Dear John, ol'Buddy,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I had a particularly work-packed week. And I went out of town to visit my son(C).

I'm sorry that your royal highness(in your own mind) thought I should have stayed in bed instead of posting about my Catholic family and how Jesus saved me .

The "catholic version"of being born again as a baby, through Baptism, goes against free will. Being "born again" involves speaking with your own mouth " Lord Jesus,I know that I am a sinner and I need your forgiveness.I believe that You died in my place, to pay the penalty for my sin, and rose again for my salvation.I want to turn from my sins. Please come into my heart and life as my Lord and my Savior."

You said,"if you had grown up under a Truly Catholic pastor,family,friends and had a truly catholic spouse(my Roman Catholic husband really liked that one)in an environment wherein there was true love of Christ, etc.etc.etc. Well, that is exactly what I grew up with. I was sent to Catholic schools, there were some great nuns and some very,very bad nuns.(point, if Jesus is NOT in a persons heart, it shows) You can talk out of every corner of your mouth and it will still show, if Jesus is not dwelling in you.

You have the nerve to belittle the work that my son(C) does in the Mission field.His heart is so kind and true to Jesus, I am well pleased with him as is God, who is blessing him and his work.In your post on Jan. 13th , you said that what we believed was so close, then you turn around and say that it's sad that my son was working against God's will. Through the power of the Holy Spirit he is bringing more unsaved people to Christ every day. And you,since you claim to love Christ, should be happy about that.

You said, "by my definition , satan is a Christian" what a lame,sorry, sad thing to say. Does satan say, "Jesus is Lord", "Please come into my heart Lord Jesus" "Jesus death on the cross and resurrection, defeated Satan forever!"????

When one asks Jesus to be the Lord of his/her life, we are filled with the Holy Spirit. we have confessed that we are sinners and NEVER want to sin again.therefore...commit to OBEY God. But without Jesus in your heart( your cold stoney heart) you will always sin again!

So, now YOU see that YOU are WRONG AGAIN!

I must go now, but I will be back. Because I have a few more bones to pick with you.

May the Lord Jesus draw you to Him, in Jesus name, I pray.Amen.

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001

Answers

Having just read the Jan.17 referred to by Susan all I can say 'good on you, Susan'.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 20, 2001.

Dear Susan:

First of all, let me tell you how much I like your prayer. It is very simple and beautiful, and I think that people could benefit by praying it. We all need Christ's mercy, and we need him to dwell in us.

Of course, according to your new definition, John's comment about Satan makes no sense. But in your old definition, which hinged only on *believing,* it did. Satan knows who Jesus is, what he did on the Cross, etc. I think it safe to say that he has not said your prayer, and that, although he may believe in Jesus, he certainly does not love him. John was just pointing out a danger, that all Christians have, of using "belief" as the only criteria- Jesus tells us to love and obey as well.

Please tell me more about your religion. Do you believe that one must say the *exact* words of that prayer to be saved? Does only your specific church use that prayer? It is very basic, and as a former Catholic I am sure you know that we believe in everything it says. And how can you say all that stuff about baptism? Didn't your church ever say the prayer in Mass about reaffirming our baptism? It is very detailed, and I can't remember all of it, but I am sure someone out there knows it and can write it out for us. And many Catholics are confirmed as adults; I am one such Catholic. Also, in your religion, do you not consider prople Christians until they are adults? I mean, if Catholic teenagers only go to Confirmation classes because everyone else is, maybe young people in your church only repeat your prayer because they feel they must. Is an adult commitment the only valid one? Would you disapprove of raising children to be nondenominational, because it would be enforced?

From the way you describe it, Susan, your prayer for salvation sounds a lot like a ritual, or sacrament, just like the Church has. If, for you, believing everything in the prayer, as Catholics certainly do, is not enough to be a Christian-- if one must say the exact words for it to work, (and this prayer is not found in the Bible, I believe) then please explain to me how believing in IT'S power is different from believing in the Sacraments.

Another thing-- you may be excited and thrilled about your son's mission trips to the "unsaved" portions of the world, but please understand that, as those people are of our religion, we are not going to express enthusiasm about your son trying to convert them. But then, perhaps he is only trying to bring them closer to Jesus, to excite them about their faith, and is not undermining Catholicism. Or maybe they all are atheists. In that case, wonderful.

Susan, I have a final question for you: since I prayed your prayer, and truly meant it with all my heart, am I now what you and your new preacher consider a Christian? Keep in mind that I am a Catholic, that I love the Catholic Church, the Mass, the saints, Mary, the Tradition, the Eucharist, the other sacraments, and that I go to Mass not because I am forced to or because it is my habit, but because I love too. Thank you-

Hannah

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

Thank you, Hannah--
Nobody could have said it better. You serve God the best possible way you can-- kneeling first to His Divine Will, protecting with all your heart the integrity and Truth of His Word. You proceed to offer Peace, and Christian charity, as Jesus exhorted, ''Do good to those who hate you,'' (Matt 5:44) You aren't hated by Susan, I know-- but the Church is hated, and the grace to come into it is refused. Yet you speak with tact and understanding.

I'm consoled by the fact Susan received a Catholic baptism; which she now would like to repudiate. But baptism is final. Perseverance to the end is up to us, because we are sinners. Susan is also eligible as a good person to persevere, and not to apostacize. Let God's Will be done, and we shall pray for her.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2001.

I smell a rat

-- Alan Darton (ajdarton@flashnet.com), January 21, 2001.

Dear Hannah,

Hannah, I love that name. It's the name of my first grandaughter, little Hannah Joy. She is 5 now. She asked Jesus into her heart when she was only 3 yrs.old.

I am on my way out the door, but I just wanted to say a couple things. I'll have more time after church.

You asked me about the words/prayer that I prayed , when I asked Jesus to be the Lord over my life. They are my own words, but I am sure, very similar to those said by one who is asking Jesus into his/her heart.

It is not just saying the words, it is living these words. Letting go of the tight grip we have on our lives, getting into God's word(the only way to know God).Having a real relationship with Him.

It's not about religion. It's what is in our hearts. I can see that you have a tender heart.

Must go now,God Bless You.

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 21, 2001.

Dear John,

Please accept my apology for calling you "Your royal highness". That was rude and I am sorry.

Back to my response to your post on Jan. 17, 2001. You said, " I assure you that(an expression you use often), if what your Pastor teaches is not identical with the Catholic faith, his teachings have become watered down truth". So, now you're calling the Word of God, the Bible, watered down truth ?

My Pastor teaches straight from the Bible, he does not make exceptions to anything in the Bible. We believe that the whole Bible is TRUE. He is filled with the Holy Spirit,who interprets the Bible.

No human being is infallible, not your pope, not your cardinals,or bishops or priests. But God is infallible, and with His Holy Spirit we can interpret what the Bible says.1 Corinthians 2:9-12.

In question #5 , you asked if Mother Teresa, Eugene, Ed, Enrique, and other Catholics are eligible for heaven right now.

My question to you then is...Have you asked Jesus to be the Lord of your life? Have you abandoned your self and submitted to God's will? At the end of your life , when you are standing in front of God, what will your answer be when He asks " Why should I let you in to MY heaven?"

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 21, 2001.

Dear Susan:

You say that your preacher preaches from the Bible, and that "He is filled with the Holy Spirit, which interprets the Word infallibly." This is what we Catholics believe about the Pope!!! It sounds like you are accrediting to your preacher the very thing that you are against in Catholics. Does your preacher know you consider him infallible when it comes to teaching the Word? He might be surprised. Susan, I don't want to offend you, and since I am Catholic you may even take it as a compliment, but a lot of your postings come off as containing pretty Catholic emotions/desires. I mean, most nondenominational people I've talked to believe that they themselves can find the answers the Holy Spirit holds for us in the Bible. They come off as putting emphasis on individual power in the congregation, and don't seem to care as much about particular preachers. Of course, I am an outsider looking in, and knowing all the crazy things people say about Catholics, I sure don't want to misrepresent your religion. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I notice that you did not actually answer the question about whether Mother Teresa gets to go to Heaven. Please answer it; I would really like to hear what you think on the matter. To the answer to your last, very interesting question, I learned in confirmation class that the only valid answer to that is not "I did good things" or "I went to church a lot" but that there is no "case" we can plead. We must totally rely on Christ's sacrifice and mercy.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 21, 2001.

Hannah,

Whether mother Teresa went to heaven or not is not a question for us people on earth to answer. We do not know what her relationship with Christ was. I know mother Teresa did wonderful work among the poor but does the Bible say that makes you eligble for heaven? No it does not. Does it say that being a member of a church, any church except Christ's Church (the body of Christ)or as you call it the 'Mythical body of Christ" by being born again as in John 3:3, no it does not.

Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags."

One hopes that this wonderful woman is at rest with the Lord, especially after all her depravations and selflessness.

-- Alan Darton (ajdarton@flashnet.com), January 22, 2001.

Alan, this is a special thread on which Susan is answering questions. I would appreciate it if you would allow her to answer them alone. Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Geci (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Jmj

Oh, Hannah! You are the greatest!
You have only "known" me for a few days, but you understood exactly what I was trying to say to Susan on that other thread. She misunderstood so much, even though she and I have been acquainted for a few months. I suspect that the problem is that she and I did not "hit it off" well when she arrived here. We have had a poor relationship. It appears that this fact must put her into a kind of numb state whenever she reads what I write. [I hope that it is numbness and not hatred!] This seems to leave her with an inability to grasp what I'm trying to say to her and to respond appropriately. Thank you so much for telling her kindly the kinds of things that I would have tried to say to her (though probably again without success) to help her get past her misunderstandings and errors.

Unfortunately, Hannah, even though she likes you, Susan is so far adrift into her new religion that she appears to be rejecting the facts again today, despite now understanding (?) your explanation of them. It is quite amazing to me that she continues to come here. It is clear that we would never accept her theology (which we have read time and again). And, no matter how many different people have shown her the ways in which she is mistaken, she has persisted for these months in never admitting to being wrong, in never accepting any Catholic doctrine. This leaves her and some of us Catholics pretty exasperated -- at regular intervals. At times, we have made each other so frustrated that I've wondered if there is something of a sadist and masochist in her. I'm not going to hide the fact that I have asked her to leave at least once. She has often been away for several days or even longer, and I have been sad to see her return. However, now I'm trying to hope that it is an act of God that prompts her to come here, to learn and to return to Catholicism. (I don't like to consider the alternatives.) Maybe with your help, Hannah, as a soothing presence, things will change.

Let me illustrate the communications gap I have with Susan ...
On the other thread, her very first words to me on the 17th were: "It's 1:00 AM and I should be sleeping, but I just finished reading Hebrews chapter 8."
To tease her, I started my reply message with these words (followed by an emoticon/smiley face): "Your first words were, 'It's 1:00 AM and I should be sleeping ...' When I finished reading your post, I said to myself, 'Yep, she definitely should have been sleeping.' (_8^D)"
So how did she respond to this on the new thread? "I'm sorry that your royal highness (in your own mind) thought I should have stayed in bed instead of posting about my Catholic family and how Jesus saved me."
Excuse me, but I couldn't tolerate that kind of improper reply even from a friend -- much less from someone who is trying to make me a heretic!
Then she comes back with another thread later in the day. She starts by apologizing for using the phrase "your royal highness." But in her next sentence, she goes on, "You [John] said, 'I assure you that (an expression you use often) ... '"
Yes, I'm not kidding. The supposedly apologizing Susan turns around and snidely criticizes my choice of words. Maybe she should have checked the seven separate posts I made on that thread, noticing that the passage she quoted was the only one that contained the expression, "I assure you that. ..." Apparently she dislikes the thought that a Catholic could "assure" her of anything.
Actually, I would gladly trade Susan's apology, and I would gladly suffer many more insults -- in exchange for any slightest glimmer of recognition that she has fallen into a potentially deadly snare.

Hannah, I am so grateful to you for showing Susan that what I said about faith/satan/obedience made perfect sense, and that she was "changing the rules in the middle of the game" by suddenly adding her "sinner's prayer" as part of the equation and then unfairly criticizing me.

I thank you and Eugene for trying to help her with the subject of infant Baptism (and the renewal of baptismal vows that she must have made many times while still a Catholic). I could present her with information on that subject, as well as links to Catholic apologetics essays on the subject. But should I? I see no sign that she would accept truths from any Catholic. Because she is infatuated with the infallibility of her pastor, she thinks that she has the answer to everything under the sun, that she too is incapable of telling us an error, and that we can teach her nothing. I would bet that she has never seen the arguments and evidence (biblical and early Christian) for infant baptism, but she leaves me with the impression that she couldn't even care less that it exists. That kind of attitude problem makes for a person who doesn't really seek dialog and it certainly cannot justify her continued presence here.

I am grateful also for your probing questions to Susan about the prayer that she presses upon everyone. I agree with you that it has a sort of quasi-sacramental nature about it, and that the Bible does not provide such a formula attached to a promise of salvation for reading it. Ironically, although she would say that we are saved by faith alone, she immediately says that faith really ain't enough, because we also have to do the "work" of reciting a formulaic prayer.

I am especially grateful to you for showing Susan how unrealistic she was to expect us to be happy about what her son has done as a missionary (unless it involves only drawing atheists/agnostics into Christianity [which is highly unlikely]). The last thing Latin America needs is for there to be fewer Catholics there. Here is another example of that communications gap I mentioned earlier. Susan wrote, in the new thread: "You have the nerve to belittle the work that my son does in the Mission field." I did not "belittle" it, but rather pointed out the ways in which it was improper. Susan has mischaracterized my statements more than once during these months, trying to make me look like a villain, and I really hate that. This time it was particularly venomous because she started a new thread, making it less likely that others would go back to check up on the accuracy of her statements on the old thread.

Thank you also for pointing out the untenable position into which Susan has placed herself with respect to her pastor. You are absolutely right about the allegedly "normal" Protestant position of individual, autonomous, determination of doctrine through private reading of scripture, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.. But that is only theoretical. In real life, few of these poor souls have the skills, energy, or inclination to do the work on their own, and they end up making little infallible popes of their pastors, as Susan has done. Oh, how she has deceived herself! I was astounded to actually read her statement that her pastor "is filled with the Holy Spirit, who interprets the Bible" and "God is infallible, and with His Holy Spirit we can interpret what the Bible says." That is the kind of mind-set of the victims of the Jonestown tragedy! How could she be ignorant of the fact that, down the road from her church building, there are hundreds of similar building that have similar pastors, each of whom is allegedly "receiving" a slighly or very different "infallible interpretation" of the same passages from the Holy Spirit? How could such naivete exist in our modern world? A woman who knows how to use a computer, but claims that she embraces the Swiss-Cheese texture of "sola scriptura" -- without realizing that she is actually rejecting "sola scriptura" and relying totally on the fallible human interpretations given by a man who hasn't even received Holy Orders.

Finally, thank you for pressing Susan to give a better answer to my question that involved Mother Teresa. Perhaps you should see that question again, since it involved Susan's obtaining an (infallible?) answer from her pastor, not giving one herself: "Could you ask your pastor to let you know whether or not Mother Teresa, Eugene, Ed, Enrique, and other Catholics are eligible for heaven right now? (Remember to mention to him that we have not gone through the 'born again' experience that you described.) Will Mother Teresa and the rest of us miss out on heaven because of that, being consigned to hell?" Susan's attempt at an answer (apparently not from her pastor was not an answer, but a non-helpful question: "My question to you then is... Have you asked Jesus to be the Lord of your life? Have you abandoned your self and submitted to God's will? At the end of your life, when you are standing in front of God, what will your answer be when He asks, 'Why should I let you into MY heaven?'"
I want Susan's pastor (who receives infallible messages from the Holy Spirit -- the Spirit who knows about the state of the soul of Mother Teresa, Eugene, et al.) to provide a clear-cut answer. (Maybe even Susan knows if Mother Teresa did the "work" that fundamentalism requires -- asking Jesus to be her Lord of her life, abandoning herself, submitting to God's will.) So where are the answers?

May God guide us in this new week.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

John,

Of course, how crass of me. I consider myself severely reprimanded by your kind self. I will desist from further comment, look upon it as a fait accompli.

I await in silence your reply to Susan's question good sir.

-- Alan Darton (ajdarton@flashnet.com), January 22, 2001.

John,

Your reply to Susan is both arrogant, condescending and downright rude. You are in no position to lecture anyone. You should be ashamed of yourself.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 22, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Mary.
I can't really agree with a single word of your comment. If you can't place a helpful message here, then you ought not to place any at all.

You wrote: "Your reply to Susan is both arrogant, condescending and downright rude."
In the first place, I did not reply to Susan. She replied to my questions. If you check, you will see that I left a message of thanks to Hannah.
In the second place, your criticisms flow only from the "moral support" you wish to give to Susan. They aren't based on reality. If you would pause for just a few seconds to think about the various bad things Susan has done and said, to provoke me ... and if you would pause to think about the long list of truly abusive things a person could have said to her -- things that would have merited your exaggerated adjectives (arrogant, condescending, rude) -- then you would realize that I was pretty mild and constrained in my comments.

You concluded: "You are in no position to lecture anyone. You should be ashamed of yourself."
Ah, I see. But you, Mary, are in a position to lecture me? You have only arrived on the scene very recently and are not accustomed to our exchanges. You are apparently not Catholic, but instead you support others' errors, an action that insults me as a Catholic. You have not yet left a substantive, helpful message here. And yet, you would lecture me when I am trying to help a wayward soul? Please reform your thought and performance (or find another forum to disrupt).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

John Gecik,

Well aren't you filled to the brim with self importance. Get off your high horse man.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 22, 2001.

To Hannah:

First of all, you answered the post that I asked John. Are you Hannah or are you John? (not mean't to be rude)

John told Alan not to answer questions for me. Just an observation.

Actually Hannah, I don't mind if you help him out, he seems to have a problem with his temper.

If you look back at what I wrote, I said that the Holy Spirit is infallible. Right. I never said that my Pastor is infallible.

Alan was right when he said that none of us has the right to determine if Mother Teresa is in heaven with Jesus. But I read a book after her death that was supposed to be based on her daily journal/diary. And in this journal she wrote of the love of Jesus. She spoke of doing her work with the love of Jesus. So it seems to me that she had Jesus in her heart. But I would have to hear her own testimony to know for sure. Right around the time that Mother Teresa died, a guy from my church had just come back from working side-by- side with her. I don't know him, but I'm going to see if I can find out if he is in town, or out on another mission. When you say that the Pope is infallible, are you including all popes? Also, I would like to understand what it means to you , when you say, "We must totally rely on Christ's sacrifice and mercy" ?

I apologized to John for calling him, "your royal highness". But he did NOT forgive me. But I DO forgive him for taking my story and trying to make a mockery of it.

When I asked Jesus into my heart,(it's hard to describe)it was like I was all curled up in a pile on the floor, I said, I need you, Jesus, I can't do this any more, please take over for me. And it was like He ran to me, fast, He was right there. I could feel His presence, like nothing I had ever felt before.I was shaking and weeping and giggling with Joy. Jesus took my story(my sins)and made it His story. The love is so overwhelming. I traded my life for His life.

When Jesus died for us , we died to sin.. Look at Galations 2:20- 21...."I have been crucified with Christ: and I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

My prayer, Father God, is for all who do not know you. Father, I bring all in this forum before You and ask that You draw them so close to You. In the name of my Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.

Interesting name you have there, Mary.
Are you a famous actress?
The actress known as "Bo Derek" is actually named ...
Mary Catherine Collins Derek. [Collins is her maiden surname.]
It's a good Irish name, but I don't know if she is a Catholic.
I was surprised and pleased to learn recently that she is politically conservative, having supported Mr. Bush very vocally (and possibly to the detriment of her career).
Something tells me that she is not you, though.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Susan.
At first I was puzzled at what you just wrote because you used a phrase that was a bit mangled grammatically. But then I realized what you were trying to say.
Well, Susan, you have slipped again.
You wrote: "First of all, you answered the post that I asked John [sic]. Are you Hannah or are you John? ... John told Alan not to answer questions for me. Just an observation."

You thought that there was an inconsistency, but there was not. I really did ask you a series of questions on the other thread, and you have been trying to answer them. I asked Alan not to intervene in that.
But you did not ask me any genuine questions. And so, you were mistaken just now in telling Hannah, '... you answered the post that I asked John.'" Hannah just offered her good comments concerning your answers to me. She did not intervene to answer questions that I was supposed to answer, since there weren't any legitimate questions pending.
I hope that you can now see the distinction. And I hope that you are beginning to realize that there was no point in starting and fighting this war that you couldn't win. As has been stated before, every one of the several dozen objections to Catholicism has been refuted time and again during the past 2,000 years.

Until you show signs of turning things around, Susan, this is going to be my last message addressed to you. Right now, your mind and heart are closed like a steel trap, and I need to spend time talking to people who have some potential of being reached. I used to reply to every message you left here, because I was worried that your errors could lead Catholics astray. I don't worry about that any more, because the errors are so blatant (and now repeatedly refuted) that no one could be led astray at this point.

Susan, you will never be able to go away from this forum with a peaceful soul until you return to the Church. Your anger, frustration, and cheap shots are manifestations of bottled-up guilt (and not just about "falling away" from the faith). I know. I have lived through a very similar thing. I know about the torment that is eating away at you.

St. James, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, beloved mother of God, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
PS: I accept your apology, Susan. I was not trying to "make a mockery of" your story.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 23, 2001.

John, "As has been stated before, every one of the several dozen objections to Catholicism has been refuted time and again during the past 2,000 years".

Absolutely untrue, it is just that you refuse to open your heart or your mind to the truth of the refutations.

-- Alan Darton (ajdarton@flashnet.com), January 23, 2001.

Dear Susan:

No, I don't take offense at your comment about me not being John. I am new to this forum, so I am not too sure of the etiquette yet. But I don't think I really answered FOR John-- I did not say whether John has Jesus in his heart or not. I asked you questions about your religion and made my own observations, and I thank you for responding so politely, and for your prayer for us and this forum.

Although you have now qualified your position somewhat, I am still (foolishly, perhaps) impressed by the similarities between your ideas of your preacher, and Catholic ideas about the Pope. We believe that the Holy Spirit ALWAYS guides the Pope on spiritual matters that the whole Church must believe. Since the Holy Spirit is infallible, and the Pope is under his influence when he speaks "ex cathedra," we say that the Pope is infallible. Now, if you believe that your preacher, on matters of the faith, is ALWAYS guided by the Holy Spirit, then you are still believing the same thing that people get annoyed with Catholics for. Of course, I realize that religions are very complex, and that it is hard to understand their subtleties. I think I could understand better if you answered these questions: Do you believe your preacher is always guided by the Holy Spirit, even when he says something about the Scripture you don't believe or agree with? Have you ever disagreed, and do you still disagree, with him on a matter of your faith? How do you know whether he is being guided by the Holy Spirit, that his idea at the moment is not his own, but God's? I am trying to make sure I don't do you an injustice.

In your questions to me: generally, when I say the Pope, I am referring to the Pope in his official capacity. I am not making specific statements about John Paul II, although as a pope, he fits them, but statements that could apply to all the popes. John Paul is not, for example, the first infallible pope. In fact, all the Popes have been infallible in their official function. There are lots more threads on this. On the subject of John Paul II, I just have to say that he makes it very easy to admire and trust the papacy. The more I learn about him, the more I am impressed. I think all Christians can learn how to act in Christ by watching him.

When I say "We must totally rely on Christ's sacrifice and mercy," I mean that when we die, we are not going to get to heaven by reeling of a list of our good deeds, and demanding that God let us in-- that we "earned" Heaven. We have the chance to go to Heaven because Christ came to earth and sacrificed Himself to save us. He was so good, and loved us so much, that even as He was dying, He asked His Father to forgive us. What I mean, is that none of us should be arrogant and "cocky." God doesn't *have* to let us into Heaven. There are some other threads on this subject; the idea of Christ's mercy is not a new one in the Church, I assure you, and He is our only hope of salvation. If you want to learn a great prayer, check out the thread "Chaplet of Divine MErcy" and go to the links posted. I realize that you might not appreciate the prayer or believe in the story on the website, but I am willing to open up to you, Susan, and tell you that it is one of my favorite prayers. It is precious to me, and I hope that it will deepen your life as it has done mine.

Your story about how you gave your life to Jesus is very beautiful. That is how I sometimes feel when I pray-- so aware of my own unworthiness, and overwhelmed by His love and power in my life. The thing is, Susan, you didn't have to leave the Church to get that. If you read the testimonies of the Catholics in here, you will see many of them express your same emotion about the sacraments of confession(reconciliation) and the Eucharist.

Well, that's about all I can think of. I hope that answers your questions from me.

God bless you,

Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

St. James pray for us. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

Oops, I do apologise. I did say I was going to desist from further comment.

-- Alan Darton (ajdarton@flashnet.com), January 23, 2001.

Dear Alan,

Please to not desist. I am very interested in your thoughts and opinions. I appreciate the help of a brother in Christ.

God Bless You!

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

John,

I did ask you a question in that post. I'll ask it again.

Have you asked Jesus to be the Lord of your life?

At the end of your life, when you are standing in front of God and He asks, " Why should I let you into MY heaven?" what will your answer be?

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

God Bless YOU, Mary Derek !!

In this particular thread , you, Alan and I have been like a triple- braided cord. Ecclesiastes 4:12....Three is even better, for a triple braided cord is not easily broken.

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

Susan,

Thank you so much for your encouragement. It would seem that John Gecik has a problem with not only his temper but also the words of Holy Bible. That is the (KJV) Bible of sixty six books written by forty authors and not the Catholic bible where God's second commandment has been deleted.

I notice also that John did not deny that he was Hannah.

God Bless you.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 23, 2001.

!!! I thought Susan was politely telling me to let John answer the questions she posed him! Mary, are you thinking that I am JOhn? Well, I'm not! I'm a real person, and I have posted a lot on here; I've asked questions, and John's answered them. I know John's used pseudonyms before, but I don't think he's ever asked questions under another name, then answered them under his regular name. Well, I don't know how I can ease your doubts, but I assure you that my name really is Hannah, and I find it rather creepy to have you think I'm a middle-aged man.

By the way, if you are referring to the Ten Commandments, I compared my Bible to the King James Version that my roomie has, and they read exactly the same. The only difference is in that the KJV has Jacobian English, (I think that's the right term for it), while mine, the New American Bible, has modern English. The difference between Catholic and Prostestant bibles is that the Catholic bible has more books in the Old Testament.

-Hannah (real, breathing girl, not John's fake persona)

God bless you. St. James, pray for your website. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray that we may find inspiration and truth.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

Hannah,

I believe that you are who you say you are. Thank you for clearing that up. With regard to Bibles, the New American Bible is not the Catholic bible I was refering to. Incidentally, check your Bible and see what it says in 1 John 5:7 as compared to the KJV.

There is a tremendous book by Gail Ripplinger called 'New Age Bible Versions'. Dr Ripplinger spent six years in research on her subject. It is not an anti Catholic nor an anti Protestant book. It has annoyed quite a few Protestants who have started to read it however. This book is available from www.amazon.com for about $12. I highly recommend you read it.

Regards

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 23, 2001.

Mary,

How can you say the New Testament in the KJV is superior to the Catholic version? Don't you know WHERE the NT in the KJV came from?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2001.

Dear Friends,
Would any of you here in this thread (It is becoming redundant) care to hear some of my contemplations about those souls now departed, like Mother Theresa-- and their counterparts, some that were great sinners? I'm hoping to make some observations into their best hopes for salvation; as well as benefit from your own views. I'll title it ''Mother Theresa Gone To Her Reward.'' It might require an hour or two to finish. Thanks!
Saint James, pray for me; Hail, Immaculate Heart of Mary! Pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 23, 2001.

JOHN,

You accuse me of starting a fight. All I did was tell a TRUE story of my life. I didn't know that was grounds for a war...You said, " this war that you couldn't win"....I don't have to try to win, Jesus has already won the only battle that matters. HE made me His. Nothing you or anyone else says can take that away from me. I BELONG TO JESUS.

I don't worship anyone but GOD,Father,Son and Holy Spirit. My mind has been closed to religion since I became a New Person in Christ. Happy Birthday to Me...Feb 2,2001....5 awesome years in the arms of my Savior. Hallelujah !!!

You have one major mis-conception about me, John. I am not trying to lead Catholics astray. I love you all. I would not spend so much time in this forum otherwise. My Lord, Jesus commanded me to share the Gospel/Good News of Jesus Christ. That salvation only comes through knowing Him (not just knowing about Him).

You said, " you will never be able to go away from this forum with a peaceful soul until you return to the church".. Another assumption. I have a peace that is indescribable. It's a peace that only comes from Jesus. If I told you everything that has happened to me and my family, you would wonder why I'm still standing. I already told you this...It's like standing in the middle of a storm, Jesus is the wind breaker. I see terrible things happening that I can't do anything about. And since Jesus is in control, I only see the calm up ahead. I trust Him. There is nothing eating away at me, NO torment. I am filled with the Joy that is Jesus.

I pray for you everytime I see your name here. I prayed for you when you were gone.

My heavenly Father,You are the one true God and I will worship no other god but You.I thank You Father, for all that You have done and all You are going to do. I ask You , in Jesus name to draw John Gecik to you. Amen.

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 23, 2001.

Woohoo! Thanks, Mary, for believing I really exist. I was really kind of freaked out when you didn't.

I looked up the verses you suggested in the KJV of my friend and roommate. My roommate, by the way, is a very enthusiastic and devout nondenominational Christian. So, first I read the verse, not shown in my Catholic Bible, which talks about the Holy Trinity. I'm paraphrasing here (you can come quote it if you want) but it says that in Heaven there are three the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and they are in one accord.

There are two very interesting things I immediately noticed. The first one, which every Catholic here will pick up on immediately, is that though the verse is not in our Holy Bible, the Holy Trinity is one of our most important dogmas. To be Catholic, you have to believe in that.

Secondly, my roommate had lightly crossed out the verse. Why? Because she researches the sources of the Bible, and says that that verse is not in the source. She said she triple-checked. (SHe has a great concordance program). So, the reason for that verse being added to the Bible is a problem in translation.

-Hannah

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us to your SOn, our God and Redeemer. St. James, let us know, love, and preach the Word of the Lord.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Hannah.
You and your roommate are correct about 1 John 5:7-8.

I just looked at a half dozen Protestant Bible editions and at least half of them do not have the reference to the Persons of the Trinity in heaven (as does the KJV). Two of these Bibles have footnotes that explain why the difference exists.
The note in one Bible says: "A few late manuscripts add ... 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, And there are three that testify on earth ...'"
The note in the other Bible says: "Late manuscripts [in Latin] ... 'testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth ...' [This is] not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century."

So we see that those who did the KJV translation were using a late manuscript of 1 John. The words about the Trinity are not in the older Greek manuscripts that were neglected by the KJV translators (or have only been discovered since the KJV was created) in 1611. The extra words are believed to have been added by a pious person who owned a late manuscript or made a hand-written copy of a manuscript.

Obviously the inserted words were not a terrible addition in this case ... but I believe I have read that there are some additions that are truly troublesome (doctrinally) present in the KJV. And look what even this harmless addition has done ... It causes some Protestants to claim that Catholic Bibles are faulty! How sad! This experience illustrates one of the reasons why I have stated (in various threads) that the use of the KJV is perilous, especially if one doesn't have a good Catholic Bible handy for help. [Of course, the much greater problem is the seven Old Testament books (and parts of two others) that are missing from most editions of the KJV.]

May St. James and Mary, the immaculate mother of Jesus, pray for us.
God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 23, 2001.

Hannah,

The KJV and the Catholic bible agree as far as I'm aware on the 1 John 5:7, a lot of the new age Bibles such as the NIV and the NASV have ommitted this most vital reference to the deity of Jesus. This is not by accident. I wasn't sure about the American Standard Bible.

The Catholic bible has eliminated God's second commandment as found in Exodus chapter 20 and split the tenth commandment into two parts. The second commandment as it is written in the KJV for instance says "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." Why would the Catholic church ommit this commandment you might ask. To me the obvious answer is the Catholic love of idols. However I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Incidentally I do urge you to obtain a copy of Gail Riplinger's book.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 24, 2001.

Hannah,

The KJV of the Bible is based on the most reliable Greek text which is the Textus Receptus. Two men of very questionable character Westcott and Hort set out to change the KJV. Westcott and Hort actually altered the Greek Textus Receptus used by the KING JAMES BIBLE translators. This FALSE Greek text, with its approximate 10,000 alterations, was the basis for virtually all of the modern English versions and perversions, including the ERV, ASV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, JB, NEV, LV and the rest.

The false Greek texts of "B" and "Aleph" contradict one another in OVER 3,000 PLACES IN THE GOSPELS ALONE. In the total numbers of manuscripts, the Westcott- Hort type has only 45 manuscripts that go along with it as over against 5,210 that go along with the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. This 45 includes "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and forty- three of their little heretical puppets that follow them. The theory behind the acceptance of these is that "The oldest are the best." The oldest are not necessarily the best, especially if they have been tampered with by heretics!

The Words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep Them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve Them from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6,7).

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 24, 2001.

Mary,

New American Bible, St. Joseph's edition

Exodus 20:4 You shall not carve idols foryourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, you God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.

What's missing again?

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

sorry, that was exodus 20:4-6

Incidentally, St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate (the first one compiled) reads for the same:

non facies tibisculptile neque omnem similtudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra

non adorabis ea neque coles ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filiis in terriam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me

et faciens misericordiam in milia his qui diligunt me et custodiunt praecepta mea

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, Hannah.
As I think you mentioned, your Catholic Bible (translation in the 1960s, publication in 1970) has the proper translation of 1 John 5:7-8, not the faulty one in the KJV.

I strongly recommend that you not waste any time (and definitely not any money!) on Gail Riplinger's book. It alleges something called "New Age Bible versions" and pushes the use of the KJV only -- something that Fundamentalists have been doing since their version of Christianity was developed about 100 years ago.

Below, I will insert an excerpt from a Protestant review of the Riplinger book. Please note that the "Bibles" referred to in the first sentence are 20th-century translations that have been supplanting the KJV as the "Bibles of choice" among Protestants. Those who recommend Riplinger try to demonize non-KJV fans as "New Agers," but in reality the alternate translations were in use before the recent "New Age" phenomenon -- and they have nothing at all to do with New Age heresies. The anti-Catholic, pro-KJV folks have been saying for centuries that theirs is the only Bible that can be used, that even its translation is without error, etc.. They cannot be taken seriously. I believe that you may have just been "treated" to an excerpt from Riplinger (above) -- the silly accusations that more than ten highly respected Bible versions are trash, but the KJV is perfect. As previously stated, it is the KJV that has thousands of errors. That's why we have newer, more accurate translations.

Note, on the other hand, that there are sensible people (both Protestants and Catholics) who don't deserve any criticism -- folks who simply love the KJV as a moving, poetic translation with noble language, but who see the merit (and greater accuracy) of 20th-century translations as well.

And now for that book-review excerpt:
"What if the Bibles we use pervert and obscure God's Word, and are actually being used by Satan to seduce the Church into accepting the One World Religion of the coming Antichrist? What if we couldn't trust our Bibles to warn us of false doctrine, coming persecution, or heretics? What if we couldn't depend on our Bibles to protect us from evil? That's exactly the kind of paranoia and fear promoted in a new best-selling, self-published book, New Age Bible Versions, by G. A. (Gail) Riplinger, whose work has been endorsed by Jack T. Chick, Texe Marrs, and Dr. David Hocking, who described the book as "a devastating argument to prove that the old KJV still stands as the best English translation that's ever been produced."

Whenever you see either of those names -- Jack T. Chick and Texe Marrs -- head for the hills! These are among the worst anti-Catholic ogres on our planet. Chick publishes little comic booklets in which Catholics (especially the ordained) are pictured as incredibly ugly madmen who allegedly lead us into hell.

And, of course, we Catholics have not eliminated any of the Commandments. Protestants number the Commandments differently from the way we do, splitting our first commandment into two separate ones, and then mistakenly accusing us of dropping what they call the "second commandment."
The Bible actually has two lists, which differ slightly in their wording -- in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Now here are the short and long versions of the Catholic [i.e., the original Christian] version of the first commandment:
(short) I am the Lord your God. You shall not have other gods before me.
(long) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
If anyone is not sure that this is our first commandment, he/she can see that the above is taken directly from our Catechism (at paragraphs 2083 and 2084). You have been told that we Catholics ignore part of the text just given, that we worship idols, and that we have suppressed that part of the text in order to justify our actions. As you can see, ignorant anti-Catholics who attack us in this (and many other ways) are never right. They are mired in a deep, deep darkness because of their attachment to some very hate-filled puppet-masters.

I hope that you can see that the whole text quoted above (from Exodus and Deuteronomy) holds together as an integrated whole -- rejecting the creation of idols to be worshiped in place of the true God. It is not necessary that this text be broken into two commandments, but there's no great harm in doing so.

St. James, please unite your prayers with those of our Blessed Mother Mary for the benefit of this forum.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 24, 2001.

Anthony,

I was actually refering to the The Holy Bible, New Catholic Version, Copyright 1950 by P.J. Kennedy & Sons. My mistake as I did not make this distinction.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 24, 2001.

Hannah,

You wrote "Those who recommend Riplinger try to demonize non-KJV fans as "New Agers," but in reality the alternate translations were in use before the recent "New Age" phenomenon -- and they have nothing at all to do with New Age heresies". What an unintelligent, uninformed thing to say. You have really outdone your self this time. For one thing the so called 'New Age' is not as new as you or the practitioners of said 'New Age' would make us believe. Secondly I and many, many others that recommend G.Ripplinger's book do not try to demonize anyone who reads other versions. Why you would say such a thing is beyond understanding.

Of course Dr. Gail Ripplinger has many detractors (of which you are one, whom no doubt has never read the book). It stands to reason when you write a book based on many years of research that exposes the untruths and deceptions of many modern Bible versions that you are going to get criticized for doing so. The money made from these new versions must be astronomical by various publishers and book chains.

For Gail ripplinger's answers to one of these critics I would suggest that you visit www.av1611.org/kjv/omadman.html

Another couple of sites of interest are: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/barnet92.htm http://www.av1611.org/kjv/blindnav.html

Now as for your paranoid reference to Jack T. Chick and Texe Marrs I can only say you can't have much faith in your Catholicsm if these guys upset you so much.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 24, 2001.

Hannah,

Sorry the above was mean't to be addressed to John.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 24, 2001.

Dear John Gecik-- The explanation you've given here about the Bible's translations is terrific. Thanks!

When I was 10 years old, we had a Bookmobile come to our elementary school, and I borrowed (or started to) a couple of books. One was a King James Bible. A wonderful English teacher of mine noticed this. Up till that day, I didn't know she was a Catholic at all. She called me discreetly to her side, and quietly told me ''Eugene; this is not a Bible copy that your parents would be selecting for your family. I advise you not to borrow it.'' Since I had (and still have) immense love and respect for this lady, I did as she told me. But right then I had no inkling about the reasons. That was more than 50 years ago. When I was around 25, I read Confessions of Saint Augustine for the 1st time. A smashing book! It was in fact, the Pusey translation, I'm sure you know it. The gorgeous English translation and the story itself amazed me. To this day, I think it's the best English version of Confessions-- But naturally, Augustine's book and the Word of God are not the same thing. In all fairness, I don't blame so many people that love the KJV, as beautiful prose. But when the version can become harmful to the Catholic faith-- you've demonstrated here how it can be, it becomes just the same as a rival church is-- separated from the Truth. That's bound to hurt some folks here, but IMHO <
Mother Mary, St. James holy Apostle of Jesus, pray for us! Amen

P.S. --To Florence Lucas, my favorite teacher of them all --and a staunch Catholic in the bargain: Where ever you are, may Jesus bless you! May His Holy Mother take you into her Blessed confidence, as you took me that day! Goodby!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.

Hi Hannah,

Are you sure that you want me to answer your last post to me? If I do , we won't agree and I think I need a break from all the conflict. I don't mind a little conflict, but it needs to be edifying to all involved. Maybe we should look at some things that we do agree on, and see where things stand first.

So: We agree that Jesus paid the price for our sins. ...........right? We agree that good works won't get us into heaven. ............right? We agree that the Holy Spirit interprets God's Word for us......right? Do we agree that one needs to be filled with the Holy Spirit in order for the Holy Spirit to interpret God's Word for us?

I'd like to change the subject now, and just get to know you..OK? Do you like music? What kind of music ? Do you have any hobbies?

Maybe you won't answer this post at all. But I hope you do. God Bless you.

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

Jmj

Thank you so much, Eugene, for your supportive words -- and also for your moving recollections about Miss Lucas. What a kind and wise lady, looking out for your best interests!

I'm afraid that I have to disappoint you by admitting to be much less of a scholar than you think I am. I am not familiar with a Pusey translation of St. Augustine, but will pick up a used copy if I stumble across one. When I was a student, I took a Medieval Latin course, in which I had to translate parts of the Confessions (but I was too much of an airhead to appreciate them then!).

Oh, by the way. Don't waste your time looking at those Riplinger-defense sites. One is both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant. The other is just anti-Protestant. (_8^D) And their point is to push the untenable "KJV-only" point-of-view anyway.

So: We agree that Jesus paid the price for our sins. ........... right?
We agree that good works alonewon't get us into heaven, though they must accompany faith. ............ right?
We agree that the Holy Spirit does notinterpret God's Word for us, even if we are filled with that same Spirit ...... right?
We agree that those who think the Holy Spirit interprets God's Word for us end up with a multiplicity of conflicting interpretations and a myriad of denominations ........ right?
Do we agree that the Catholic Church is filled with the Holy Spirit, partly in order to interpret God's Word for us?

God bless you. And may he answer the prayers of dear St. James and Our Lady for us.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 25, 2001.

"We agree that the Holy Spirit does not interpret God's Word for us, even if we are filled with that same Spirit ...... right?"

No

We agree that those who think the Holy Spirit interprets God's Word for us end up with a multiplicity of conflicting interpretations and a myriad of denominations ........ right?

No

"Do we agree that the Catholic Church is filled with the Holy Spirit, partly in order to interpret God's Word for us?"

No

Furthermore those "Riplinger defence sites" as you call them are not anti-Catholic nor anti-protestant.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 25, 2001.

Dear Mary-- ''Filled with'' the Holy Spirit is the biblical description of prophetic utterances or visions, in cases of God's Word directly descending into the human sphere. Elizabeth was ''filled with the Holy Spirit, whe Mary entered into her house. She said, ''Blessed is the fruit of thy womb,'' under the influence of the Holy Spirit at that moment only. She didn't go around day-by-day making prophetic announcements. Neither did any Prophet of the Old Testament. You and I may be indwelt of the Holy Spirit, if we're in a state of grace, but it doesn't make us prophets. Or interpretors of Holy Writ, in any infallible way! You presume too much.

Jesus never promised the Holy Spirit to be a ready-and-able ''Spell-Check'' as you have on your PC. It is in the Church and through the Church that the Holy Spirit guides us. The Church is entrusted with infallible Truth, and the Truth is insured by the guidance of the Spirit. We aren't supposed to interpret the Bible personally-- neither Protestants OR Catholics.

Jesus, Our Beloved Saviour, Save us! +Mary, Dearest Mother, Pray for our forum, and St James, be with us! Amen.+

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.

Jmj

"We agree that the Holy Spirit does not interpret God's Word for us, even if we are filled with that same Spirit ...... right, EUGENE?"

"We agree that those who think the Holy Spirit interprets God's Word for us end up with a multiplicity of conflicting interpretations and a myriad of denominations ........ right, EUGENE?"

"Do we agree that the Catholic Church is filled with the Holy Spirit, partly in order to interpret God's Word for us ......... right, EUGENE?"

Reiterating, Eugene, those "Riplinger defense sites" are anti-Catholic and anti-protestant (as is to be expected, considering the source).

Eugene, I would suggest modifying a statement you just made: "We aren't supposed to interpret the Bible personally-- neither Protestants OR Catholics."
Actually, we Catholics are highly encouraged to read the Bible devotionally (privately), and we cannot help but "interpret" what we read, as we go along. The "catch" is that, before we read, we are to be familiar with infallible Catholic doctrine (on faith and morals), so that our private scriptural interpretations can be safely "guided" only in the direction of truth -- never conflicting with the Church's doctrine.
Unfortunately, Protestants do not have that anchor of Church doctrine to act as a guide while they are reading the Bible -- and that is why they go in 20,000+ different directions in their interpretations. The Holy Spirit wants to help them (steering them toward Catholic truth), but their varying personal influences (parents, pastors, media evangelists, friends) and varying degrees of limitations (emotional, intellectual, environmental) act to prevent the Holy Spirit from doing as he wills.

Glory be to God, through the prayers of Our Lady and St. James.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 25, 2001.

John,

Just in case you didn't notice, I was talking to Hannah.

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

John,

In Matthew 10:14... Jesus said, " Any city or home that doesn't welcome you--shake off the dust of that place from your feet as you leave."....as far as you are concerned, John, I am shaking the dust off.

Matthew 10:40...Jesus also said, " Those who welcome you are welcoming me. And when they welcome me they are welcoming God who sent me."

You, John, don't know what gifts the Holy Spirit has given me.

GOOD-BYE John..................

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

John,

You said, "and that is why they go in 20,000+ different directions in their interpretations." Where on earth do you get such ridiculous information? Let me guess, a Catholic webb site, right?

This is a Catholic forum and most Catholics respond to non-Catholics with fairness, although biased messages, as to be expected on a Catholic forum. You sir however cannot stand to see any messages that don't agree with your Catholic views. You seem utterly incapable of acknowledging such messages however politely put, without that underlying seething hatred of your's rearing it's ugly head. And you actually have the nerve to accuse others of bigotry? Then you fall over yourself, fawning, the messages from Catholics.

Some of the facts and figures and sweeping generalaties that you spew forth on this forum are ridiculous. I know that you are worried that new Catholics might be tempted to listen to many of the truths that might be brought to their attention by non-Catholics, but does that give you the right to gross exageration, by posting fictitious facts and figures.

Susan, a person that obviously has a wonderful and kind heart full of love for Jesus seems to infuriate you; yet she has always been very kind and civil towards you. I can't blame her for shaking your dust off her feet. I think I'll do the same.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 25, 2001.

SSM,

In Matthew 10:14... Jesus said, " Any city or home that doesn't welcome you--shake off the dust of that place from your feet as you leave."....as far as you are concerned, John, I am shaking the dust off.

I for one would be sorry to see you leave, should you really choose to do so.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 25, 2001.

Jmj

Goodbye, Mary and Susan. May the Catholic truths you have learned here "percolate" within you for a little while, until you are ready to approach a priest for instruction and entry into the Church.

There won't be any "dust" being left on this site, no matter how hard people shake. Jesus told his apostles -- those who would follow the true faith -- to shake off the dust. Since some people will not believe all that Jesus wants them to believe, they are not "little apostles" of his, so they are not capable of shaking off any dust here.

Mary's obnoxious comments and bad treatment of me have not ceased from the moment of her very first post here. And there have been many unpleasant posts from Susan toward me too. She has been decent on most occasions, especially until a couple of weeks ago. Even before then, though, she was not always "very kind and civil towards" me, as Mary claimed. Susan occasionally revealed a terrible temper toward me in the past (in threads that Mary must not have read), but the really bad thing is that her posts started becoming rather unbearable ever since Mary and about ten other bigots started showing up here a couple of weeks ago. That is when Susan joined Mary and the others as an anti-Catholic "mutual admiration society" -- totally unacceptable at a Catholic site.

Mary is leaving a sad and silly parting shot, telling me that I am worthy to be denounced as "biased," having a "seething hatred." By no means is this true. I have been truthful, and I have only the best interests (not hatred) in my heart for Mary and Susan. I love them and desire what is best for them. Mary also falsely accused me of using "gross exagerrations," "sweeping generalities," and "fictitious facts and figures," etc.. All of her statements are unjustified, not rooted in reality. Rather, they are an irrational reaction to having been proved wrong, time and again, about theological matters. That's O.K.. I understand, and I don't hold it against her. It's all part of being weak and sinful humans. Because of pride (such a big part of the effects of Adam's sin), people tend to cling to what is old and familiar for quite some time, refusing (for a time) to admit that they have been mistaken, and instead lashing out at the person who has corrected them. [I may be wrong, but I suspect that it is not just doctrinal correction that is involved here. I think that resentment toward Catholic moral teaching (especially against "remarriage" and use of contraception) may be playing a major role.] It will take time for Susan and Mary to calm down and realize, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that they have been going down the wrong path. We can pray that it does not take them a long time.

Now, for the benefit of future visitors who may be tempted by Mary's words to think that I exaggerated in stating that Protestants have gone "in 20,000+ different directions in their interpretations" of the scriptures ...
James Akin, a brilliant and highly trained scholar, a former member of a conservative Protestant denomination, and now a seasoned Catholic apologist and author, writes as follows, in an outstanding article that refutes the acceptability of "sola scriptura":
"Protestant pastors, even Luther and Calvin, have long realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment [concerning the meaning of Bible verses] to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's 'World Christian Encyclopedia.'"

May the prayers of St. James and of Our Lady intercede for everyone, and may God bless us all with peace and unity.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 25, 2001.

If SSM (Susan) and Mary are correct, Jon Gecik has absolutely no powers of persuasion. He uses the wrong facts, for one thing.

He deals in ''generalities, and ficticious facts & figures.'' But to Susan and her willing accomplices, her pronouncements aren't ''generalities''. --Isn't ''Only Jesus can save you,'' a generality? Or, ''Believe and be saved, the only way to go to heaven,'' isn't that just taking a general view?

Catholics believe these basics. It doesn't take a thunderous pronouncement from these anti-Catholics to convince ME that Jesus saves us from our sins. They must think they hold a copyright to these truths. But, in fact-- they only want to hear the generalities, not a doctrine! The facts & figures John quotes aren't ficticious. They're supported by demographic research. But Susan, Mary and folks like AlexJr. seem of that dogged type of anti-Catholic that will not be steered off the elitist course for any reasonable consideration. Why IS Protestantism comprised of hundreds of splinter-groups ? I was reminded of the Indian chief that questioned the WASP cavalry officer: ''But we always knew of the Great Spirit. Why don't white men all follow under the same church-? They all have the Book--?

Susan goes out in a huff. ''John, you don't know the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given me.''

People like Rasputin and Savonarola were very adamant in the gifts they'd received too, Susan. They also ''knew'' they had reforms to offer. They are history now. But the Catholic Church survives gloriously; and is thriving into a third millennium. There's no doubt why. God is with Her. Good work, John. Can't believe this thread is over 50! You must be doing something right.
Hail, Immaculate Mary! Pray for this forum, Good St. James; Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.