths, Cathars held theological views such as the world was created evil by Satan, while considering God of the Old Testament to be the moral equal and opposite of Satan – the yin yang of good and evil. Many hold that Catharism had its theological genesis in Gnosticism with an aberrant mix of Judaism and Mohammedanism.

In southern France they formed opposition to the clergy and the Catholic Church. They perceived the individual to be the source of moral, spiritual, and political authority and as such viewed the Catholic Church as corrupt.

Procreation was considered undesirable and child birth was discouraged. They considered sex as a perversion, but at the same timed considered recreational sex as preferable to sex reserved for the purpose of procreation. It seems that taking on concubines was a moral alternative to marriage. It's really interesting that the Cathars could hold such distain for a natural act while finding recreational sex healthy – it hurts the head doesn't it? - by refusing to reproduce it's a wonder they lasted two hundred years.

Much like the radical Islamists of today, this movement can be viewed as the cradle of the Protestant movement. Morally dysfunctional societies such as Cathars refused the authority of the Church. They defended radical attacks against the Church, refused social regulation, taxes, social and moral bans while feeling justified in any moral disorder proclaiming to be above any moral truth taught by the Catholic Church. – When it's in black and white, its amazing how much they sound like today's secularists with a twisted freaky dualist god.

Which brings me to my point presented best by Warren H Carroll in The Glory of Christendom,

“The 'black legend' of the Inquisition has been the most successful of all historical propaganda offensives against the Catholic Church; and the difficulty of responding to it persuasively is vastly increased by the almost complete inability of modern man to understand how any society could regard a man's religion as a matter of life and death. But in fact the heretic in Christendom was in every sense of the word a revolutionary, as dangerous to public order and personal safety as yesterday's Communist or today's terrorist.”

JoeT

PS I wonder how this new thread would go over: “Is Protestantism taking on the same errors as Cathars in that they hold that individuals are the sole source of moral, and spiritual authortity” .

[N0help4u]

okay so you say it is propaganda so is that saying the Catholic church was falsely accused?

Two sides to every story= two wrongs do not make a right.

[Tj3]

Gosh Peter???

Couldn't you shorten it just a bit. Posting entire websites makes it kind of hard to have a decent discussion. Would you like for me to post the entire Catholic encyclopedia in response?

Besides, I think thats against the rules. Lets be reasonable, shall we?

Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!

[N0help4u]

Gee, it seems to me that I have said the same thing to you, De Maria!

I D0 remember those pages of Catholic *encyclopedias* on answerway.com and I believe I remember them on askme.com too :eek: :rolleyes:

[Wondergirl]

This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

Just out of curiosity, did you toss in that apostrophe or did the text come that way?