Alex, Steven and Cathy: Are the following Christian:

- Anglicans

- Episcopalians

- Lutherans

- Calvinists

- Baptists

- Adventists

- etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam?

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 14, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 17, 2001

Answers

Alex, Steven and Cathy, are you out there?

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 17, 2001.

Dear Enrique,

Only the Lord knows the answer to your question. It is like saying 'Are the following Christian?'

Catholics

Jehovah Witnesses

Mormans

and all other Christian cults etc.

Being a Christian is not a matter of belonging to a certain church. Putting your hand in a cookie jar doesn't make you a cookie for a simple analogy. I have taken the advice of John Jessop and will no longer post any more messages for indeed it is a spiritual matter. I assume that some of the others have done the same. No I am not a teenager in collusion with others. I am 48 years old in fact.

The one thing that disturbs me the most in this forum is the answers given by the many good Catholics here to the simple question by non catholics that ask 'show me where it says that in the Bible?'. The replies are either insulting or go off on a tangent by concentrating on some minor point or error that the person asking the question has said. They never can, or very rarely can, back up their reply with scripture. This speaks for itself.

I would say that I don't think anyone who questions Catholic doctrine hates or dislikes Catholics. They may strongly disagree with that doctrine because it doesn't tie up with God's Holy Bible and wish to bring that to the attention of Catholics before it is too late. The main offensive remark to non Catholics is the Catholic claim that Mary was sinless. As the Bible is very clear on this matter and says 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' Romans 3:23, no exceptions as Alex says 'all means all'.

Good people I have noticed also that Catholics in general don't seem to know their Bible scriptures very well. While their are many non Catholics in the same boat it does seem to be a trait among Catholics. Any analogy with satan knowing the scriptures too is silly and unlogical. God expects us to know the scriptures for it is written 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work'. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Ed Lauzon I admire you. While I mightn't always agree with you, you give good feedback to questions in a pleasant and civilized manner. If more of us followed Ed's example I'm sure this forum would be a more congenial place.

I have been accused of copying and pasting text from other sites and I admit to this. It is because the authors of those texts explain it so much better than I could. However fear not for I will not be doing this in future and will not enter in to any further correspondence.

Let me close this off by quoting the Holy Bible, 'man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD' Deut. 8:3 and Matt. 4:4.

Peace be with you.

Cathy

-- Cathy Moss (ccmoss@netliner.com), January 17, 2001.

Greetings: To my brothers who know Jesus Christ and abide in him being fruitful by the power of God and anything of the earth. Enrique I sent you an emaul I hope that you got, if not According to Gods eternal word. A christian is a person who has the the Spirit of God living inside of them. There are children of the God and children of the Devil John 8:42-47 Jesus replied to them, " If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my languagen not clear to you? Because you belong to your father the, the devil, and you want to caryy out your father's desire. He was a murder from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks his native alnguage, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? I am telling the truth, why dont you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

Enrique to know God is to hear His word abiding in your heart to be a slave to sin is to reject Jesus Christ all that he did for sinners who call on his everlasting name.

Praise God for His word of truth if you love Jesus you will read the word and abide in his eternal holy Spirit that will live in you. If reject Gods word and except teachings of man your a child of the devil and die in your sins. Jesus saves Continue in His word Cathy and others who are saved and truly of God do not be frightend by what mere mortals can do fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. He that is in us is greater then he that is the world. Jesus is our master of freedom I love you true brothers and sisters born again walking in the light of Gods word free from sin and Satans lies as Gods word says.

-- Alexjruiz (Jesusislife@christianemail.com), January 17, 2001.

Jmj

Dear Cathy,
I compliment you on having the courage to answer, in your own words, Enrique's question. However, I have the duty to inform you that it is rare to see so many errors in a single message. Contrary to what you have written ...

1 --- We (not just "the Lord") can know that Anglicans, Lutherans, and others Enrique listed are indeed Christians -- even though they would very much disagree with you and Alex theologically.

2 -- The Catholic Church is not a "Christian cult" (on a par with Mormonism and the Watchtower, which are not even Christians). The Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded.

3 -- We never said that "Being a Christian is ... a matter of belonging to a certain church." I certainly believe that you and Alex are just as much Christians as Ed, Enrique, Eugene, and me.

4 -- You are not a teenager. If you are 48 [I am 49] and still believe what you do, you must have missed out on scores of opportunities to find out what Catholics really believe (and why), because your messages reveal that you just have very little knowledge (and loads of prejudice) on this subject. What you "know" about Catholicism is mostly falsehoods and half-truths fed to you by professional anti-Catholics. Come to us -- the "horse's mouth" -- to learn the genuine facts. Engage us in a respectful conversation and you will come away amazed at how much you were formerly misled.

5 -- You are "disturbed" at what we say when you demand, "show me where it says that in the Bible." As I just told Alex on another thread, we "do not believe anything that goes against the Bible. However, you do not have the right to demand that we quote the Bible. We will quote it when we want to do so, not because you demand it. The Church that Jesus founded has never, in its 2,000 years, believed in the false "Bible-only" (sola scriptura) theory that someone has fooled you into believing. It is possible to speak the truth from our own minds and hearts without quoting scripture all the time. But I also told the following to Alex on that other thread: Please go to this page [http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Catholic] "and take a look at a lot of the old threads (1,000 or more) going back to January, 1998. You will find" countless cases in which we Catholics "present many quotations from the scripture. We are Catholics ... It was Catholics who WROTE the New Testament and preserved it, copying it by hand for over 1,400 years until printing presses existed." There is NO WAY that we love the Bible any less than you do!!! Take a look at our on-line Catechism via the "search engine" on this page. If you look at part of the Catechism, you will see that it is LOADED to the gills with scriptural references. I say again, Cathy, that you have been misled about us.

6 -- You are human and capable of error. That means that you can even misinterpret a verse of the Bible that you read. And you have proved your fallibility by criticizing us in this way: "The main offensive remark to non Catholics is the Catholic claim that Mary was sinless. As the Bible is very clear on this matter and says 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' Romans 3:23, no exceptions as Alex says 'all means all'."
No, Cathy. You and Alex have misunderstood Romans 3:23, and this has led you to condemn that Marian doctrine. As I just got through explaining on another thread a few days ago (which you unfortunately did not read), there ARE exceptions!!! It is not true that ALL have sinned. St. Paul was generalizing, not stating words that were to be taken literally. Jesus did not sin. Children who die before reaching the age of reason have never sinned. People who are born profoundly retarded or seriously mentally ill are incapable of sinning. Now that we see that there are exceptions to St. Paul's word, "all," we must admit that God may also help other people to remain sinless throughout their lives. That is what happened with Mary. Since there are various exceptions, you cannot PROVE that Mary sinned. Consequently, you have no right to be "disturbed" when we speak of the sinlessness of Our Lady.
Now, Cathy, if you persevere with an open mind, you will find that EVERY EVERY EVERY objection that you have ever had to Catholicism can be cleared up. There are only a limited number of objections possible. They have been put forward against us literally millions of times over the course of 2,000 years. Every one is well answer-able and has been answered. And that is why such a vast number of Protestants [including hundreds of clergymen and clergywomen] and non-Christians have converted to Catholicism. After patiently searching, they find that we have nothing but the truth. All objections are cleared up!

But after your various mistakes, Cathy, you did finish off with a great truth: "Man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD." And the most perfect word was the "Eternal Word," Jesus -- who is present "par excellence" in the Holy Eucharist in Catholic Church tabernacles, and who is present working through the ministry of the Catholic priest who reads the scripture and preaches true doctrine, and who is present in that same priest giving sinners absolution.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 17, 2001.

Dear John,

I said I was not going to enter into any more correspondence, however you posting deserves at least a reply.

1 --- We (not just "the Lord") can know that Anglicans, Lutherans, and others Enrique listed are indeed Christians -- even though they would very much disagree with you and Alex theologically.

Answer: How do you know that they are Christians unless they confess that the Lord Jesus has come in the flesh? Have you personally heard them all make this confession? 1 John 4:2

2 -- The Catholic Church is not a "Christian cult" (on a par with Mormonism and the Watchtower, which are not even Christians). The Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded.

Answer: I believe that the Catholic church is indeed a cult. I do not believe it is the church that the Lord founded. You believe Peter was the 'rock' that Christ founded his church on. I believe that as already stated by Dr. Taichi the 'rock' refers to the revelation of Peter.

3 -- We never said that "Being a Christian is ... a matter of belonging to a certain church." I certainly believe that you and Alex are just as much Christians as Ed, Enrique, Eugene, and me.

Answer: You are right, I have never heard you say this. I appologise for my error. However Catholic popes have said so.

'There is but one universal ["Catholic" means universal] Church of the faithful, outside which NO ONE at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

" We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull, Unam Sanctum, 1302.)

Now you must ask your self if so called infallible popes have declared the above what do you really believe?

4. Answer: I put my trust in God's word not in the doctrines of men.

5. I believe in Sola Scripture. The Biblical message by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), He was speaking of God's written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences. God's declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord's people in the Church.

6. Answer: Mary knew her own sin and acknowledged her need of a Saviour (Luke 1:47). None of the Lord's Apostles exalted Mary; none of them applied to her such titles as sinless, immaculate, ever- virgin, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Holy Queen, Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Virgin, etc. The Apostles taught us that Jesus Christ ALONE is the Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin..." Galatians 3:22

"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12

Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Notice the term which God uses in this verse, "all have sinned." God is not saying some or a few or even the majority, He is definite in His usage of "ALL." This means that Mary was part of that "all." Below in 1 John 3:4 we see the biblical definition of sin which is the transgression of God’s law. There is no division of sin into either venial or mortal classifications but only one class and that is sin. (James 2:10 KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Since Mary was part of the human race at that time, she was guilty of sin as every other human being was.

Therefore John the many errors that you subscribe to me are not errors at all with the exception of 3. above.

'In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace' Ephesians 1:7.

Respectfully Cathy Moss

-- Cathy Moss (ccmoss@netliner.com), January 17, 2001.

+

Dear John,
Is the Holy Gospel this susceptible to mis-interpretation? Yes-- Without the help of the Holy Spirit, a proud man or woman can contradict even Christ. I have it on good authority that when Mary the Mother of God is maligned, we must accept the devil is the ground-breaker. The devil hates and detests the Virgin Mary. Nothing is clearer to us, knowing that God has put eternal emnity between the Serpent and Mary, the woman / Gen, 3: 15; --So then, where ever we find her name brought low by men-- Look for the influence of her enemy. Does it surprise you a number of visitors to this board are her declared maligners? Not me. You must know if Catholics stand up for the faith, Satan will soon retaliate. This is one of his ways, by bringing out spokesmen for error and spite against the Holy Mother Church. ''An enemy hath done this.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 18, 2001.

Eugene,

With all due respect, quite frankly I think that your latest posting is a ridiculous thing to say. With an attitude like yours it is easy to see why so many people were burned at the stake as heretics.

-- Cathy Moss (ccmoss@netliner.com), January 18, 2001.

I am signing off permanently from this forum. Any postings to me will be in vain. Eugene's last message epitomizes your unwillingness to acknowledge God's word. I leave you to your conceits.

-- Cathy Moss (ccmoss@netliner.com), January 18, 2001.

Dear Cathy Moss:,
I shall offer you my apology when you apologize to this forum for striking out at the Mother of God, and very cutely signing the post, ''respectfully, Cathy''.

You're very right, I have an attitude-- it riles me to hear Mary the mother of my Divine Saviour maligned on a Catholic forum. Since I am a member (underserving though I might be), I would expect you and others to remember we love Mary in the Catholic Church.

I must acknowledge what you describe as God's word. But you don't have any responsibility to respect my Church's teaching or the honor of the Virgin Mary? Yet, I would never burn you. Belittling Mary is not heresy, Cathy. But it surely must offend her Son Jesus /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 18, 2001.

Eugene, I cannot see why you say Cathy has maligned or belittled Mary. Cathy has simply used scripture to answer John's reply to her. If the Holy Bible of God doesn't support your viewpoint, as taught to you by the Catholic church, on the sinless nature of Mary, then surely that is a matter between you and your church and God to sort out. It is hardly Cathy's fault as she explained why she believed in 'sola scripture'.

Let us all not forget the dire warning near the end of the Bible, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book". (Revelation 22:18-19)

Kind regards.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 19, 2001.

Dear Steven Smith,

You're quoting the reply I made after Cathy's objections to my post. In it, I only spoke my opinion; that is,

Without the help of the Holy Spirit, a proud man or woman can contradict even Christ. I have it on good authority that when Mary the Mother of God is maligned, we must accept the devil is the ground-breaker. The devil hates and detests the Virgin Mary. Nothing is clearer to us, knowing that God has put eternal emnity between the Serpent and Mary, the woman / Gen, 3: 15; --

Pardon my poor html / -- Her subsequent message stated that I was ''unwilling to accept God's Word,'' after saying I was like the ones who burned people for heresy. This is not conciliatory, and I answered to say you apologise for the way you renounce Mary, I'll apologise to you, for hurting your feelings. I regret pouring gasoline on a fire. I'm only human.

Steven, you might think the ''Holy Bible of God doesn't support my viewpoint''. I'm not relying on my viewpoint. You are relying on yours when you contradict the teachings of Christ, His Apostles, and His Church. Because the Church is the arbiter under the Holy Spirit of the meanings of Scripture, as given us by Christ and His Apostles, --I assert that nothing has ever been added nor taken away from the Word of God; or from the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation). You have a right to your opinions, but not a right given you in Scripture to contradict Christ's Church. Sola Scriptura is nothing but man's pride assuming authorities not coming from Jesus Christ. Thank you for your unassuming and kind post.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 19, 2001.

Cathy, I am sorry you are feeling hurt. I'm Catholic, and I love Mary, and I have heated (but always friendly and polite) discussions with my roommate, who, as you do, loves God very much and seeks him in his Holy Word. I know that you don't want to post again, and I can understand. I can also understand why Eugene is upset, as I am sure he loves Mary very much and is tired of people disrespecting our religion and one of the most important figures in the Bible. After a while, any kind of comment can be viewed as negative. Religion is a very senstive issue for people, as they care deeply about their faith.

I am afraid that I do not know the answers to most of your questions; I have only recently begun to study the nearly 2000 years of Catholic teachings and history-- I hope that someone will post to answer your specific theological questions. I too, would like to know how the Church feels about these issues. I do know that every Church dogma is recorded, and that if you searched in University libraries, you could find the actual teachings. Remember that not everything a member of the Church has written (even the saints) is undisputed or considered dogma. The Church is specific in stating what is dogma. Even if you no longer post on this site, you can still find answers about Catholicism.

Now I have a question for you, or any other person who knows the answer: Mary is mentioned in the Bible several times in the Gospels. (Gabriel says "Hail thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women" (Lk 1:28), she visits her cousin Elisabeth, who says "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of the womb. And whence is this to me, that the *mother of my Lord should come to me* For lo as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord." (Lk 1:42-45) And in Lk 1:48, Mary says that "... from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Then of course, she gives birth to Christ. There are different interpretations of the Temple scene, where the prophet tells Mary that a sword shall pierce her soul. (Lk 2:35) I had always considered it to foreshadow the crucifixion, and I think it does, but now I see there can be a dual message there. And Mary is the one who says to Jesus "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." (Lk 2:48) She also is at the wedding feast of Cana, where Jesus performs his first miracle, turning the water into wine. Mary is instrumental in this miracle-- after Jesus tells her that his hour is not yet come, she tells the servants: "Whatever he saith unto you, do it." Then Jesus performs the miracle. (Jn 2:1-11) So Mary had influence over Jesus. And Mary is at the cross when Jesus dies, for he speaks to her in Jn 19:26) (By the way, I took those quotes from my roomie's King James Bible, not mine, so you know this is what the Protestant Bible says.)

So, if Mary is so often mentioned in the Bible, she must be important. Even if you do not believe anything more than what the Bible says, and do not consider the Church's titles for her valid, she was important to Jesus and to our salvation. Of all the in the world, the past, the present, and the future, Mary is the one God chose to bear Jesus, and she is the one who said "Yes" willingly.

My question is, do any Biblical-based religions honor Mary? And if not, why?

On your other comment, Cathy, that Catholics rarely back up their opinions with the Bible, I am afraid that it is, in part, true. In fact, it is the stereotype. Although Catholics wrote the Bible, copied the Bible, printed the Bible, hear the Bible in ever Mass, and pray prayers taken from the Bible, many do not know it from their own readings. I can understand how that would frustrate you in conversations; if you can't read someone's facts, you can't even tell if their ideas ARE teachings of the Church, and it is even more difficult to believe them. The Church, however, wants people to know the Bible and Catholic history-- to understand their faith. I am in two classes at my church, and we read the Bible extensively as we learn theology. People also must attend classes to receive the sacraments for the first time.

The most important thing to remember in these discussions is the example of the Pharicees and Saducees-- religious people who disagreed on religious issues. They were so concerned with the details of the faith, of being perfect, of being right, of being holy, that many of them missed out on the biggest thing to happen since the Creation-- the coming of Jesus. Now, we all believe in Jesus here, but we can still ignore him if we care more about proving each other wrong than learning about each other. It's a lot harder to find truth when you are angry. Let's keep loving God and each other.

God bless you-

Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 19, 2001.

Hannah: An excellent piece you wrote here. Congratulations on your interest in the Bible and in Catholic doctrine. Your are showing the way to so many that speak about Catholicism without taking the time and the effort to dig into its depths.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.

Thanks, Enrique. I try, I try. I have learned a lot of facts this past year and a lot of patience.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.

Speaking of "trying," Hannah, we "try" to be patient here -- but some days (too often, lately) the weakness of our humanity breaks through. If only people would stop attacking Catholicism, stop trying to force their beliefs down our throats, etc.! The incessant repetition of that stuff, for about a week now, has riled some of us up into a fever pitch. So far, some of them haven't noticed that their cause is hopeless, that their arguments hold no water, and that they cannot change any of us faithful Catholics.

You asked, "do any Biblical-based religions honor Mary? And if not, why?"
Yours was not a "trick question," but I will give you a "trick answer."
Catholicism is a "Biblical-based religion" that honors Mary.
I know that you had in mind those segments of our separated brethren that call themselves "Bible Christians," but we have to stand up and say that we are just that. As you so clearly mentioned, our forebears did the writing, the canonizing, and the hand-copying, and the preaching in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Even though some Catholics pay too little attention to scripture, we Catholics are nevertheless "Bible Christians" (and Marian too, as are the Eastern Orthodox).

God bless you. John
PS: Now I hope that one of our fundamentalist visitors will answer your question, with respect to their "wing" of Christianity. [I have read that, among "mainline" Protestants, some "high-church" Anglicans, a small number of Methodists, and a small number of Lutherans have genuinely deep devotion to Our Lady. Some even pray the rosary.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 21, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Hannah. I notice that you said to Cathy, "I hope that someone will post to answer your specific theological questions. I too, would like to know how the Church feels about these issues."
I believe that you are referring to her numbered responses to my earlier numbered comments -- the ones she left in her final, substantive message. I have been intending, for a few days, to reply to her statements, but there have been so many other things to write here! Though Cathy may be gone, it is good that her comments not go unanswered -- for the benefit of "late arrivers" like yourself.

(Point 1) Cathy wrote: "How do you know that they [Anglicans, Lutherans, and others Enrique listed] are Christians unless they confess that the Lord Jesus has come in the flesh? Have you personally heard them all make this confession? 1 John 4:2 ['By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.']"
Response: It is not necessary for me explicitly to hear each person's confession of faith with my ears. Most of those Protestant denominations use the Apostles' Creed and/or other ancient "profession of faith" formulas. Those that don't nevertheless have published declarations of their basic beliefs -- including the fact that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," etc.. If someone says that she is an Anglican (Lutheran, etc.) in good standing [and not just "in name only"], I am within my rights to assume that she adheres to the Creed or declaration of beliefs. It follows logically, then, that our separated brethren who are genuine members of the denominations Enrique mentioned are indeed Christians.
---------------------------

(Point 2a) Cathy wrote: "I believe that the Catholic church is indeed a cult."
Response: The word "cult" is very old and has had many meanings, including very harmless ones (e.g., formal religious worship). But the average speaker of English at this new "turn of the century," upon hearing the word "cult," thinks of a definition somewhat like this one: "A cult is an organization that has an authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new members ... people are not told 'up front' what the group is, what the group actually believes, and what will be expected of them if they become members. A cult uses destructive mind-control techniques to keep people dependent and obedient. And a cult member cannot freely choose to dis-affiliate without fear or harassment."
I believe that it is clear, then, the Catholic Church is not a "cult," according to the modern use of the term. Though the pope has significant authority, he is not a dictator. [Some anti-Catholics may dispute that, but they would easily be proved wrong.] The Church does not use deception toward prospective members. She is a 2,000-year-old "open book." Everything anyone would care to know about her beliefs, her history, the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of members, etc., is in the plain light of day. No one is pressured to join. No one is pressured to stay. The Church harasses no one who leaves, and no one is in fear of the Church for having "dis-affliated." Finally, the Church does not use destructive mind-control techniques.
Obviously, the Catholic Church is not a "cult." No cult could have a 2,000-year history and one billion members. No cult could have diplomatic relations with over 100 nations (including the U.S.), as the Vatican has. No cult could have its leaders hosted by several recent U.S. presidents (as the popes have been). Presidents don't go to visit cult leaders in Europe, but they visit the pope (one of the key people in the destruction of the Iron Curtain). No cult could have people honored by the whole world as living saints, as was Mother Teresa, whose words were quoted by our new President Bush in his inaugural address. Cathy is clearly mistaken. (And I too was mistaken about something. I would like to apologize for originally listing Mormonism with the Watchtower [Jehovah's Witnesses] as a cult. Although the Latter Day Saints are not Christian, I have reconsidered and now believe that they probably do not meet the definition of a "cult" as given above.)
If you check this list of cults, prepared by FACTNet (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network), you will see that normal religious groups, including Catholicism, are not listed because they are not cults.

(Point 2b) Cathy wrote: "You believe Peter was the 'rock' that Christ founded his church on. I believe that as already stated by Dr. Taichi the 'rock' refers to the revelation of Peter."
Response: This has already been refuted on other recent threads, which no doubt will be seen by the reader who is browsing carefully. I won't repeat anything, except to say that the key to understanding this is the knowledge that Jesus spoke Aramaic, telling Simon, "You are KEFA (Aramaic for "Rock") and upon this KEFA I will built my Church." This helps one see the tie-in clearly. The Catholic teaching on this has been correct and unchanging from 30 A.D. to the present. The modern, incorrect statements of Dr. TaiChi and Cathy arise from their undependable practice of "sola scriptura" with private, unguided interpretation of the Bible.
--------------------------------

(Point 3) Cathy wrote: "[John, you are right.] I have never heard you say" that "being a Christian is a matter of belonging to a certain church. ... However Catholic popes have said so. [Quotations from Innocent III and Boniface VIII followed.] Now you must ask yourself if so-called infallible popes have declared the above, what do you really believe?"
Response: Cathy's quotations do not contradict what I stated -- namely that one could be a Christian, while not yet Catholic. I don't believe that she considered her papal quotations carefully enough.
Pope Innocent said that there "is but one universal Church." This is true. But he did not deny that there are Christians who are temporarily outside that Church (as Cathy is). They are Christians who are in "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church.
Pope Boniface made a statement concerning salvation, but he too did not deny that there are Christians who are temporarily outside the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------

(Point 4) Cathy wrote: "I put my trust in God's word not in the doctrines of men."
Response: That is all she said. This weak "non sequitur" tells me that she could not cope with with what I had written at Point #4, which was this: "If you are 48 and still believe what you do, you must have missed out on scores of opportunities to find out what Catholics really believe (and why), because your messages reveal that you just have very little knowledge (and loads of prejudice) on this subject. What you 'know' about Catholicism is mostly falsehoods and half-truths fed to you by professional anti-Catholics. Come to us Catholics -- the 'horse's mouth' -- to learn the genuine facts. Engage us in a respectful conversation and you will come away amazed at how much you were formerly misled."
-------------------------------

(Point 5) Cathy wrote: "I believe in Sola Scripture ..."
Response: If she had a nickel for every time the principle of "sola scriptura" has been shown to be false and unworkable, Cathy would never have to work another day! Repeatedly, the verses cited by Susan have been shown not to have the meaning she has read into to them through an incorrect private interpretation. "Sola scriptura" has been debunked many times on various threads in this forum, including in recent days. Any visitor can find such refutations without difficulty, here and elsewhere. Good ones at other Internet sites are at the Catholic Answers site and at Chris Butler's site.
-------------------------------

(Point 6a) Cathy wrote: "Mary knew her own sin and acknowledged her need of a Savior (Luke 1:47)."
Response: Since there is no mention anywhere of Mary having sinned, Cathy has invented the statement that "Mary knew her own sin." Mary called Jesus her "Savior," because he rescued her from the taint of Adam's sin. (That is what is meant by her "immaculate conception.") Imagine turning a corner and falling into quicksand. If someone reaches down and pulls you out, he "saves" you. Now imagine that helper standing at the corner and grabbing you to hold you back before you can fall in. He still "saves" you. And that is how Mary can call Jesus her "Savior." He rescued her before there was a possibility of her falling into sin.

(Point 6b) Cathy wrote: "None of the Lord's Apostles exalted Mary."
Response: If "exaltation" means "adoration" or "worship" to Cathy, then Catholics surely do not exalt her as a "goddess." Rather, we "honor" or "venerate" her as God's most holy creature.

(Point 6c) Cathy wrote: "None of [the Lord's Apostles] applied to [Mary] such titles as sinless, immaculate, ever-virgin, Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Holy Queen, Queen of Heaven, Our Lady, Co-Redemptress, Immaculate Virgin, etc.."
Response: None of us, including Cathy, is capable of making such a statement. We can only say that the Apostles were not recorded in the Bible as having paid her such honors. We don't know what they said privately, to Mary or about her. But even if the Apostles used none of these titles, it does not follow logically that we are banned from using them! I mean, what is Cathy's point in even bringing this up? People can create honorific titles for those whom they love and appreciate. Catholics have TONS of titles for each of the Persons of the Trinity, for angels and saints, etc., that have come into being through our 20 centuries. This kind of thing is the fruit of a deep love affair!

(Point 6d) Cathy wrote: "The Apostles taught us that Jesus Christ ALONE is the Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5)."
Response: And that is why Catholics treat only Jesus as that Mediator. Apparently, Cathy was wrongly taught to believe otherwise about us. Mary is an intercessor (as we all are), not a mediator with the Father.

(Point 6e) Cathy then quoted various verses that are well summed up by one of them: "(Rom 3:23 KJV) 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' Notice the term which God uses in this verse, 'all have sinned.' God is not saying some or a few or even the majority, He is definite in His usage of 'ALL.' This means that Mary was part of that 'all.'"
Response: I'm astounded that Cathy would say this when I had just demonstrated, earlier in the thread, that we cannot take the word, "all," literally. Perhaps she was having trouble understanding me. Let me repeat what I said with slight changes, and I will hope that no one else will misunderstand ... There ARE exceptions to what St. Paul said!!! It is not true that ALL have sinned. St. Paul was generalizing, not stating words that were to be taken literally. Examples: Jesus did not sin ... Children who die before reaching the age of reason have never sinned ... People who are born profoundly retarded or seriously mentally ill are incapable of sinning. OK. Now that we see that there are exceptions to St. Paul's word, "all," we must admit that there may be other exceptions. God may also help other people to remain sinless throughout their lives. We believe that is what happened with Mary. Since there are various exceptions to St. Paul's "all," and since the scripture nowhere says that Mary herself sinned, no one can prove that she sinned. Consequently, no one need be disturbed when we speak of the sinlessness of Our Lady. She did not absolutely have to be sinless, but it was the most appropriate state for a woman who would be bearing her God inside her, and her God was capable of creating his own mother in the most suitable way -- perfectly pure.

(Point 6f) Cathy wrote (saving a "stunner" for last): "... in 1 John 3:4 ["Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness"] we see the biblical definition of sin which is the transgression of God's law. There is no division of sin into either venial or mortal classifications but only one class and that is sin."
Response: I called this a "stunner," because Cathy quoted from 1 John, the very book that contains a passage that refutes the very point she tried to make. This is what I mean:
1 John 5:16 -- "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal. I do not say that one is to pray for that." [In the King James Version, this is rendered as follows, and its archaic terminology may have deceived Cathy: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.]
I cannot strongly enough recommend that every Christian who uses a KJV also obtain a full Catholic bible produced in the 20th century. Using only a KJV is an invitation to frustration and frequent mistakes. And, obviously, I strongly counsel all to abandon "sola scriptura" and investigate Catholicism. I don't want to seem "triumphalistic," but it becomes clear that Cathy was again shown to be mistaken in almost everything she wrote. It breaks my heart to know that a person who loves Jesus and is trying to do what is right is mired in so much theological confusion. Please pray for her and me.
-------------------------------

God bless all.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 21, 2001.

You covered it quite completely, John. Two points I'd add are:

In Point 2b, as an alternative to the Catholic Church's clear interpretation of Jesus' words, Thou art Peter, upon this Rock-- meaning, My Church is to be built on YOU, Peter--

The Protestant's stock reply to such blunt reality is a transparent maneuver, a ''parsing'' of the words-- that would hardly occur to one making a simple, unbiased interpretation. Peter's confession is apparent and LEADS TO Christ's clear appointment to Primacy in His Church. But his confession of faith as the ROCK upon which the Church is built can't be anything but subterfuge. Now, why should this maiming of the syntax and substance of Christ's words register with any reasonable reader? It doesn't. It's blatant opposition to Rome, and nothing else.

Picture the same logic if they attempted to discredit Moses: No, God didn't mean ''I AM'', Yawheh; what he meant is I'm the Burning Bush-- You must tell them my name is the Burning Bush.'' Except they have no quarrel with Moses. It's pure malfeasance, that's a fact; anti-Catholicism. I'm not acting very ecunemical, I guess. I'm sorry.

**************************

All this objection in Point 6-- The ''titles'' Cathy thinks are unsupportable, because none of the apostles or disciples of Our Lord ever addressed them to Mary; ''Immaculate, ever-virgin, etc.,''

How about ''Full of grace, Blessed among women, the Lord is with thee,'' addressed by an archangel of God? And, ''The Mother of my Lord,'' by St. Elizabeth? It leaves one actually yearning to hear how much they extolled our Blessed Mother, in her lifetime! It must have been sublime /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 22, 2001.