I'm not a Catholic, but since you guys and gals seem to know almost everything, here's a question. At my current church, Church of the Brethren, we got 2 new pastors. Their names are Gary and Lisa Yoder. They came from Pennsicola, Florida. They also attended the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry. If you study BRSM it is founded by a man named Hill. Hill started a so called "laughing revival" in Florida and fleeced the elderly for millions. He then used some of his money to start BRSM. This is the type of schooling these people had. Evil, corrupt, training. Well, our church hired them. They claim to be pentacostal and Messianic Jews. Gary, during his sermon one day, walked down from the pulpit and into the congregation with two swords, a single and a double bladded. He held the single up to a man's neck and wanted to know if he thought it could "chopp his head off." He then placed the double edged sword into another guys stomach and wanted to know if he wanted his gull bladder out. I still don't know the point of the sermon. Also, I used to run the sound system and play a little quiet, traditional church music as people started to come to church and take their seats. Gary came up stairs to where I was and screamed at me to turn it off and tried to take my cd's. He told me that it was not "religious music" and told me I could only play a cd he handed to me. It was entitled, "Out of the Fire". The cd came from Brownsville. To some things up, Gary and Lisa are running the church like it's there personal piggy bank. Demanding that we tithe MORE, and MORE. They are HATEFULL to EVERYONE. They don't belive in communion, they call it "partaking of the Cup." No bread or love feast is involved. Our church had over 100 people and now since he's chased everyone out of the church, we have about 40 people still attending (my family and I don't go anymore!) Gary and his two sons play electric guitars and drums during church and he even has amps and songbooks sitting ON!!! the alter. Our church looks like a sound studio. Gary even threw away memorial candle holders that attach to the pews that were donated by a couple whos son died. WHy? Because he didn't like them. We are no longer allowed to sing hymns, he put an overhead projector beside the pulpit and we MUST sing these contemporary songs of his over and over again!!! My mother and I sat on a high church commision and we talked to Gary about him being to pentacostal and ovebearing and that people were leaving the church and that he's making no attempt to try to bring them back. He told us that he'll NEVER ask anyone to come back and that he doesn't care who leaves the church as long as they do it quietly and that who ever leaves is a demon! It's God's way of sorting out the demons from the church and making room for more and better Christians to come. I personally feel that who ever leaves has the power of decernment to know that he and now the church is no longer in good standing with the Lord. My father went over to the church last week to pick up some mail(we haven't been there for a couple months because of him) and Gary was there. He told my dad that he and us were no longer members of the church and that he was to turn in his key, get out and never come back. We've contacted our district executive about him and her many times, but he says he need solid proof, even though half of the church has told him about what is happening. WHAT CAN WE DO? HE'S PREACHING DOCTRINE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE WERE ALWAYS TAUGHT AND DOESN'T IN ANY WAY ACT LIKE A MINISTER. HOW CAN WE GET RID OF HIM? OUR CHURCH IS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF ONE COUPLE. PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US!!!!!! BY THE WAY, WHAT IS A MESSIANIC JEW? MAYBE IF I KNOW THEN HE COULD BE THROWN OUT BECAUSE HE IS TEACHING DOCTRINE CONTRARY TO BRETHREN BELIEFS. CAN SOME BODY COMPARE THE TWO? GOD BLESS!!!

-- S. Gisewhite (sharvin@acsworld.net), January 08, 2004

Answers

This is really not a topic for a Catholic forum. However, the best response in such a situation is exactly what you and your family have done - get out of there as fast as you can and don't look back. It's only fair to say though that whatever Protestant church you attend, what you hear preached is simply what the pastor believes. Hopefully it is not as bizarre as what this guy preaches, but in truth the teaching in any Protestant church isn't backed up by any more authority than this guy's teaching. It becomes a matter of finding a church that preaches what you want to hear. How does that line up with the idea of one defined, authoritative, universal truth, as described in the Bible?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2004.

S. Gisewhite,

I'll be surprised if anyone here knows what you can do within the "Church of the Brethren" denomination, to get out of your predicament.

This is a Catholic forum, and your message is unlike anything ever posted here before. The "regulars" at this forum are Catholics (some being converts, but probably not from "Brethren"). Our bishops are appointed by the pope. Our parishes have pastors (priests) appointed for them by our bishops. We don't hire, and we don't fire.

S. Gisewite, I suggest that you and your fellow "Brethen" completely abandon these two satanic clergymen and consider becoming Catholics. Do you think that it is an accident that you came to this forum? I don't think so. I think that the Holy Spirit is moving you to seek the fullness of the truth.

Prior to the year 1050, all Christians were Catholics, because the only church that Jesus founded is ours. You are now in a Christian body that was founded by a mere man. According to an Internet page set up by fellow members of yours, the "Church of the Brethren" is "one of seven Brethren Groups that trace themselves to the original founding body at Schwarzenau, Germany, in 1708." This is not what Jesus wants for you. According to St. John, Jesus desires that "they [his disciples] may be one, as you, Father, and I are one." This unity should be in the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded.

Would you like to discuss it further?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

Lutheranism is pretty well defined... and it broke off from the catholic church for some pretty good reasons....

-- Steven Zimmer (spitfirexvi@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

There are no good reasons to abandon the True Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men, in favor of manmade religion. There are no good reasons to found churches other than the one Jesus founded, or to replace the God-given doctrine of the True Church with traditions of men. Luther had some good reasons to be critical of current Church policies, but he did not have good reasons to turn his back on the stated will of God - that all His followers should be ONE in faith, ONE in worship.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2004.

Lutheranism is pretty well defined... and it broke off from the catholic church for some pretty good reasons....

Really?

You might be interested in reading this.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

"Protestants take their authority from the same place that you must eventually and ultimately rely on too--the Scriptures"

A: Obviously they do not, or their doctrine would be constant, uniform, and unchanging, just like the doctrine of the True Church. What they base their conflicting beliefs upon is something the True Church recognizes the dangers of - personal interpretation of the Bible - something that can never provide us with real truth. The True Church does not take its authority from a book. A book has no authority to give. The True Church received its authority directly from Christ, and had full authority to preach, teach, and interpret the Word of God, regardless of whether the Apostles ever wrote anything, and regardless of whether their writings were ever compiled by the Church into a book. The only way we know that the Bible contains truth is by the infallible word of the Catholic Church, and the only way to get that truth from the written pages is by the Spirit-guided, infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"the bottom line is that you must refer to the Scriptures to prove your most important doctrines."

A: Incorrect! YOU have to refer to scripture in a vain attempt to prove your hundreds of conflicting doctrines. However, the doctrines of the True Church do NOT have to be proven from the Bible because they PRECEDED the Bible, and were infallibly taught by the church with full authority for 350 years BEFORE the Bible was even assembled!

"Protestant Pastors can do the same, and have the same authority to do so--following the traditions and teachings of the apostles themselves, as you claim you do."

A: Then why do they all conflict? Sorry, the proof is in the pudding. Jesus never told any Protestant pastor "I give unto you the keys to the kingdom; whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Many Protestant pastors ACT as though Jesus told them this - but the widespread confusion and contradiction in their tradition reveals the truth - that they have no authority whatsoever to interpret scripture; and their impotent attempts to do so simply lead people away from the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2004.

HEY, I can related to what you are saying, 'cause I've been there too! Yes, I know all the cliches, I know the routines, I know the "Christian jive talk." I know the Benny Hinns, the Creflo Dollars, the Frederick Price's. I am quite familiar with Hill and the whole Pentecostal Revival phenomena.

That Brownsville thing has cause disaster in the Protestant body of Christ. I have seen it turn a healthy church into a whithering vine, almost overnight. Very scary.

In fact, the story you told is one of the many reasons I began to examine the Catholic Church! What exactly is the Catholic Church was my question. It took me two years to get the answer to that question; two years of gutt wrenching agony before I finally let God bring me completely over the line, and back home. Boy Oh Boy, I have never been happier. Why? Because I have the security of the 2,000 year old Church that Christ formed. I am in the God-breathed living Church of Jesus Christ. Ohhh, I am so very very happy.

I suggest you start researching the Catholic faith. You may be surprised at what you find! I bet you've been told some things that just ain't quite true! I know I was.

Christ dwells in the Catholic Church like NONE OTHER! Sure, there are good Protestant churches, but they are operating on only a tiny fraction of the truth that God wishes to give His body. Plus, they change so dog-gone fast you can't keep up with them! Then you have the never ending, ever changing doctrinal issues. Who needs THAT when you can have the Church built on the ROCK!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 08, 2004.

Lutheranism is a germanist heresy.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

If the popes we're truely inspired by god they wouldnt of looted and plundered a catholic villiage on their way to the crusades... Do you really think jesus would of been ok with people paying for papul positions??? I do not think he would of also been ok with people paying to get into heaven, do you not see how wrong that is? He gave the keys to peter.... not everyone down the line...

And no offence but... all that gold in the vatican should be melted down and used to help the poor...

-- Steven Zimmer (stevenzimmer_krug@sasktel.net), January 09, 2004.

I get the above argument from my non-catholic co-workers if religion ever comes up. They always bring up the crusades and the wealth in the Vatican. I don't know all of the details of these events, but I would like to be able to provide a good defense or argument to to contrary. Please try to keep it somewhat summerized.

In addition, they have had a field day with all of the news on preist scandals. I mostly try to explain that the church is made up of people and as we all know people are far from perfect.

Any input would be appreciated.

-- James Ray (rayray@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Steven,
You asked:

If the popes we're truely inspired by god they wouldnt of looted and plundered a catholic villiage on their way to the crusades...

I am not sure what you are referring to. For a good discussion of the Crusades, take a look here. http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2002- 02/toc.html

Do you really think jesus would of been ok with people paying for papul positions???

No, I don't think He would. No authentic Pope purchased the position. We see a couple of anti-popes who claimed the Apostolic See and purchased their way there, but they were false popes and not recognized by the Church. There were other offices in the vast Church hierarchy that people paid their way into. That is called corruption and condemned. It is also true that many Protestant ministers made their way to the top the same way, that should also be condemned, no?

I do not think he would of also been ok with people paying to get into heaven, do you not see how wrong that is?

Are you are missing the current discussion on indulgences? At no time did the Church forgive sin for money. And we certainly never taught that Jesus saved us once and we don't have to ask for forgiveness again (like the Protestants teach). Catholics don’t believe, and never believed that people paid their way to heaven. The only thing the Church taught, and continues to teach is that alms giving is a work of charity and as such will contribute to relieving the temporal stain that comes with sin. When we sin we are forgiven by God, but we still need to right the temporal wrong we did. For example, if you wreck your Dad’s car, you ask for and get his forgiveness, but you still need to fix the car. The correcting of the temporal wrong is done in a state we call Purgatory. Purgatory is an opportunity for us to purge or purify ourselves from the mess left by our sins if we have not done so on earth. The Church teaches that one may cut down on temporal punishment either for oneself or for the souls in purgatory by doing good deeds and saying some extra prayers. Among these good deeds is almsgiving and supporting the Church financially. There have been times in the history of the Church where Preachers were not too careful. Some rich people got the impression that they could buy their way into heaven, not by reforming their lives, but by giving donations. But here they are not following the teachings of the Church.

Try this link for information on indulgences.

Here is information on indulgences during Luther’s time.

The Church can forgive the temporal time in Purgatory, and when She does, it is called an indulgence. The Church teaches that charitable works will gain you an indulgence.

Try this link for information on purgatory.

He gave the keys to peter.... not everyone down the line...

Read scripture, Steven, he gave the keys to Peter to build a Church. This has been covered multiple times in the past. Have you read any of the posts here on this subject? I don’t know if this link will work, but here is where the history of the discussion is: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl? topic=Catholic&category=Pope%2c%20Vatican

And no offence but... all that gold in the vatican should be melted down and used to help the poor...

You might think the Vatican is rich. Actually, it is in a care- taker role. The operating budget of the Vatican is about the size of the budget for the archdiocese of Chicago. But to take your proposal to it’s conclusion: OK, we can sell the art work that can be removed (most of it can’t physically be moved) and scrape the gold off the walls. Sell it all and collect millions (not billions). The money won’t go that far. Give the money to the poor and it will be gone in a flash. Then in year, 2 what do you do? We would no longer be custodians of world treasures (many of which we just ruined). Thanks, that is an operating expense we just got rid of! The world has just lost something wonderful. The poor will no longer see the wonders that you just put into private collections. No offence, but I am not sure this is a permanent solution to anything, definitely destroys a world wonder… but something to think about, I am sure. Funny, there are sure a lot of Protestant’s building grand Churches, but I guess we could disappear from view in this way.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Use of indulgences during Luther's time can be found here: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ220.HTM

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

try my best:
Please READ and reply to one of the many threads on this board that discusses this in detail.

thanks,
bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

...But the Bible says *God* is the rock in the Old Testament and *Jesus* is the rock in the New Testament.

Isn't the foundation of Christianity built on the truth of the cross?

In case I was too obtuse. try my best:
Peter is established as the rock in the New Testament. The rock upon which Christ said he would build His Church. Peter's name in Aramaic means rock. It was a play on words. I am not sure what you are referring to in the Old Testament. More on Peter as 'rock' is in a number of threads in this forum.

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Trymybest:
Jesus is God, I don't think he ever said He was a rock. I also don't know of any reference to God as a rock in the Old Testament. Your saying scripture says this, please quote the verses. Sorry, it is time to read something :)

Take care,

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 09, 2004.

Bill,

There are lots of scriptural references to Jesus being our Rock. Here are but a few:

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation.”

1 Cor 10:1-33 “ For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ”

Romans 9:33 “They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD , I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

And here are a few of the reasons I believe that Jesus was not referring to Peter (or at least Peter alone) when he referred to "upon this rock":

I Cor 3:11 “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Ephesians 2:20 “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,”

As scripture is so clear to state, ALL of the apostles and prophets comprise the foundation upon which the church is built, not just Peter, and Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the foundation (not Peter).

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

Show me a passage where Jesus says "your teachings are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church". If you can't show me such a passage, then I'll just have to go with the words Jesus actually DID say - "Simon, I say to you that THOU art Rock". Pretty difficult to misinterpret that. It's just amazing the extent to which self-described "Bible Christians" will distort and mutilate the plain meaning of Biblical passages in their desperate attempts to legitimize the novel traditions of men which their founders forced upon them. Sad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2004.

Why is this thread becoming a debate on the same old stuff?

Moderator, this poor fellow came here looking for help and is now getting a bunch of debate he didn't ask for! Can't we take this discussion somewhere else?

HELP!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 09, 2004.

He may have made it up, but then again he may not have. I have been to several churches just like what he describes, so it certainly "rings true" to me. There's plenty of them to choose from. PLENTY!

Maybe he hasn't been able to respond because the server has been down. Maybe he went on vacation. Maybe he's a busy guy. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until "their true colors appear."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.

Faith's a-wishing and a-hoping.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.

Paul,

You stated, "Pretty difficult to misinterpret that. It's just amazing the extent to which self-described "Bible Christians" will distort and mutilate the plain meaning of Biblical passages in their desperate attempts to legitimize the novel traditions of men which their founders forced upon them. Sad."

Well, then we're in good company, because a number of early church fathers stated that they held to the same translation of Matthew 16:18. I have dozens of direct quotes, but some are quite lengthy (especially Augustine who was a bit wordy I'm afraid), so I'll post only a few of the more concise statements to demonstrate the point.

Augustine

“Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”1

1 John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

“Excellent, couldn't be more true; rightly did he deserve to receive a reply like this: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, because you have told me; you have said something; hear something; you have made a confession, receive a blessing; so: And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed.”2 2 John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289.

“'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”3

3 The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

Jerome

"The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18)."3

3 Commentary on Matthew 7.25, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 51. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelalter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), Footnote #200, p. 49.

"But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism."4

4 Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus 1.26, p. 366.

So you see, it's not just anti-Catholics who interpret Matthew 16:18 to regard the rock as Jesus and the confession of faith - not to Peter personally. That doesn't mean those same people don't believe that Peter was the first among equals, in other words, he had primacy, but that's different than claiming he's the foundation of the church, which is theologically inaccurate (in my and their opinion).

I first read this same interpretation (concerning the foundation being the confession of Peter, and not Peter himself) in the footnotes of my Catholic authorized New American Bible (and it's still there) and subsequently read numerous historical references to that precise interpretation throughout the church. So I was confused when I read responses such as yours in the past.

I expect disagreement, of course, with those of us who agree with Faith's interpretation, but let's be careful how we charcterize those wgho you don't agree with, for we're in good "Catholic" company in this matter.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.

Unfortunately, though, Dave, your Jerome quote is missing a very pertinent part. First of all, Jerome was repeating the charge of a heretic (which is what you quoted), and then Jerome knocks the heretic out with the following 1-2 punch. Here's the WHOLE quote:

"But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, YET ONE(PETER)AMONG THE TWELVE IS CHOSEN SO THAT WHEN A HEAD HAS BEEN APPOINTED, THERE MAY BE NO OCCASION FOR SCHISM." Jerome,Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:366

As to Augustine, first of all, of course Jesus is the foundation of the Church, but next upon that foundation is Christ's earthly kingdom, comprised of 12 apostles and one being the head. Here's Augustine further making my point:

"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer." Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati (A.D. 393),in GILES,182

"Peter bore the person of the church" Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69

Sorry Dave, you lost this one BIG TIME!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.

Whoops, sorry Dave, I see you did post the whole quote, just not the cite. It always helps to know just who the Fathers were addressing and why in their writings. The cites can tell us a lot!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.

Here's some more from Augustine concerning Peter:

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known." To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

"When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, 'Will ye also go away?" Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.' " Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

Dave, others (Protestant apologists) have tried to use Augustine to support the notion that Augustine was "Protestant" in his beliefs, sort of a "Closet Protestant". However, after taking a careful look at their arguments, I'm afraid they just don't hold water.

Gail

P.S. These quotes were assembled by Joseph Gallegos and more fully scrutinized at www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.

Here's Augustine on the "Catholic Church":

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" Augustine,The True Religion, 7:12(A.D. 390),in JUR,3:40

"You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word's signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations." Augustine,To Vincent the Rogatist,93:7,23(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,I:390

"Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intending thereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as: it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor's sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be." Augustine,On Faith and Creed,10:21(A.D. 393),in NPNF1,III:331

Here's a great quote, though lengthy, levelled against the arch- heretic Manichaeus and his "gospel."

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure,deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I donor believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. ... for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus." Augustine,Against the Epistle of Manichaeus,4:5,5:6 (A.D 397),in NPNF1,IV:130-131

Quotes compiled by Joseph Gallegos.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2004.

Hi Gail,

I was just addressing the issue of Matthew 16:18 and what Jesus was referring to with respect to the rock. As I mentioned, both Augustine and Jerome and dozens of others who interpret Matt 16:18 in the same way, believe that Peter was the primate, there's no question on that. In fact, they specifically mention how ALL of the apostles were given those same "keys to heaven" just after Jesus and Augustine discusses at length how those same keys were given to the entire church and how Peter was simply representative because of the confession he made and all who later join the church also make. I won't post those quotes because it's long.

My point is simply to clarify that the foundation of the church is not solely based on Peter, and that those who believe that are not necessarily anti-Catholic or distorting the truth as Paul M asserted. As I stated in the earlier post, the foundation is ALL of the prophets and ALL of the apostles with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. That is the whole truth in the matter and is precisely what's stated by the Eph 2:20. To claim that Matt 16:18 establishes Peter as the sole foundation of the church, which is often claimed, is just not correct.

Primacy is a different matter, one I was deliberately avoiding in this thread. In that matter, there is also good discussion material.

Dave

-- non-Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 13, 2004.

Peter was a full followere of Christ, Speaking in tongues, healing the sick, Casting out demons, just like we all have the power todo with the Holy Spirit of course.Like it syas in the scriptures But Peter never claimed a religion, he found his identity solely on Christ in which we are all called to do. If you are putting anything above God or in his place like you all probably know it's idoaltry, we can make our church an idol if we place it above God.

-- dave (Thisnotmy adress@whoever.com), January 13, 2004.

dave, gail, i think we are argueing two entirely different matters

Jesus tells peter he is the rock on which Christ will build his church. He DOES NOT tell peter that he is the only rock and that God, or Christ is not a rock. but he tells peter that (simply) he is a rock, and that he (peter) happens to be the rock on which Christ will build his church.

talking to my uncle, a contractor, there is a large difference between what a building is built on, and the foundation. if another verse says that all the prophets and apostles and saints are the foundation of the church, that is not incompatable with saying that the papacy started by peter is ALSO the rock on which that foundation and the church rests.

FURTHERMORE to say that Jesus is the cornerstone is NOT to say that Peter is not the rock on which the church is built. a cornerstone is an object built into the building (at its corners, duh) which holds all the weight of that building for that particular section. it has nothing to do with the ground on which the church is built, nor the foundation of the church.

therefore, peter is the rock on which the church is built, the churches foundations are all the prophets and bishops AND Jesus is the cornerstone, the visible piece that holds it all together despite the storms that buffet the church. three wholly compatable ideas... i dont see what you two are arguing about

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 13, 2004.

Yes, I think you're right Paul. I think Dave must be under the impression that Catholics believe the Church is built SOLELY on Peter, which is not the case. The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles as scripture states, with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone, as scripture states. Peter was the "head servant/leader," also as stated in scripture, because he was given the Shepherd's Mantle as well as the keys to the kingdom.

Dave, I thought by your quotes that you were suggesting, as many do, that Peter had no specific leadership role. The debate earlier between Faith and others in this forum had to do with the "specific leadership role" that was given to Peter, and how that "role" was handed down from generation to generation within the Catholic Church.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2004.

Hi Gail,

I jumped into this thread far later in response to Bill's post looking for a scripture stating that Jesus/God is the rock, which is what I provided to him. And then jumped back in to respond to something Paul said in which he criticized anyone believing that the "rock" Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16:18 was Peter's faith/confession rather than Peter himself. My posts demonstrated that there's quite a history of interpreting that scripture in that way and there's no need to criticize folks for holding to that view.

I'm not one who denies Peter's leadership role, in fact, I recognize it without a doubt. But I do hold to the Orthodox view of the intended church leadership structure rather than the Catholic view, but I'm not intending to argue that here - it's been argued about for 1,000 years now and no progress has been made :-)

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 13, 2004.

I know i'm intruding on a point made to Gail, forgive me.

David; you may believe anyway you please, but nothing should be more important in our forum than what the Catholic Church teaches. Jesus Christ gave her the everlasting presence of the Holy Spirit and her teaching is always the truth. There is no place for a counter-interpretation of Peter's confession or an interpretation of Rock in Matt. 16, :18. We have an apostolic teaching, and the Church is Catholic, not orthodox.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

Hi Dave,

Actually your quotes prove that two of the fathers believed that the "rock" passage could be more broadly interpreted to include the "confession" aspect, but even so, their speculations do not EXCLUDE the Peter/rock interpretation. In other words, to Jerome and/or Augustine the "confession" exegete went hand-in-glove with the "Peter/rock" exegete. I think this is abundantly clear especially in light of everything else Augustine had to say concerning the Church, its lineage, etc. He was a "Church man" through and through. His allegiance was with the Church; his teachings squared with the Church. It is also clear from his writings that "schism" was ANATHEMA! I think it's safe to say the same is true of Jerome. He was Catholic without-a-doubt!

The Church is the Church is the Church is the Church; the Catholic Church that is. She was then, as she is now . . . THE direct descendant of the Church of the Apostles!

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2004.

You're such a fool, Faith! Here in this last post your naked anti-Catholicism is given free rein, and the previous cute responses are shown for what they were, hypocrisy.

We have NOTHING blind about our faith, ''Faith''. The faith of Catholics is faith in Jesus Christ and his Word. His evelasting promises to His people, from the beginning of this Church. The Holy Spirit is working in the Church; not only men, who can be unworthy. It's He who makes good on Christ's promises, which are clearly infallible.

Popes can be holy men or unworthy men; but the Holy Spiririt cannot be corrupted. Your sects are corrupt precisely because you haven't had help from the Holy Spiriit. That's as clear as a wart on your nose! Your indecent attacks on the Popes of our Church shows how hateful your so- called ''faith'' is. --Every soul reading this on the Internet! It's grounded in plain anti-apostolic heresies and prejudice. THAT's the real reason you won't accept anything TRUE: your diabolical prejudice.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2004.

Can I ask how you assuming she is prejudice is going to LEad her To Christ? History doesn't lie, She is Right on some of the stuff, but that doesn't even matter, what does matter Is That Christ is lifted up and We all have a relationship, There is no private interpretation of the bible The Bible even says so. Do you all really think that God is glorified by people who beat someone down like that, I know God isn't like that. I read thru some of these threads and I get Upset and grieved that people are leading someone to a building rather than leading them to a church. There is no salvation thru a church ONLY Thru JESUS CHRIST, it says it in the Bible. What's so hard about it. The thing I don't understand and it seems quite obvious to me, It never once said Peter was Catholic, HE was Jewish , Yet there is no eveidence he was even in Rome. I never heard Peter preaching to people to tell them to come to a church becuz they will get saved thru it, He ALWAYS preached Jesus Christ and salvation thru Him. Don't you understand? Just like all the other apostles. EVERYTHING that is made of material here is GOING to be burned. Nothing is going to last. Maybe you guys have but study salvation and the life JESUS WALKED.

-- dave (thisisnotmyadress@whoever.com), January 14, 2004.

Dear ''dave''--
You haven't believed the truth, nothing in your post is true, nor does it place obligations on anyone to quit telling it as it is TRULY.

If you believe your opinion outweighs all of Christian history, the Church and the apostles, the saints and martyrs of that Church, and the Holy Spirit, --

--More power to you; take your opinion where it will be welcome. It's not even an interesting one, and certainly doesn't have any authority behind it. We can be your friends; but not when YOU set the conditions. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.

Faith, doesn't your conscience convict you about PLAGIARIZING? I doubt it.

Here's where Faith got the above article. It was written by Dave Hunt, of course, but Faith doesn't bother to divulge that little piece of evidence.

For the full article, go to the Fundamentalist Baptist website here. http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/beast07.htm

LOL!!!

Gail

P.S. Hey Eugene, her naked anti-Catholic bigotry WAS BORROWED FROM one of the Church's Arch-enemies, Mr. Hunt himself.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2004.

"Why would I tell you the source and subject him to your attacks?" ANSWER: Because it is the "honest" thing to do.

"You have enough trouble dealing with the issues as it is...let alone if I gave you more reasons to ignore the truth in favor of attacking the messenger rather than the message." ANSWER: How can I attack the messenger if I don't know who the messenger is. Could be you. Could be Jack Chick. Could be Dave Hunt. One never knows, do one?

LOL.....Look at you...... ANSWER: You don't even have the humility to be embarassed at what you did, but rather are trying to pin it on me somehow.

"Try addressing the subject matter.....that's all that is important." ANSWER: We have addressed these issues over and over and over again. In having an "honest" dialogue it is helpful to know who or what you are dealing with.

"Plagarizing is when someone takes for themselves--credit--for someone else's work., and in particular...IN PUBLISHING OR SELLING SAID WORK AND MAKING MONEY OFF IT." ANSWER: Plagiarism (Def. Webster) To take and pass off as one's own either writings or ideas of another. THERE IS ONLY YOUR NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT POST and IT AIN'T MINE!

"I am an anonymous poster. I am not looking for credit here...just looking to open some eyes. You are the one who thinks this is a game, where someone wins...or tops someone else--or proves themselves right." ANSWER: Your arguments are so pathetic that you have to steal the work of some conspiracy-theorist-fundamentalist-wacko to do your work for you.

"You have very good reason for disliking Dave Hunt. He's got your Church history down. Can you refute what he says? I don't think so....that's why you attack him personally." ANSWER: MANY evangelicals (at least those with reason and intellect) don't "follow" Dave either. Only anti-Catholic bigots salivate over his slanderous garbage. I read his books as a Protestant and wasn't impressed then either!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2004.

Faith can't cope with truthful Bible interpretations, so her reaction is to pick up a bigot's message out of the 'Net, muddy the waters with a lying denigration of the Popes, and limp away with tail between her legs. She is the one can't show any substance to back her lame Bible-thumping. Bigotry has to fill in the gaps for her. Flaming anti-Catholic tripe.

_____________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2004.

For instance I could say the scripture 1 Timothy 2.5-"For there is one God, and One mediator between God and man, The man Jesus Christ" This is a clearly easy verse to understand, don't go to anyone else for prayer, and don't put anyone between you and God, besides Jesus, and as I know and you know You pray to Mary and Saints. That doesn't line up. So what are people supposed to believe? Are you going to argue this when it is in your Bible. I don't want to hear misinterpretation either, that is a weak excuse with no meat to back it up.

-- dave (thisisnotmyaddress@whoever.com), January 14, 2004.

The role of mediator is not compromised by the fact that others intercede for us.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

The practice of setting up hard rules because you misconstrue the relevance or importance of a single passage is a misuse of holy scripture. It didn't come to us as a blueprint for our prayer life. You are so sure about: ''a clearly easy verse to understand, don't go to anyone else for prayer,''

And never explain WHY. That isn't what the passage says. The passage says Jesus will mediate for us with God the Father.-----------That is what the passage points to. Jesus Himself definitely hears a petition, the saints speak to Him. His relation to the Father is why they come to Jesus; and NO, Catholics do NOT put ''anyone'' between God and ourselves. We DEPEND on Jesus completely. Saints in heaven GIVE Him our petitions, they are united to His faithful in the Church. They pray for us to Jesus, especially His holy mother. He hears from their lips the hopes and prayers of His people; and thereupon MEDIATES with the Father for them.

That is the proper ''chain of command.'' The highest link in heaven after Jesus Christ is the most Blessed Virgin Mary, His mother. She is the representative of ''man'' par excellence; praying to Jesus for us. He is the HIGHEST link after the Father. Therefore, He comes to His Father for us. Not the saints; but Jesus. This fulfills everything said by the apostle in 1 Timothy 2.5

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

i dont see how having mary and the saints praying for you makes Jesus' sacrifice and atonement for our sins any less meaningful, dave. especially not in light of the fact that Jesus provided us an example of praying to the saints during the sermon on the mount. or do you mean to condemn Jesus' action as sinful idolitry?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 15, 2004.

"For there is one God, and One mediator between God and man, The man Jesus Christ" This is a clearly easy verse to understand, don't go to anyone else for prayer, and don't put anyone between you and God"

Well Dave,

If this verse is so easy to understand, it is not easy to understand why you are completely misunderstanding it. The role of Jesus as Mediator has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer or intercession. A mediator is someone who intercedes to bring about reconciliation in a relationship between two other parties. Jesus is the one and only Mediator because His death on the cross reconciled man with God, repairing the break in that relationship caused by the sin of Adam and Eve. That was the work of mediation, completed on the cross. Praying on behalf of another person is called intercession. If I ask you, or my wife, or Mary, or St. Paul, or anyone else to pray for me - a common practice in Christianity from the very beginning - that person becomes an intercessor on my behalf, not a mediator. I assume you pray for people other than yourself? If so, you too are an intercessor, which doesn't impact at all on the fact that we have one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know you don't want to hear "misinterpretation" - but you are trying to figure out the meaning of God's Word using nothing more than your personal impressions, and that approach guarantees misinterpretation. Which is why that approach has generated thousands of conflicting manmade denominations. And which is why you had no understanding of such a simple and straightforward passage as the one you attempted to self-interpret here.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

Very well put, Paul M.
I hope Dave can come to an understanding with us, at least in this simple matter; because it was the Holy Spirit who introduced him --here; to the truth once and for all about our sole Mediator.

He may appreciate the truth about Mary and the saints, angels and Catholic martyrs remaining here for awhile.

The ''modus operandi'' usually employed by non-Catholics visiting us is to try to STUMP Catholics, with proof- text and some unfounded accusation (false) learned from a past Sunday school teacher or minister. We can open their eyes, and Dave's. You just did, in your post, without any pretense or false pride. You also set a fine example to us (myself too) of the peaceful, charitable way to teach a visitor what the Church has given us. Only what the holy apostles taught from the beginning! Pure and unvarnished and everlasting.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

There are entirely too many "Dave's" on this forum :-)

Paul's explanation to the other Dave's statement was indeed well- written and I agree with it. There is a difference between Christ's being our Mediator with respect to reconciling us to God the Father versus asking others to intercede on our behalf. I don't agree with praying to passed-on saints asking for their intercession, but not on this basis.

At the risk of pushing this thread further off-topic however, I'd like to ask Paul (and Eugene too) what your opinion is with respect to the belief that Mary is the Co-Mediator (or Mediatrix) and that no grace comes to man except through Mary? Is that formal dogma? Is that fringe belief? Is it mainstream belief? Is it even allowed or is it considered heresy? How does the Catholic Church officially stand on that issue? To me, that strikes at the heart of the Mediator scripture you're addressing here.

Thanks.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Dave:
Before all the cards are on the table, with 100 posts on the subject;

Please explain how or why this title of Mary's ''strikes at the heart'' of one particular Bible verse? Or any Bible verse. ''Strikes'' is a loaded term. It probably means you would NEVER accept any Catholic rendering of a verse you clasp to your own heart.

We must determine as well: Which came first; the apostles, or the Holy Bible?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

Dear Dave,

Since you accept the idea of Christians asking other Christians for prayers of intercession, on what basis would you limit such requests to earthly sinners, excluding those Christians who stand before the throne of God, and are therefore in a far better place to intercede than they were during their stay on earth? If I pray for my family here and now, as an earthly sinner, is it likely I would STOP praying for them once I am in heaven? Especially since the Bible assures us that the saints are alive (John 11:26), and specifically describes them as presenting our prayers before the throne of God (Rev 5:8).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

How nice it would be to see the end of your story.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

faith, since you cant seem to read before you type, i suggest you read Paul M's last post. when a saint or mary prays for us they pray to God, in Jesus' name, same as you or me or your friends who pray for you.

dave (non catholic christian),

here is what you asked:

what your opinion is with respect to the belief that Mary is the Co-Mediator (or Mediatrix) and that no grace comes to man except through Mary?

its an okay doctrine (the mediatrix part). HOWEVER, you have misread, and mistranslated it. Co-mediator is not a directly correct translation. furthermore, we know that our grace comes from Christ alone. what the mediatrix means is more like "one who collaborates to bring about mediation in conjunction with a mediator." essentially, we recognize that mary's acceptance of God's will allowed Jesus to come into the world. if she had denied, then we would have had a different mediatrix. in this way, it is not a title mary has because she is mary, but because she was willing to sacrifice her plans for Gods.

Is that formal dogma?

it is a catholic approved belief. formal dogma? dunno.

Is that fringe belief? Is it mainstream belief? Is it even allowed or is it considered heresy?

because it is an approved belief it is mainstream and not heresy. if you know the meaning of the term, instead of incorrectly extrapolating an english translation by the "looks" of the latin word, then it becomes understandable that it merely recognizes mary's role in the fulfillment of God's will.

How does the Catholic Church officially stand on that issue? To me, that strikes at the heart of the Mediator scripture you're addressing here.

the church likes it and the only reason that "to you" it "strikes at the heart" of scripture is because you have either A) misread it yourself without actually opening yourself to truth and fully reading the details or b) been improperly influenced by a person who had done A and now preaches falsities in their church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 15, 2004.

Paul can speak for himself, but:

Mary doesn't have to be ''omnipresent'', as God is. The source of everything she's aware of IS omni-present! God!

Mary and every other saint share in God's VISION; as it concerns the Church, Bride of Christ His Son. Whatever God sees and is aware of, He shares with the saints. Including our prayer!

Mary and the saints know & hear us; because they have a sight known as ''Beatific Vision'' (which see). No one has ever said here that God himself isn't aware of what Catholics request of His holy saints. He does.

But He leaves open that avenue to His people on earth: the holy intercession of the saints; that all of us seek in this valley of tears!

In the old Testament, God heard the prayers of His chosen people all by His own omniscience and Wisdom. --Yet, Moses interceded for the people as go-betwen. His prayer was more powerful before God's holy throne than that of others. God listened to Abraham's petitions before striking the cities of Sodom & Gomorra. God always has infinite love and compassion when approached by certain of his saints. It's BIBLICALLY CERTAIN.

Now we have the saints of his Son's own Bride, the Church-- praying for us all in the very sight of Jesus Christ! In heaven; they do not need ''omni-presence'' to hear us. They speak for us in Christ's glory! That's one good reason to rejoice with all our hearts for the love of Our Most Blessed Mother Mary!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

Faith continues to drone on about what is "scriptural" and what is "not scriptural" (which of course actually means what agrees or doesn't agree with her personal interpretations of scripture) - but she has still not provided the requested passage from scripture which tells us that all Christian beliefs must be "scriptural". Obviously, no valid Christian belief can contradict scripture. But where in scripture is the passage that says every Christian belief must be spelled out in scripture?? I have searched, and I can't find it! Therefore I have to conclude that Faith's insistence on scriptural sources for everything is simply an unscriptural tradition of men, a sort of Protestant mantra that really doesn't mean anything - especially in view of the fact that the thousands of conflicting beliefs of Protestants cannot possibly represent scripture, since scripture, accurately interpreted, is truth, and truth cannot be in conflict with itself. Faith, you can't continue to insist that you follow scripture while simultaneously relying on an unscriptural tradition like sola scriptura. It's one or the other. If you are going to continue throwing sola scriptura at us, please validate that idea from scripture! If you can't, then please switch to some scriptural basis of discussion, and turn away from these modern pseudo-Christian traditions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

Paul M,

My objections are based on the fact that Jesus taught us how we should pray, both through his explicit teachings and by his life's examples of prayer. He told us who to pray to and in who's name we should pray. Nothing in all of scripture or even the earliest church writings even hints at praying to saints in heaven. So I chose to follow Jesus's teaching and direction believing that is sufficient for my and the whole world's needs.

I am aware of all of the arguments/debates from both angles on this one. And while I can follow the "logic" of asking saints in heaven to intercede for us (like we ask others here on earth to pray for us), the Lord's instructions and examples are so strong that I am compelled to obey. And in the end, I've experienced so many remarkable answers to prayers over the years when I ask the Lord directly, that I see no reason to change my practice or belief in this matter. In addition, when I directly bring my petitions and requests to the Lord, I can also listen for His Spirit to guide me in understanding as I pray. Often, the answers to prayer (especially when I pray for wisdom and direction) are immediate understanding of what I need to do. As I'm praying I suddenly know what I need to do next - which is sometimes an acceptance of a situation I was asking to change. My priest observed this in action several times on behalf of others and told me I was functioning in Words of Wisdom (one of the gifts of the Spirit) and I didn't even realize it.

Anyway, the reason I never want to direct my prayers anywhere else is because the kind of interaction that I have with the Lord isn't possible if I don't ask him directly.

Dave

P.S. To others, several of you keyed in on my use of "strikes at the heart" . . . I didn't intend that to be accusatory or anything. The phrase was poorly chosen. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "the theology of Mary being "Mediatrix" and the conduit of all graces from God to man is more relative to the discussed scripture verse than the theology of praying to saints - one is just asking for intercessions, the other refers to a role in Christ's being our only Mediator"

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.

Feel sorry for Faith and her like, who aborted the Church of their blessed ancestors and adopted a Bible step-child of heretical birth.

The adoration of scripture as a sole rule of faith (protestant bibliolatry) leads men and women of limited intelligence to start with-- into gross error and uncertainty. They cannot have faith at ALL, unless they build a case on it first.

The two conditions for their so-called faith are: --Deny the Catholic faith of their own past. Accept only a biblical interpretation that runs COUNTER to Catholic doctrine. Destroy as much Catholic doctrine as possible. Even Christ's DIVINITY, in some cases! It isn't always necessary to understand Bible verses. Just deny a Catholic interpretation. Who cares if you understand the verse?

Next, faith is no good at all, if the Bible verses are missing to show how you got faith! No need for a church, no need for apostles, holiness, saints, etc., All you need is to confess Jesus as a personal Saviour; and read the Bible. p>Jesus is lucky then, to actually rate higher favor from ''Faith'' than the Bible itself. He could have been her second choice; since He only exists because her Bible says so!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

This is written in the Catholic Church by a saint of the Church. The ''believeing'' in Christ is also believeing the doctrine of Christ's Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

It doesn't say anything about your religion.., none of the apostles ever do

That's because they were all Catholic. There were no protestants at the time... just heretics. ;)

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Faith would love it if the scripture said nothing about a Church at all. The Catholic Church would be no problem for her then. Peter would be no problem. Neither would John 6:54 be a problem, or any sacraments. There would be no problems about authority, or about heresies. She has all those problems and won't admit it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2004.

If you really look at the original apostles and all the churches they started, you would have to agree that there is no evidence of any *head* church.....

quite untrue, the catacombs have a church and a chair on which peter sat, on a raised dias above four other chairs, which were reserved below him for visiting apostles(bishops) of the church. if you were an apostle visiting peter would you willingly submit yourself BELOW his authority unless it was clear that HE was the leader?

and there is no evidence of Mary adoration, the Mass as we see it in your church., or of the papacy..etc.

also quite untrue. the very first saints include a GREAT deal of marian respect. you just dont bother to read and learn. you can even read some of the other writings BY THE APOSTLES which record a great respect for mary. but i suppose what the apostles ACTUALLY believed doesnt mean a thing if it didnt get put in the bible three hundred years later?

In fact., the oroginal apostles looked very protestant to me. They had Bible studies in peoples homes and evangelized people with the gospel of Christ--period.

i dont understand how you label these things protestant activities. youre right, the CATHOLIC apostles had private bible studies, and evangilized people with the Gospels of Christ... much the same as CATHOLICS today do. these practices you mention are not LIMITED to the protestants, they are what the protestants LIMIT themselves to.

Even Jesus--in the book of Revelation...seems unaware of any head church, as he addresses all the churches individually

more accurately, Jesus doesnt need to recognize a head church because it is a DUH type of thing. if there is ONLY one, then you dont need to acknowledge who you are talking to, now do you?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 15, 2004.

Let's not confuse the word "adoration" with the word "respect". While Catholics honour, respect, venerate, admire, cherish and love Mary, worship and adoration are due only God alone.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 15, 2004.

Faith says "In fact., the oroginal apostles looked very protestant to me. They had Bible studies in peoples homes and evangelized people with the gospel of Christ--period."

No, Faith, the Church APPOINTED leaders during the apostolic age. Protestant leaders of today appoint themselves as head of their churches, then they go about trying to find people that will listen to them preach. Big difference.

Sola scriptura and sola fide were inventions of the Reformation some 1500 years after the apostolic church was born. Protestantism waited 1500 years for its foundation of the "solas" to be laid!

Do you think everyone had a Scofield Reference Bible at their "Bible studies"? No, Faith, there were no printing presses until the 15th century. Old Testament scrolls were red at the Temple. It was very rare for the ordinary lay person to have a scroll of their own. The N.T. was in the process of being written.

Imagine the chaos if protestantism were the church of that day; everyone his own master of interpretation. The doctrines of the trinity and Christ's divinity had yet to be worked out, (in fact as late as the 300's). You would have had self-appointed leaders teaching various different doctrines all at the embrionic stage of the Church's life. It would have been disastrous.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

Faith, her Bible wisdom:
''Even Jesus--in the book of Revelation...seems unaware of any head church, as he addresses all the churches individually,''

Jesus founded one Church, Faith; not ''churches''. God is well ''aware'' of his own Church. There are NO other churches, only Wannabees.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

so then why are there many catholic churches if there is only suppose to be one?

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 16, 2004.

Dear Jr. There is only one. We have many bishops; enough to go around. Each bishop has his ordained priests, and they have their separate parishes, not different churches. All the parishes are part of a diocese (bishop), all the diocese of the world make up the ONE Church, and the Pope has authority over all the Church. Jesus is the Head and the Popes are Jesus' chosen Vicars, or ''representatives' in the world. There is ONE Church, with one founder, Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

It's not so simple, Faith. You are a lost sheep. You listen to no authority, because you reject Christ's authority. Simple of you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

"The apostles set the example and left us the Scriptures....so that we could continue in there way..." ANSWER: It took 400 years to canonize those scriptures, Faith, what in the world did the miscellaneous protestant churches do prior to that?

"It is the Catholic Church who has self-appointed themselves as a head that Christ never intended, as we cannot find it in the Scriptures...and we all know that Matthew 16 is questionable." ANSWER: I thought you believed that the Holy Spirit put the N.T. together. Now you're telling me Matthew 16 is questionable . . .? Did the Holy Spirit goof?

"Your entire papacy relies solely on that one verse." ANSWER: No, Faith, we also have the historical record left to us by the faithful Fathers. The Catholic Church has a lineage that can easily be proven to anyone with the brains of a rock!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

Nothing in Catholicism relies on a verse! The Holy Catholic Church would still be preaching the fullness of Christian truth, even if the Bible had never been written - just as it did in the centuries before it compiled the Bible. Just as it did before a word of the New Testament had been written. A major criterion for initial acceptance of a text into the Bible was its full agreement with the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's why it is so absurd to suggest that anything in the Bible conflicts with Catholic doctrine. Especially coming from people whose manmade tradition has been shattered into thousands of conflicting fragments over disagreements about the meaning of scripture!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2004.

The apostles set the example and left us the Scriptures....so that we could continue in there way...

The Apostles also left us the Church. They spent a lot of effort making sure it would continue.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

My interpretation is just as good as your's, Faith, and I have the weight of history to support my interpretation. You don't.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

I agree Bill...we just disagree as to who that church really is.

I am sure we are very close in many of our beliefs. I guess on this point, I would say that Christ only created one church. That one still exists, although imperfectly, in the Catholic Church. I don't think embracing heresy is the answer. My opinion.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

but faith, the only surviving history to rely on is ALL written from the catholic perspective. so either you accept that "false" history, or you buy into some made up story extrapolated 1000 years later

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 16, 2004.

Faith,
All you've shown here is the depth of your ignorance. Let us have something of spiritual value. Not your impression of heresy, or of the Church. You never worry about the Will of god for his people. Jesus didn't found his church on sand, but on Rock. To stand forever. Your puny knowledge thinks it fell apart when the Bible appeared. Nothing about your presumed ''church'' made up of unknown believers'' connects with Christ's plan for a Church of saints. An invisible church is no church at all. God has the same Church he started out with. Built on Rock; Peter and the apostles. Guided by the Holy Spirit through 2,000 years now. Yours is make-believe not about to last forever. It's built on false pretenses, self-ordained ministers and ignorance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." So how does the Roman Catholic Church get around this clear prohibition??"

A: Unbelievable! Did you even see the last part of the commandment you quoted? "THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM OR SERVE THEM"! That's what the "clear prohibition" is about - IDOLATRY, not statuary. WORSHIPPING images, not using them to glorify God! Since the Catholic Church condemns any form of idolatry in the strongest possible terms, it is obvious to anyone who gives it half a thought that the Church does not "get around" this prohibition, but rather ENFORCES it with the full authority of Christ, as it has done for 2,000 years.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church ... "Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God ... Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with union with God."

So if you want to discuss the Catholic Church and idolatry, base your comments on what the Church actually teaches, not on the ignorant comments of anti-Catholic bigots whose tracts you have read.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

You make idols out of the very air Catholics breathe. There is no worship in kneeling. It is an act of deep humility. Every soul SHOULD be humble in the presence of holiness, and as we've explained, Mary is HOLY. --Angels knelt to Mary. She is God's purest creature and his holy mother!

To condemn the love we have for pictures and statues of God's saints is to belittle their grace in God's eyes. All of them are worthy of our admiration and love. Just because your church is a barren chamber without grace is nothing to be happy about. You cannot put away her doctrines given us by the apostles, so you kick about statues! An empty response to God's challenge. You can bore us all you want, but you're only a pretend Christian.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

no, eugene, faiths' church is not a "barren chamber"

like most protestant fundy churches im sure it contains many images to be iconified. the cross for example. why do all those protestant fundies wear crosses around their knecks? isnt that an idol of an inanimate object? surely it must be an idol, it DEFINATELY isnt Christ around her kneck, but a remake of a torture device.

so you see faith, if we are guilty of idolatry, you are every bit so guilty as well, and guilty of hypocracy too.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 17, 2004.

If any one of you can tell me where it says in the Bible [not apocrypha please] where it says to go through Mary or a saint to get to God.

it really seems that people beat around the bush here and judge, instead of facing the real question, my opinion of course

-- dave (thisisnotmyaddress@whoever.com), January 17, 2004.

Paul, we do not concede for a moment any idols even NEAR the Catholic Church. Faith is free to believe we're idolaters if she wants to; as I'm free to point out her heresy. I'm just correct, and she's mistaken.

As for graven images, we can direct her into the Old Testament for evidence that God was pleased with some images, and commanded them to be graven. So, what's her problem? All her disputing from select Bible verses doesn't make her an authority, her brain is inferior to the Holy Spirit who guards the Church from all misinterpretation. She cannot pick a simple interpretation of any verse that God approves. As I said once to her; When you tell us Jesus was born in Bethlehem, you will finally have got one right.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

Dave, no one is beating around the bush here. My goodness, we have been over and over and over these issues on and on ad nauseum.

Hebrews Chapter 11, shows that when we come to God, ALL THE SAINTS AND ANGELS AND SPIRITS OF DEAD MEN ARE PRESENT. Our brothers and sisters in the Lord are ALIVE and actively working with Christ. They pray with Him, they pray to Him, JUST AS WE DO HERE ON EARTH. THEY PRAY WITH US, just like they do on earth. This was ALWAYS the belief up until the Reformation!! Why in the world wouldn't they?

Then we have the passage in Revelations where the elders are "passing vials of incense" which are the prayers of the saints" to the Lord.

The practice of asking for prayers of the loved ones didn't begin until after Christians began dying in huge numbers as martyrs. There are prayers inscripted on the inside of the catacombs to the martyrs by the faithful.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

I think you are probably referring to Necromancy.

Here's what Webster's says of Necromancy: the art of foretelling the future by alleged communication with the dead.

The Church condemns this.

We are asking the LIVING saints to pray for us, to help us by their intercession. They are not DEAD, they are ALIVE!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Gail,

I don't think Faith can understand the concept of eternal life, nor it would seem the Communion of Saints.

Put simply:

Jesus' death and resurrection = gift of eternal life = the faithful departed are ALIVE!

Blessed be God in his angels and in his saints!

Sara

-- Sara (Sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 17, 2004.

Faith, don't you ask your brothers and sisters to pray for you? Why?

No, the Bible is not clear that the dead do not hear us. The Old Testament was written PRE-CHRIST. Many Jews in O.T. times did not believe in life after death . . . the Saducees, that's why they're Sad-U-Cee. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Hebrews and Revelations make it clear that the Saints are alive and partake in the work of Christ.

Perhaps if we are going to discuss this we should break off into another thread. This is getting too long.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

"Contacting the dead was done and is still done today."

Which dead, though? Those of the first death or the second death?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

"It does not matter if those who have died were good or bad, saintly or evil--Scripture reveals that it is forthrightly forbidden to communicate with the dead!!!"

A: Once again, a simplistic, literalist, uneducated personal guess about the meaning of scripture, and no more accurate than similar guesses you have made previously. Have you noticed how often the New Testament refers to Christians who have passed on as having "fallen asleep"? This is in support of the words of Jesus, "... everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:26). The Biblical writers repeatedly avoided referring to followers of Christ who has passed on as "dead", specifically because Christ clearly said they are NOT dead. Therefore, when the Biblical writers "clearly state that the dead cannot hear us", they obviously are NOT referring to the saints, who are still living and active members of the body of Christ, but rather to the spiritually dead, who have permanently removed themselves from the body of Christ, and no longer have any communication with the spiritually alive. Those "who are not here on earth anymore", but who are still members of the Communion of Saints, most certainly can hear others who are likewise members of the Communion of Saints - us! The Christian Church has taught this from the beginning, and any modern notions to the contrary are deviations from Christian truth.

Don't you ever ask anyone else to pray for you?? If so, why do you? Don't you know that "Scripture reveals that we can come directly before God in Jesus name. Why detour when you can come directly to God yourself?" Does asking another person to pray for you constitute a "detour"? Or is it a way of multiplying our prayers to God? Obviously the same answer would have to apply to both intercession by earthly Christians and intercession by heavenly Christians. There is no difference.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

The saints in Heaven or more real, more alive, more perceptive, more powerful, more faithful, more concerned, more accessible, more prompt, more etc. etc. than any one of your most faithful, loyal friends on earth who you might ask to pray for you, faith.

We are in the valley of tears, slugging it out against the world, the flesh and the devil. There's this veil of a test behind which we operate, and we need all the help we can get. What kind of selfishness would Heaven consist of whereby our friends, after passing away from this life would stand in the heavenly court next to all the successful Christians and before the throne of God himself, and have them not be mindful of our needs and requests? I can't image such a selfish Heaven; it seems so opposed to the very nature of the things of God.

It's in the Salve Regina, the Hail Holy Queen or actually "saving queen". Gayle, you've got to get that book by St. Alphonsus Liguori called Hail Holy Queen if you haven't read it already. No doubt you would soak it up; it's awesome.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

But Faith, we do not hold to your rule of faith, which is in and of itself unbiblical; that being sola scriptura of course. Our rule of faith is scripture AND tradition. So saying, "The Bible says this, and the Bible says that," really doesn't mean much to us. The Bible doesn't contain everything concerning EVERYTHING.

What the Bible does say though is that "we come to God and the angels and the spirits of dead men made perfect." What the Bible does reveal is elders passing vials full of prayer to God.

If you are content with your sola scriptura, then Praise God, but stop trying to shove this unbiblical notion down our throats.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

faith,

There is no reason to *assume* that they can hear us at all.

The Bible *is* clear that we are not to communicate with the dead., and it isn't for us to judge who is dead spiritually and who is not. Even those who do not live with God eternally, but are eternally separated from God--still exist somewhere

you would know how absolutely stupid this sounds if you actually read your bible or the other posts directed to you. As ive ALREADY EXPLAINED TWICE TO YOU, Jesus, our perfect example of holiness, prays to and converses with the dead. now you condemn any conversing with the dead to be collaboration with evil, so how do you reconcile the fact that you have just accused Jesus of consorting with demons?

PS, prayer to a dead SAINT, whom we know is in heaven, is VASTLY different from a seance for dead uncle jim bob.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 17, 2004.

Oh Paul, I absolutely forgot about the transfiguration! Thanks for jogging my memory. And what a splendid example we have of Christ sharing His plans for Jerusalem with the Saints of Old! Christ always brings His people into His plans, whether in this age, or the age to come!!

Praise God for His Goodness,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

No Faith, I see the havoc that "sola scriptura" has lead to; the millions of heretics running rampant, the endless divisions. I see that it is NOWHERE taught in the Bible, AND IN FACT JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TAUGHT. YOU are clinging to an invention of the Reformation.

If that's what you want to do then "go for it" but you need to stop trying to stuff your man-made notions down our throats!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

The question is not about differences in the acceptance of doctrine by individuals. That is found in every Church. Some individuals are more open to truth than others. The question is whether there are conflicts in what is offically taught as doctrinal truth. In the true Church there is no such conflict, and cannot be. In denominational religion, such conflicts and contradictions are the norm.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

(Faith) ''Your rejection of the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient, is based on your idea that fallible men cannot know the Word of God without an infallible interpreter.''

You're mistaken. We realise many verses of scripture stand alone. But in those where there is controversy and disagreement, ONLY the Church is authorised to pass final judgment of what is the truth. Christ gave her the power, with the KEYS. (Matt 16).

--''You still have the fallible (corrected spelling) decision of following Rome's claimed absolute authority-- or not.'' Exactly; and you've chosen heresy, because you ARE totally fallible without the Holy Spirit.

''Your argument implies that the Holy Spirit did such a poor job of inspiring and producing the Holy Scriptures that, although the Psalmist thought God's Word was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path, he (the Psalmist) was in fact, quite deluded.''

It's YOU who make the Holy Spirit powerless to keep Christ's promises to His Holy Church. You have the Church going fallible as soon as the scriptures appeared! A very odd assumption that the Holy Spirit merged into the Bible and abandoned the Church to error !!! (Talk about reverse logic!)

Only a heretic would call the Holy Spirit a failure in His love of Christ's followers, the Church.

And you forget (conveniently) the Church made a Holy Bible available to you & the ''reformers'' in the first place. She was infallible enough to do that, but not infallible enough to tell you what's TRUE in your interpretation & what's FALSE. You keep contradicting yourself. In your darkened condition you think you have authority to declare the Church defunct in the world for the work of Our Lord.

You want her to dissolve into an ocean of pure believers, as if YOU were actually a believer! Just because you read a Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2004.

Faith, where did you get the quote from above from Pope Pius IX

QUANTA CURA (Condemning Current Errors) Pope Pius IX Encyclical promulgated on 8 December 1864.

To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

With how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased sedulously to nourish the Lord's whole flock with words of faith and with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And truly the same, Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals, and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests, and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same Our Predecessors, have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

2. But now, as is well known to you, Venerable Brethren, already, scarcely had we been elevated to this Chair of Peter (by the hidden counsel of Divine Providence, certainly by no merit of our own), when, seeing with the greatest grief of Our soul a truly awful storm excited by so many evil opinions, and (seeing also) the most grievous calamities never sufficiently to be deplored which overspread the Christian people from so many errors, according to the duty of Our Apostolic Ministry, and following the illustrious example of Our Predecessors, We raised Our voice, and in many published Encyclical Letters and Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, we condemned the chief errors of this most unhappy age, and we excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and we again and again admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church, to us most dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of so dire a pestilence. And especially in our first Encyclical Letter written to you on 9 November 1846, and in two Allocutions delivered by us in Consistory, the one on 9 December 1854, and the other on 9 June 1862, we condemned the monstrous portents of opinion which prevail especially in this age, bringing with them the greatest loss of souls and detriment of civil society itself; which are grievously opposed also, not only to the Catholic Church and her salutary doctrine and venerable rights, but also to the eternal natural law engraven by God in all men's hearts, and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their origin.

3. But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world--not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.1

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom, civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our Predecessor, taught most wisely, "the abolition of regulars is injurious to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed; it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders, themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these societies but by God's inspiration."5 And (these wretches) also impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church, "whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity"; and that the law should be abrogated "whereby on certain fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God's worship;" and on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education." By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as we above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts, to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest), so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that "the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth."

5. Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation, or at least its consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions,6 whereby secret societies are condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such societies), and whereby their frequenters and favourers are smitten with anathema— have no force in those regions of the world wherein associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church's rights and possessions, rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders, and by other pious establishments." Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the "ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power's essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church." Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

7. And besides these things, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that in these times the haters of truth and justice and most bitter enemies of our religion, deceiving the people and maliciously lying, disseminate sundry and other impious doctrines by means of pestilential books, pamphlets and newspapers dispersed over the whole world. Nor are you ignorant also, that in this our age some men are found who, moved and excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity.

Here, however, we cannot but extol you, venerable brethren, with great and deserved praise, for not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against impiety so great.

8. Therefore, in this our letter, we again most lovingly address you, who, having been called unto a part of our solicitude, are to us, among our grievous distresses, the greatest solace, joy and consolation, because of the admirable religion and piety wherein you excel, and because of that marvellous love, fidelity, and dutifulness, whereby bound as you are to us. and to this Apostolic See in most harmonious affection, you strive strenuously and sedulously to fulfill your most weighty episcopal ministry. For from your signal pastoral zeal we expect that, taking up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and strengthened by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, you will, with redoubled care, each day more anxiously provide that the faithful entrusted to your charge "abstain from noxious verbiage, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate because it is not His Father's plantation."7 Never cease also to inculcate on the said faithful that all true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that happy is the people whose God is their Lord.8 Teach that "kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic Faith;9 and that nothing is so deadly, so hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger, (as that which exists) if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us that we receive free will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if forgetting our Creator we abjure his power that we may display our freedom."10 And again do not fail to teach "that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the Church;"11 and that there is nothing which can be of greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another most wise and courageous Predecessor of ours, St. Felix, instructed the Emperor Zeno, they "permit the Catholic Church to practise her laws, and allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ's Priests, not to raise it above theirs."12

9. But if always, venerable brethren, now most of all amidst such great calamities both of the Church and of civil society, amidst so great a conspiracy against Catholic interests and this Apostolic See, and so great a mass of errors, it is altogether necessary to approach with confidence the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in timely aid. Wherefore, we have thought it well to excite the piety of all the faithful in order that, together with us and you, they may unceasingly pray and beseech the most merciful Father of light and pity with most fervent and humble prayers, and in the fullness of faith flee always to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us to God in his blood, and earnestly and constantly supplicate His most sweet Heart, the victim of most burning love toward us, that He would draw all things to Himself by the bonds of His love, and that all men inflamed by His most holy love may walk worthily according to His heart, pleasing God in all things, bearing fruit in every good work. But since without doubt men's prayers are more pleasing to God if they reach Him from minds free from all stain, therefore we have determined to open to Christ's faithful, with Apostolic liberality, the Church's heavenly treasures committed to our charge, in order that the said faithful, being more earnestly enkindled to true piety, and cleansed through the sacrament of Penance from the defilement of their sins, may with greater confidence pour forth their prayers to God, and obtain His mercy and grace.

10. By these Letters, therefore, in virtue of our Apostolic authority, we concede to all and singular the faithful of the Catholic world, a Plenary Indulgence in the form of Jubilee, during the space of one month only for the whole coming year 1865, and not beyond; to be fixed by you, venerable brethren, and other legitimate Ordinaries of places, in the very same manner and form in which we granted it at the beginning of our supreme Pontificate by our Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief, dated November 20, 1846, and addressed to all your episcopal Order, beginning, "Arcano Divinae Providentiae consilio," and with all the same faculties which were given by us in those Letters. We will, however, that all things be observed which were prescribed in the aforesaid Letters, and those things be excepted which we there so declared. And we grant this, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary, even things which are worthy of individual mention and derogation. In order, however, that all doubt and difficulty be removed, we have commanded a copy of said Letters be sent you.

11. "Let us implore," Venerable Brethren, "God's mercy from our inmost heart and with our whole mind; because He has Himself added, 'I will not remove my mercy from them.' Let us ask and we shall receive; and if there be delay and slowness in our receiving because we have gravely offended, let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be opened, if only the door be knocked by our prayers, groans and tears, in which we must persist and persevere, and if the prayer be unanimous . . . let each man pray to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the Lord hath taught us to pray."13 But in order that God may the more readily assent to the prayers and desires of ourselves, of you and of all the faithful, let us with all confidence employ as or advocate with Him the Immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who has slain all heresies throughout the world, and who, the most loving Mother of us all, "is all sweet . . . and full of mercy . . . shows herself to all as easily entreated; shows herself to all as most merciful; pities the necessities of all with a most large affection;"14 and standing as a Queen at the right hand of her only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, can obtain from Him whatever she will. Let us also seek the suffrages of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of Paul, his Fellow-Apostle, and of all the Saints in Heaven, who having now become God's friends, have arrived at the heavenly kingdom, and being crowned bear their palms, and being secure of their own immortality are anxious for our salvation.

12. Lastly, imploring from our great heart for You from God the abundance of all heavenly gifts, we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction from our inmost heart, a pledge of our signal love towards you, to yourselves, venerable brethren, and to all the clerics and lay faithful committed to your care.

Given at Rome, from St. Peter's, the 8th day of December, in the year 1864, the tenth from the Dogmatic Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

In the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate. Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN All Rights Reserved

I have searched in vain for the paragraph you quoted. It is nowhere on the Internet and no where within this text. In fact, just the opposite, this Pope was a champion of human rights!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Faith, where did you get the quote from above from Pope Pius IX

QUANTA CURA (Condemning Current Errors) Pope Pius IX Encyclical promulgated on 8 December 1864.

To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

With how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased sedulously to nourish the Lord's whole flock with words of faith and with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And truly the same, Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals, and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests, and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same Our Predecessors, have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

2. But now, as is well known to you, Venerable Brethren, already, scarcely had we been elevated to this Chair of Peter (by the hidden counsel of Divine Providence, certainly by no merit of our own), when, seeing with the greatest grief of Our soul a truly awful storm excited by so many evil opinions, and (seeing also) the most grievous calamities never sufficiently to be deplored which overspread the Christian people from so many errors, according to the duty of Our Apostolic Ministry, and following the illustrious example of Our Predecessors, We raised Our voice, and in many published Encyclical Letters and Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, we condemned the chief errors of this most unhappy age, and we excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and we again and again admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church, to us most dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of so dire a pestilence. And especially in our first Encyclical Letter written to you on 9 November 1846, and in two Allocutions delivered by us in Consistory, the one on 9 December 1854, and the other on 9 June 1862, we condemned the monstrous portents of opinion which prevail especially in this age, bringing with them the greatest loss of souls and detriment of civil society itself; which are grievously opposed also, not only to the Catholic Church and her salutary doctrine and venerable rights, but also to the eternal natural law engraven by God in all men's hearts, and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their origin.

3. But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world--not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.1

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom, civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our Predecessor, taught most wisely, "the abolition of regulars is injurious to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed; it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders, themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these societies but by God's inspiration."5 And (these wretches) also impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church, "whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity"; and that the law should be abrogated "whereby on certain fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God's worship;" and on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education." By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as we above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts, to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest), so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that "the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth."

5. Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation, or at least its consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions,6 whereby secret societies are condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such societies), and whereby their frequenters and favourers are smitten with anathema— have no force in those regions of the world wherein associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church's rights and possessions, rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders, and by other pious establishments." Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the "ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power's essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church." Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

7. And besides these things, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that in these times the haters of truth and justice and most bitter enemies of our religion, deceiving the people and maliciously lying, disseminate sundry and other impious doctrines by means of pestilential books, pamphlets and newspapers dispersed over the whole world. Nor are you ignorant also, that in this our age some men are found who, moved and excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity.

Here, however, we cannot but extol you, venerable brethren, with great and deserved praise, for not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against impiety so great.

8. Therefore, in this our letter, we again most lovingly address you, who, having been called unto a part of our solicitude, are to us, among our grievous distresses, the greatest solace, joy and consolation, because of the admirable religion and piety wherein you excel, and because of that marvellous love, fidelity, and dutifulness, whereby bound as you are to us. and to this Apostolic See in most harmonious affection, you strive strenuously and sedulously to fulfill your most weighty episcopal ministry. For from your signal pastoral zeal we expect that, taking up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and strengthened by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, you will, with redoubled care, each day more anxiously provide that the faithful entrusted to your charge "abstain from noxious verbiage, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate because it is not His Father's plantation."7 Never cease also to inculcate on the said faithful that all true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that happy is the people whose God is their Lord.8 Teach that "kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic Faith;9 and that nothing is so deadly, so hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger, (as that which exists) if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us that we receive free will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if forgetting our Creator we abjure his power that we may display our freedom."10 And again do not fail to teach "that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the Church;"11 and that there is nothing which can be of greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another most wise and courageous Predecessor of ours, St. Felix, instructed the Emperor Zeno, they "permit the Catholic Church to practise her laws, and allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ's Priests, not to raise it above theirs."12

9. But if always, venerable brethren, now most of all amidst such great calamities both of the Church and of civil society, amidst so great a conspiracy against Catholic interests and this Apostolic See, and so great a mass of errors, it is altogether necessary to approach with confidence the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in timely aid. Wherefore, we have thought it well to excite the piety of all the faithful in order that, together with us and you, they may unceasingly pray and beseech the most merciful Father of light and pity with most fervent and humble prayers, and in the fullness of faith flee always to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us to God in his blood, and earnestly and constantly supplicate His most sweet Heart, the victim of most burning love toward us, that He would draw all things to Himself by the bonds of His love, and that all men inflamed by His most holy love may walk worthily according to His heart, pleasing God in all things, bearing fruit in every good work. But since without doubt men's prayers are more pleasing to God if they reach Him from minds free from all stain, therefore we have determined to open to Christ's faithful, with Apostolic liberality, the Church's heavenly treasures committed to our charge, in order that the said faithful, being more earnestly enkindled to true piety, and cleansed through the sacrament of Penance from the defilement of their sins, may with greater confidence pour forth their prayers to God, and obtain His mercy and grace.

10. By these Letters, therefore, in virtue of our Apostolic authority, we concede to all and singular the faithful of the Catholic world, a Plenary Indulgence in the form of Jubilee, during the space of one month only for the whole coming year 1865, and not beyond; to be fixed by you, venerable brethren, and other legitimate Ordinaries of places, in the very same manner and form in which we granted it at the beginning of our supreme Pontificate by our Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief, dated November 20, 1846, and addressed to all your episcopal Order, beginning, "Arcano Divinae Providentiae consilio," and with all the same faculties which were given by us in those Letters. We will, however, that all things be observed which were prescribed in the aforesaid Letters, and those things be excepted which we there so declared. And we grant this, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary, even things which are worthy of individual mention and derogation. In order, however, that all doubt and difficulty be removed, we have commanded a copy of said Letters be sent you.

11. "Let us implore," Venerable Brethren, "God's mercy from our inmost heart and with our whole mind; because He has Himself added, 'I will not remove my mercy from them.' Let us ask and we shall receive; and if there be delay and slowness in our receiving because we have gravely offended, let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be opened, if only the door be knocked by our prayers, groans and tears, in which we must persist and persevere, and if the prayer be unanimous . . . let each man pray to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the Lord hath taught us to pray."13 But in order that God may the more readily assent to the prayers and desires of ourselves, of you and of all the faithful, let us with all confidence employ as or advocate with Him the Immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who has slain all heresies throughout the world, and who, the most loving Mother of us all, "is all sweet . . . and full of mercy . . . shows herself to all as easily entreated; shows herself to all as most merciful; pities the necessities of all with a most large affection;"14 and standing as a Queen at the right hand of her only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, can obtain from Him whatever she will. Let us also seek the suffrages of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of Paul, his Fellow-Apostle, and of all the Saints in Heaven, who having now become God's friends, have arrived at the heavenly kingdom, and being crowned bear their palms, and being secure of their own immortality are anxious for our salvation.

12. Lastly, imploring from our great heart for You from God the abundance of all heavenly gifts, we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction from our inmost heart, a pledge of our signal love towards you, to yourselves, venerable brethren, and to all the clerics and lay faithful committed to your care.

Given at Rome, from St. Peter's, the 8th day of December, in the year 1864, the tenth from the Dogmatic Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

In the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate. Electronic Copyright © 1999 EWTN All Rights Reserved

I have searched in vain for the paragraph you quoted. It is nowhere on the Internet and no where within this text. In fact, just the opposite, this Pope was a champion of human rights!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Wow, I didn't mean to post this thing twice! Sorry about that. (Like we needed a longer thread)

Anyway, the bracketed words found in your quote totally change the meaning, and in fact turn the whole encyclical on its head. Pope Pius was denouncing those who sought to squelch freedom. . . .?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

I was simply comparing your quote with the whole encyclical and was puzzled as to the differing meanings. You were using the quotes, I gather, to infer there was difference of opinions between these two popes. Your quote has been corrupted, apparently, by someone with an agenda. I am sure that it was not you, but probably whomever provided you with the quote.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Faith, I would have to go into the site, and cross-reference their possible mis-quotes with the actual document found at a "non-biased" source, in order to even answer that question, and I simply do not have time to do that.

I am still puzzled as to why your quote from the cited encyclical is so very contrary to what Pius taught in the "actual" encyclical. I am rather stunned that someone would go to the extent of actually interpolating words that turns a text on its head.

Just for the record, there have been popes that have disagreed with each other. I know that. I also know that there are church fathers that have disagreed. The dogmas, however, of the Catholic faith, those found in the Catechism do not change, though practices and disciplines may. Not everything a pope says is "ex cathedra."

I also know that many BAPTISTS supported slavery as well, and in fact fought for the right to keep blacks as slaves. They were wrong too!

Gail

P.S. I can't find David's question to me. I think he copied my name in that post over to his thread so you guys can talk about Arminianism vs. Calvinism, a subject I am thoroughly not interested in.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

But your quote is corrupt, Faith. And of course people don't always agree. It's dogma, or doctrine, that is unchanging, and it should be unchanging.

Take for instance, the subject of Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Now the Baptist faith (maybe not your's) is rethinking it's position, not only that, but other things as well. That drove me nuts as a Protestant! I have always been under the impression that Baptists were Arminian, but then Baptists came popping into the forum talking Calvin! Now, I see why! It's now a matter of debate AGAIN! James White, arch-anti-Catholic, is a Calvinist, yet he is Baptist, and goes around debating everyone under the sun. It's craziness!

Sure, our relationship with Christ is paramount, but we are commanded to attend church! Which one is the million dollar question! I must say, Faith, that before I converted to the Catholic faith I came to the same conclusion as you, either they are all inconsequential and it does not matter a hoot what any of them believe, or one of them is "special." I did not read what others wrote about the Church. I did not read Dave Hunt, or Jack Chick or any of the others. Why should I? I wasn't looking to disprove the Church, or prove the Church, for that matter. But I started reading the Fathers out of pure curiosity and unquenchable interest. (To think we can read all of their writings in toto, all because of the Internet)! Reading what the martyrs had written before their fates. Reading how they perceived the gospel. I could not stop reading them. And Faith, I did not start off to find their Catholocity, but INDEED that is precisely what I found. One thing I have found out through the last couple of years is NEVER read through the lense of another when I can read what the author said by reading the AUTHOR. That's why reading the Fathers themselves is very revealing.

Your view of history has no doubt been marred by reading such arch- Anti-Catholics as Dave Hunt. The mis-quote you used above, though innocently, I am sure, has quite apparently been purposefully tainted to MISLEAD! Much of what poses as anti-Catholic "information" is not only biased, but sometimes downright invented lies!

Even if popes don't agree on everything, or the fathers don't agree on everything, the DOGMAS ARE NEVER-CHANGING. I LOVE THAT!! Even the gospels don't agree on every point. There are discrepancies all over the place. That doesn't mean they are un-canonical, or un- inspireed, (though unbelievers try to make that case). It simply means each had their own perspective as they wrote their gospel presentations, and the things uppermost in their minds were important enough for them to pen. They were human after all.

Someday, Faith, your church will either start changing, or you will change, and then you will have to go find yet another Protestant church.

Gail

P.S. I will go back and see where David asked me a question. Thanks.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

You can't see that Pius the IX is condemning democracy and basic human freedom, as did the catholic Church for centuries?

perhaps the reason we cant see it, faith, is because YOU put those words in there and changed the meaning. YOU turned it into an assault against human rights.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 17, 2004.

To be honest, Faith, I have read through this encyclical twice, and I don't have a clue what this Pope was addressing. The political climate at that time? Probably. I have no desire whatsoever to delve into a political matter of another time period. None whatsoever! That would takes months and probably years to get to the bottom of.

Democracy versus theocracy, that is a matter definitely for another thread. BTW, we live in a Republic. This encyclical does not speak ex cathedra pertaining to dogma, or articles of faith, but it is this Pope's opinion as to political matters of his day. Probably someone more adept at politics would be able to muddle through this one.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 17, 2004.

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD).

This instruction was from the Holy Office, not the Pope. It pertained to a particular situation in a country in Africa where slavery was ingrained into the society. It allowed for slavery under certain conditions. The argument for possessing slaves by certain just titles (for example, if they had been captured in war) dated back many centuries and was generally accepted, even if it was not right.

More information: For example, one question was this: “Whether it is permitted to admit to the sacraments any Christian merchant who normally abhors the buying and selling of slaves for the sake of profit, but, lest he suffer harm to his family affairs, wants to resell some slaves whom once he was forced, by a seller who was a noble, to take as the price of his wages.” The response was that there were “just titles” to slavery which were generally accepted, such as if a person had been deprived of his liberty justly, or if a person entered into a slavery agreement willingly. But one could not have slaves, or sell them, if the title, as was no doubt usually the case, was unjust.

Catholics were also forbidden to do anything in connection with such a slave which would lead to a detriment to his life, his morals, or his Catholic faith. Masters also had to instruct their slaves in the Catholic faith, treat them according to Christian charity, and not interfere with their marriage rights and duties.

Previous Popes had already condemned slavery, and subsequent popes will condemn slavery as well. Even if on the eve of emancipation United States Catholic bishops taught that though, trading in slaves was immoral, having slaves was not. It is common knowlege amongst historians that erroneous doctrine was in contradiction with what the popes taught.

Reference:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html
The Church's teaching about the dignity and basic equality of all human beings has been clarified to such a degree that any earlier ambiguity about the tolerance of chattel slavery has been eradicated. The Church's teaching regarding contraception and abortion can also be said to have developed, but not in the direction of approving those practices....

Christianity in general—and Catholicism in particular—contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery and the emergence of a common appreciation for fundamental human rights. Catholics, not Protestants, worked for the abolition of slavery in Latin American countries like Brazil. The Catholic appreciation of natural law—as opposed to the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (when Scripture tells slaves to obey their masters)—has always made slavery less reconcilable with Catholicism than Protestantism. The Church's consistent teaching that all men are made in God's image and are called to redemption in Christ has helped give rise to the modern notion of human rights and equality—ideas diametrically opposed to chattel slavery and that have led to a great diminishment in its practice.

see:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1201


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

By the way, to address what the magistarium during Pius IX's time said: An act is intrinsically evil when it is wrong in all circumstances. In other words, such an act can never be right. Murder is said to be intrinsically evil, abortion is as well. For a father to sell himself into slavery to save the lives of his family may be right in certain circumstances. In that case slavery is not in itself intrinsically evil. Just to finish the thought from above. So having someone say that it is not intrinsically evil does not go against Church teaching that it is generally wrong. I know it is a technicality, but then, so was the Instruction that came out under the Holy Office under Pius IX that you quoted.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

I asked earlier if someone could give me an answer to where it says in scripture for us to pray to Mary or a saint to get to God? Do you guys think that God isn't all knowing and can't hear you without Mary or saints?

I was given Hebrews Ch 11- Not right, doesn't do me no good, it's all about people doing things by FAITH, not telling em anything about prayer to a another person besides God. and a Ch in revelations about vials being passed, No good, doesn't fit in and doesn't answer my question.

-- dave (thisisnotmyadress@whoever.com), January 18, 2004.

Dave, Your question is answered in the MARY MOTHER OF GOD thread. Look there.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

Dave,

Why would you ask you family or friends to pray for you? Don't you think that God isn't all knowing and can't hear you without your family and friends interceding??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Yes I would ask my mom or dad or friends to pray with me and pray for me on whatever, BUt They are still alive. And they would pray for me or I for others Straight to God, none other. I am not asking dead people to pray for me it even says in the bible not to pray to the dead. when I pray for others or they pray for me, it''s called intercessery prayer. I am not using anyone in between, I am praying to God for others. why do you think God hated people praying to false God's and worshipping false Gods, becuz they were praying to something or someone who couldn't answer prayer and they were making that an idol, becuz an idol is anything placed above God. I worship God, so of course I am going to pray to God only, if I worshipped Mary or the saints I would pray to them.

-- dave (notmyadress@whoever.com), January 18, 2004.

when I pray for others or they pray for me, it''s called intercessery prayer. I am not using anyone in between,

It is the same thing when you pray to the saints in heaven asking them to pray to God in your behalf. No difference.

it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

But the saints are part of us, we are all Christians.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

Someone somewhere said "We see no instruction or example of anyone praying to mary or saints for that matter."

That's because they were still ALIVE! How could there be any example?

Why do Faith and Dave keep ignoring Hebrews, Revelations and the Transfiguration?

You guys cut yourselves off from the traditional teachings which underscored these issues, which date way way back. You cut yourselves off from 2nd generation Christianity, which is when the practice of asking for intercession of the saints began.

We showed you the seeds of these doctrines found in scripture. We aren't confined to your rule of faith. We accept the practices and beliefs of 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Christians. As Christianity began to flourish in these subsequent centuries we see the seedling doctrines beginning to sprout. We are connected to our family from the beginning by our practices and beliefs. You are disconnected, and in fact divorced from your ancestors.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

again faith,

you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that Jesus himself prayed to dead saints. IN FACT, you have yet to reconcile the fact that you called that action demonic...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 18, 2004.

No-one prays to the dead. Jesus said that those who believe in Him would NEVER DIE. Did He tell the truth? If so, then the saints are alive and well, and there is no reason why we should not talk to them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

Can you find examples in the Old or New Tesaments where anyone is praying to someone other than God?

Maybe this is all a misunderstaning of words. Praying is simply communicating with someone who is in the spiritual realm. Every time someone in the Bible talked with an angel or God they were praying. Every time someone sang the praises of the heavenly hosts, they were praying. When we ask a saint, that is to say someone in heaven, to pray to God for us, we are praying.

In Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

That is my point. paul h says that the Bible shows Jesus praying to saints...I say., "where?"

Why should He? He doesn't need them to pray for Him. We do. And you know He did encourage all Christians to pray for each other.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

how do you know they can hear ours prayers?

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 18, 2004.

They do not have to be omnipresent. They only need to be outside of time and space,which we know they are, and which we ourselves will eventually be. I am not responding to any more "show me where in the Bible" demands until you can show me that "show me where in the Bible" is anything more than an unbiblical tradition of men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 18, 2004.

They can't hear our prayers--unless they have become omnipresent-- which God's Word indicates that only God is...

Where in the Bible does it say that?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

how do you know they can hear ours prayers?

Read Revelation 5:8, you will see that those in heaven offer our prayers to God. So they have to be able to hear them.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

I do not think that David is praying to saints. He is exhalting God in praise and telling all of creation to do the same.....

Yes, he is telling the saints to do the same. I rest my case :) ... thanks.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

I can almost see him starring up to the heavens as he praises God..

Of course, he is talking to the souls in heaven! "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20–21).

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Clement of Alexandria-Miscellanies)

They can't hear our prayers--unless they have become omnipresent-- which God's Word indicates that only God is... Can you show me where in the Bible it is revealed that we become God when we die? That is a New Age idea....

Faith, this is your idea, at least you are the one who brought up that they had to be omnipresent, not I. Read what Paul wrote.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

We not only can, but we ought to, in justice, pray to saints, angels, our own departed parents, and the holy souls in purgatory. They live. They know us and love us, the people of God.

Faith may choose not to; that's her privilege. She can still pray to God. That's perfectly all right. All Catholics pray to God every day. It's essential to keeping the faith.

Praying to and petitioning the saints isn't essential. Faith probably got the impression Catholics find it essential and necessary. But it isn't. It's optional and it's WISE. It's wise to enlist all the saints of heaven in our causes. Our causes in this life are so desperate and crucial sometimes, that every avenue of approach to Our Lord must be tried. We must pray to Him directly and with faith, just as non-catholics do.

We may also hold out hope that saints are praying to Him on our behalf; because we asked them to. Something non-catholics can't understand. They will not have the help of a saint in heaven; nor any intercession. They trust in THEMSELVES. They say, as Faith thinks: God will answer me. I'm just calling directly on Him, that's that! A bold and self-absorbed thing to expect! Real EGO!

Then, if the prayer or petition isn't answered, they'll blame God. Not their own pride. I've heard them saying, ''How could God do that to us? --and, ''There is no God! He doesn't care about me!''

It won't even enter some poor minds, God would have been attentive to the prayer of His beloved saints in heaven! He might well have taken pity on you because the Blessed Virgin Mary came to Him, and asked Him for mercy on YOU. You thought you could sail the ocean alone. But, without somebody in heaven to intercede for you, Faith, --what good did it do? Your prayer was a dead letter. Such is the Will of God, sometimes. I think you have to find out for yourself. If you never try, you'll never find out.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2004.

/

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2004.

Faith says "Nope....He is petitioning praise...not praying to saints to intercede for him before the throne of God."

Petitioning is an interesting choice of words since it means almost EXACTLY the same thing as "pray"

Here's Webster's:

"Petition" a solemnm, earnest supplication or request to a superior or to a person or group in authority; prayer; entreaty, quest, addressed to a specific person or group. In law, a written request or plea to a specific court.

"Pray" to implore; beseech; entreat.

Yes, Faith, David is "petitioning" or "praying." Just like we are petitioning or praying the saints in heaven for their intercession. There are numerous passages of scripture both in the Old Testament and New Testament that promise the believer a "ruling" share in his heavenly kingdom. They are fabulous passages that speak of Christ's heavenly kingdom and what His saints are NOW doing in the heavenlies! I would be happy to look those up if anyone is interested.

My Hebrews 11 reference concerning the New Jerusalem shows the angels in festal gathering and all the saints WITH God. It says when we come to God, these others are present WITH Him. They are not disassociated FROM HIM, as Protestants believe. As if God the Father and Jesus are working, but the saints are off somewhere floating on a cloud. Au Contraire, they are united in ONE Spirit and we are UNITED together with them by ONE SPIRIT!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

faith,

since you are so apparently adverse to reading your bible, and apparently are the one of the few people i've ever met who is not familiar with the sermon on the mount, ive not only looked up the verses for you, i've typed them below (though dont look for me to do this again, i expect others to have SOMETHING of a grasp of the bible, if they wish to make assertions here).

Luke 9: 28 - 33 (Protestant NIV edition... just for your benifit)

(28)About eight days after Jesus said this, he took peter, john, and james with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. (29)As He was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. (30)Two men, moses and elijah, (31)appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. (32)Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. (33) As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters-- one for you, one for moses, and one for elijah. (he did not know what he was saying).

The catholic version says much the same, except that peter instead offers to build three booths, or shrines, for them.

now faith, i have shown you CLEARLY how Jesus was conversing with your "so called" dead saints, although here it appears that the saints are very much alive still.

AGAIN i challenge you to reconcile this passage with the fact that you have called conversing with the saints a demonic act.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 18, 2004.

"That is for the end of the age when Jesus returns to establish his kingdom in the physical." No it isn't, Faith, again that is simply your opinion.

When Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the Mount of transfiguration they had a type of spiritual body that Peter, James and John could see. They were actively involved with what Christ was about to do because Christ brought them in.

The reason you couldn't find it in Hebrews 11 is because it's in Hebrews 12! My goof.

Here it is:

Verse 1: Wherefore seeing we also are compassed [Strong's: to lie all around, enclose, encircle] about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.

Verses 18-23 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto backness, and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more; (For they could not endure that which was commanded, and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart; and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake)

But ye are come [have come NASB] unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Notice the present tense of the verbs.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

faith,

you can leave the insults out of this, okay? I am extremely well versed in the Scriptures.

apparenlty not versed enough, especially if you cant even remember the sermon on the mount after i've pointed it out to you three times.

Again.., where does it say that Jesus was praying to anyone but God?

he was conversing with the spiritual (dead, using your terminology), faith, that IS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF PRAYER. lets take a look at what you had to say about conversing with the dead...

so when a medium, then or today contacts a spirit-- you can be sure that it isn't that of our dearly departed. That only leaves demonic spirits. Those who are not here on the earth anymore--cannot hear us

and like i said, Jesus was contacted a spirit... two in fact. so again, i challenge you to reconcile your statement with the actions of Christ. if you will not or cannot do this we must assume a) you are decieved, and wrong, and too prideful to admit it or b) you are not of Christ, but instead loath the holy nature of prayer and the saints.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 18, 2004.

"Gail..the kingdom of God is a present tense reality in the hearts of all believers" ANSWER: RIGHT!

"But Jesus establishes this kingdom at the consumation of the ages."

ANSWER: Wrong. He has already begun to establish his kingdom. That began at the Transfiguration. See below.

"Even the Transfiguration was a prophetic look at the same consumation."

ANSWER: No. Here's why. Moses, representing the Law, and Elijah, representing the prophets, (the Old Testament) converged with Christ (the mediator of the New Covenant) on the Mount of Transfiguration. WOW, the fullfillment of the law! It has nothing to do with something far in the future. Christ was in the process of fullfilling the Old Testament prophecies and invited Moses and Elijah (in SPIRITUAL bodies) into His plan. Notice the text tells us that Christ was sharing with them his plans to "depart Jerusalem."

"As Christians, we are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem right now, because Christ rules our lives, the Holy Spirit is always with us, and we experience close fellowship with other believers.

ANSWER: That is precisely correct, Faith.

"The full and ultimate rewards and reality of the heavenly Jerusalem are depicted in Revelaton 21."

ANSWER: They are depicted in Rev 21, but you are reading Revelations from a "dispensational slant" In other words, you are assuming that Revelations 21 is yet to come. But Revelation 21 is happening NOW and has been happening for 2,000 years. Many things in the book of Revelations have already happened. Plus, think about what you're saying. We are part of the New Jerusalem now, but when we die we have to wait for the New Jerusalem...? That doesn't make sense. Besides, you still have to reckon with Hebrews Chapter 12. See below.

"I still don't see what your point is and what any of this has to do with our not praying to the dead?? These verses do not show that praying to the dead is right or necessary or ever revealed as something we should do in the Scriptures."

ANSWER: What it shows is that the New Jerusalem is a "happening thing" not a thing to come as your interpretation of Rev 21 suggests. The Saints and Angels are PRESENT with Christ in the New Jerusalem NOW!

The elders depicted in Rev as handing over vials of prayers are clearly acting in an intercessory role.

This is the foundation of the teachings of the Church with regard to the Saints interceding for us. THEY ARE ALIVE, THEY HAVE SPIRITUAL BODIES, THEY ARE CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF CHRIST'S PLANS because He always invites His people into what He is doing.

When we ask for the prayer support of our brothers and sisters in the Lord IN HEAVEN, it is EXACTLY like you or I asking for each other's prayers on earth. We are not disconnected from them. We are bound in ONE SPIRIT, living, active and PRODUCTIVE.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

So you are going to ignore Hebrews' very clear teaching, and instead embrace the false teachings of "rapture" theology which sprung about in the 1800's and is in fact part-in-parcel with the "dispensational" nonsense touted by Scofield.

You are a very dangerous woman, Faith, to yourself and to anyone who will listen to you.

Gail

FYI, My above exposition on Moses representing the Law, Elijah representing the Prophets and converging with Christ is STANDARD PROTESTANT TEACHING as well as CATHOLIC! I learned that a long long time ago in Christianity 101.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

faith, you unthinkingly muttered this...

For one thing paul--is Jesus a medium?

to which i must respond with the dictionary definition of the word medium, as you used it.

mediums A person thought to have the power to communicate with the spirits of the dead or with agents of another world or dimension

now, Granted that Jesus was communicating with the spirits of Moses and Elijah, that MAKES him a medium. so you STILL have to reconcile the fact that you called one of Jesus' acts demonic. prayer or not, you stated that a medium contacting the dead was demonic... NOW ACCOUNT FOR THAT STATEMENT!!!

And for another..conversing with someone is *not* prayer!

actually, conversing between the spiritual world and the physical world is prayer. youve said so yourself. you cant call our conversation with the saints a prayer, and then say, "well Jesus was just having a chat" it doesnt work that way sister. besides, why would Jesus say "do as i do" and " be holy as I am holy" just to turn around and portray something which is a bad example to us. HE WOULDNT.

Jesus allows the three disciples to catch a prophetic look at His Glory in heaven. It is a look into the future....

funny that what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah discuss is something that will happen in the very near future. no, faith, they were in the present, discussing something which was about to occur, not in the distant future as you have twisted this verse to suit your perverse exegisis.

And when Jesus first went up onto the mountain to pray.., it does not say he was praying to Moses or Elijah.

no, but he did know that he would go up there to converse with them. it doesnt take a half a brain to figure out that Jesus was up there conversing with the saints, providing an example for all of us today. he even brought three disciples with him to witness it. why? so that they could spread around a bad example? NO!!! because communion with the saints is something open to us.

He was surely praying to His Father in Heaven.

sure faith, when i pray to God, the father, i normally stop and have a chat with Moses and Elijah. grow up, wake up, smell the coffee, do whatever you have to to realize that Jesus went up there with every intention of conversing with Moses and Elijah. He went up there to be a Medium with their souls.

And for that you still have to account why you have condemned this action as demonic (PS- a simple "i was wrong" will suffice)

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 18, 2004.

"Jesus was not a person conversing with the dead in the Transfiguration--He was God in all His Glory in Heaven, a future event. The Transfiguration was a prophetic look at Jesus when He has consumated everything."

ANSWER: Scripture says he was talking to Moses and Elijah about his departure from Jerusalem. God the Father says, "This is my Son, listen to him." God the father introduces a new economy replacing the old, the Law and Prophets, with the new, Christ. It is that simple. He was on his way to the Passion, to complete his work that would begin the new reign of His kingdom.

"I never argued that Moses and Elijah didn't represent the Law and the Prophets because I know this. It is a non-sequitur."

ANSWER: Then why all the nonsense about it being a "phophetic look at Jesus when He has consummated everything"? That is bogus nonsense.

You clearly see the meaning in Hebrews 12 very differenntly than I do. ANSWER: It is as clear as clear can possibly be, Faith, it just doesn't fit your eschatology.

"The rapture--though not spelled out in that exact term., is none the less--revealed. See John 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:50-58; and 1 Thess. 4:13-18."

ANSWER: Oh yes, I believe in the 2nd coming. The rapture theology, however, teaches that Christ will come two more times; once to get his church, and once at the final judgment. That is a novel teaching only several hundred years old and completely unbiblical.

You know what Faith, it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who thinks scripture means whatever he or she wants it to mean. Sometimes it's a) literal, sometimes its b) metaphorical, sometimes it's c) prophetic, d) sometimes the grammatical structure of the sentence is backwards. There's no rhyme or reason as to just which one of those you may pick. It's all according to how you can pound on that square peg to make it fit the round hole. You are as slippery as an eel when it comes to biblical interpretation. In all my years in Protestant churches, (which are many) I have never met anyone who reads into text like you do, and then takes out something completely alien to the text. It's sort of like scriptural magic! One never knows what color of rabbit you're going to pull out of your hat!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

Very easily, Faith, and with Christ's own words,

Matthew 24:3:

Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

4. And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.

5. For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ, and will mislead many."

9. Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. (Doesn't sound too pretty)

10. And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another.

11. And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many.

15. Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of in Daniel standing in the holy place . . .

24-31 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Behold, I have told you in advance.

If therefore they say to you "Behold, He is in the wilderness," do not go forth, or "Behold, He is in the inner rooms, do not believe them."

For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.

Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

BUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL FROM THE SKY AND THE POWERS OF THE HEAVENS WILL BE SHAKEN,

AND THEN THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN WILL APPEAR IN THE SKY, AND THEN ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH WILL MOURN AND THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY,

AND HE WILL SEND FORTH HIS ANGELS WITH A GREAT TRUMPET AND THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, FROM ONE END OF THE SKY TO THE OTHER.

Oh I know, "But that's not my interpretation. Christ really meant to say 'before' the tribulation not 'after' the tribulation. There must be a mistake in the translation." Blah, blah, blah!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 18, 2004.

Why would Our Lord prophesy that the days of tribulation would be ''shortened for the sake of the elect''--? If they are not going to remain on earth during that period? Faith believes Jesus counts her among the elect, but she won't have to suffer. Typical false teaching of the heretics.

The elect are all faithful believers in the teaching of the apostles. Not in false biblical interpretations-- but in the Church. Faith hasn't been a part of the elect since she rejected the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2004.

again, what's your point? i don't think your very helpful. every insult just gives her a bad imperession of our catholic faith and doesn't help much in making her see the truth.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 18, 2004.

You've quoted the main heretical misinterpretation of false teachers of ''rapture'' theory. It isn't valid.

One left and one taken is just as true in prophesy of the last day, when Christ returns in glory, the true Second Coming. Yes, one is saved-- and rises to meet the Lord in the air, as Paul also prophesied. (1 Thess 4 :17) -- and the damned do not rise, they are left out until the last judgement.

John 11:24: --Martha said to Jesus correctly: ''I know that (Lazarus) he will rise at the resurrection, ON THE LAST DAY.'' Christ then said ''I am the resurrection and the life.''

That verse places the rapture squarely on the day Christ returns in glory: THE LAST DAY. The end of the world, Faith. Not once for the saints and later for sinners; that's FALSE.

We all will see Him on the final day (John 11:24)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2004.

She thinks! Oh well, then you must be right, Faith, and Jesus was just misinformed. He didn't know what the dispensationalists would be planning in the future.

BUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL FROM THE SKY AND THE POWERS OF THE HEAVENS WILL BE SHAKEN,

AND THEN THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN WILL APPEAR IN THE SKY, AND THEN ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH WILL MOURN AND THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY,

AND HE WILL SEND FORTH HIS ANGELS WITH A GREAT TRUMPET AND THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, FROM ONE END OF THE SKY TO THE OTHER. . .

I think I'll take Christ's words at their clear meaning, Faith, rather than buy into some rinky-dinky drivel that was invented in the 1800 century by a heretic-on-the-loose. Your theology teaches two raptures, in essence; a secret one, and then another one at the end of the age, all so suffering can be avoided.

Furthermore, Thessalonians states the Day of the Lord won't occur until AFTER that lawless one is revealed, not BEFORE as your theology teaches.

Truly, you must become a "scriptural gymnist" to overcome these problems.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 19, 2004.

"Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

What does this mean?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 19, 2004.

It means the coming of Jesus will be as clear to all as the corpse of an animal is to vultures.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

A little more here since I live in the desert. Out here you see the vultures first and you can see them from miles and miles away, then as you get very you smell the carcass, then you see it.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

There's no such thing as a secret rapture, Faith, that was invention of the 1800's. Christ will return ONCE more, not twice.

Christ describes the "catching away" as depicted in Thessalonians. Christ says AFTER the tribulation.

You are merely following a strange doctrine that was invented to tickle the ears (and sell books)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 19, 2004.

Bible reveals that there are two resurrections? No; there is the second DEATH, not resurrection. There's ONE resurrection on the last day.

''Revelation reveals that the saints are with Jesus when He comes'' Better believe it. The Mother of God, the saints, apostles and martyrs of the Catholic faith, including our Popes, all who were asleep in Christ that is in HEAVEN / NOT ''raptured'' at the end-time. That's FICTION.

''The rapture will come like a thief in the night., it will come by surprise...and we can all argue as to *when* that will occur--but we don't know. We can see though, that When Christ comes on the clouds it is a grand thing --nothing quiet, no surprises at that point.'' NO, Faith, sorry. The ''rapture isn't what comes like a thief.

Jesus in His glory comes; and He comes like a thief WITHOUT WARNING, not silently, or secretly. He comes upon the sudden sound of the angel's trump, to judge the living and the dead. NO SILENCE; men will be fainting for fear! All on the LAST DAY: (John, 11:2)

If men and women are fainting for fear, and the dead are rising from their tombs, and the just are being caught up (raptured) into heaven to meet Jesus, it will nevertheless be by complete surprise. as a thief who hits without warning. ''The rapture will come like a thief in the night?'' No, CHRIST will! You think: When Christ comes on the clouds it is a grand thing--nothing quiet, no surprises at that point?'' That's not what Jesus prophesied AT ALL! He said, watch and pray; and this means all; not only Jews, not only sinners. Everybody watch and pray, because you know not the day of HIS coming. It will definitely be the LAST day.

Your odd-ball interpretation, that the ''elect'' stands for Jews, is just your foolish personal invention. Nothing in the Bible supports such B.S.

The Jewish people will have already accepted Christ in the era of antichrist. You haven't a clue what elect means, because you rejected the Catholic Church. Her people are the elect! The Mystical Body of Christ is the elect!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2004.

again i ask you sasquatch, why you like that? did your wife leave you? throwing insults is not going to make faith see the truth of catholicism. if anything, that will add fuel to her fire and give her more reason to reject it.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

Thank you junior. Your advice is appreciated, come back later.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2004.

your welcome.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

Have you any good advice for Little Faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2004.

yes, admit defeat.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 19, 2004.

yes, admit defeat.

No real need for this. I think there is too much pressure on this board for people to admit mistakes. That is not as important as planting a seed of truth and letting it grow. Don't push it, it may bloom, but soon die.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

Amen! We need no back tracking from Faith. And even if she never learns, the way she fails here daily is a good lesson for any who pay attention to these debates. It's a service to other Christians who could reverse their former obstinate ways of thinking when they see Faith's false ideas losing these arguments.

With all due respect, but she's not a good representative for Sola Scriptura!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

I've read a lot of anti-catholic responses in this forum and I;ve noticed that they are just full of hatred and anger. I know that throughout the world, their's a division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and understandibly so since their beliefs differ. The on thing I don't understand, though, is what the Catholic Church ever did to these people to make them so bitter? Were they hurt or endangered in some way? I just can't understand it. Afterall, aren't we all Christians? Though our services and our beliefs differ in some ways, aren't we all in the end trying to achieve the greatest gift of all, eternal life with Jesus Christ in Heaven? This decension, to the best of my knowledge, started with Fr. Martin Luther. In studying Luther, even he has never lashed out with such contempt as you. Luther wanted change for the what he felt was the betterment of the church as a whole, not in anyway did he wish to tear it apart limb by limb. I myself am a protestant, but if the definition of a protestant is you and your hatefull and satan inspired lashings out at the holy catholic church then, I;m sorryand asshamed to call myself a protestant. I've dedicated my life to understanding God better and striving to live a Christ like life, after all, that's the definition of a Christian, to be Christ like. To be Christ like does not in any way constitute the sheer magnitude of hatered that spews out of your mouth and in this case on to our computer screens. You might be sitting there in your computer seats reading my statements with a self rightious, holyer than thou smirk upon your face, but bottom line is, when Christ comes again in all of His glory to judge us, these horrible, evil, scum of the earth Catholics who devote their lives to being better Christians and finding and living by the truth, are going to have their names in the lambs book of life while those so full of hatred and quick to condem will spend all eternity in Hell!!! Now how rightious do you feel? You may hate me and my opinion, but one thing is for certain, just as you judge others, you too will be judged and not by earthly men but by a power greater than that in all of the world. I do not judge you or condem you, only one can do that, but I warn you, take heed in what I say for what you reep, you will surely sow!!!

-- Shawn Gisewhite (sharvin@acsworld.net), January 20, 2004.

Wow, thanks Shawn. I was a Protestant for 20 years and never experienced persecution like I have since becoming Catholic . . . . and at the hands of other Christians! The hate thrown at us sometimes is palpable!

It is inspired by the author of rebellion, the author of protest, the father of lies!

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 20, 2004.

Shawn, you sound like Catholic material to me ... I think this might be your pre-Catholic phase in your journey of Faith. I recommend the books Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard (an ex- Evangelical, now a Catholic) and Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn (ex-Presbyterians, now Catholics).

-- make the (leap@of.Faith), January 20, 2004.

Shawn

I think the reason for some of that hate comes from the fact that the Catholic Church makes a pretty big claim. She claims to be the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. At some level it comes down to this: she is either right or a horrible and arrogant abomination. I happen to believe that this is true, but those who don't must see her as a truly nasty thing. Does that excuse their anger and hatred, by no means, but it does explain it.

Just my bloated opinion

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 20, 2004.

the reason for all this persecution is clear,

the catholic church constitutes the largest single group of people united under one purpose. she boasts 1.2 billion members strong and has churches and followers in every single nation in the world. Her Christian evangelism extends from the most urban areas, to the peaceful suburbs, to the back woods aboriganies of australia and even to the muslim warring nations. Despite constant setbacks the catholic church continues to grow. Her message of faith and morality is unchanging, providing a humongous rock in the river of modernism and relativity.

She is a rock that satan cannot break, and by he is trying with all his might. something that he will never understand though, is how all the hatred he spawns for us, all the division he tries to throw at us, swells our numbers and hones us into warriors who learn the truth and fight for it. simply put, the catholic church is the sole massive threat against satan in this world. were the church somehow erased, there would be no christian organization which could boast enough numbers to even come close to making the stand that the church does to this day. Joining the catholic church is like calling Satan against you, declaring your allegiance and taking your stance.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 20, 2004.

--And, let's not forget: This is every new generation, all of them since the apostles went to do Christ's bidding. Our Lord even told them, right at the start; ''The harvest is great, and the laborers few.'' Laboring in the Catholic Church, now about 2,000 years and still harvesting. God's glory is without boundaries.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

The Catholic Church never persecuted Lutherans. She merely ex-communicated men. The state was guilty of injustices, in some cases.

You simply believe a pack of lies, Faith. And I for one don't believe you come here for love of God. That's a transparent lie, too. You come here to satisfy egotistical urges to preen. You do it all for vanity.

The reason I know that, and dare to say so, is because God wouldn't inspire you, nor give you grace to distort His Holy Word in the company of real Christians. You do it against His Will; and a real believer isn't fooled.

You are a heretic and a servant of the devil.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

Faith, you need to stop getting your church history from Dave Hunt. There are many good (Protestant) church history books available that are reliable.

Luther set off a war known as the "peasant war" wherein something like 30,000 Catholic peasants were slaughtered. All Europe became embattled with war on account of Luther and Calvin.

Furthermore, you act as if the history of the Dark Ages is something Catholics should shun but in fact that's the age of Thomas Aquinas. It the age when monks and nuns established hospitals and schools all across Europe. Theresa of Avila, Thomas e Kempis, etc., etc.

But then again, you live in your own little world of make believe scriptures and make believe history!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 21, 2004.

"And as a side note--I don't think I display any hate towards anyone-- let alone Catholic people. I come here out of my love for God."

Not! You've come here to propagate the deadly Heresy of Martin Luther, the Great Heretic, your daddy. You need to spawn your rotten eggs somewhere else.

-- catholic8450327913065297 (catholic8450327913065297@Catholic.Truth), January 21, 2004.

Jan. 20th, Gail, a convert to Catholicism from protestantism wrote:

''Wow, thanks Shawn. I was a Protestant for 20 years and never experienced persecution like I have since becoming Catholic . . . . and at the hands of other Christians! The hate thrown at us sometimes is palpable!''

Gail is a lady who tells the truth; formerly in one of your own denominations, a Bible Christian. --Do you doubt her word?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2004.

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great" (Matt 5:10-12)

"Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:20)

These words, spoken by God to the One True Church He founded for all men, are as true today as they were then, and are an identifying mark of that one true Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 21, 2004.

Here's an article on the Reformation found at the Library of Congress, a NON-BIASED SOURCE.

The Reformation and the Thirty Years' War

On the eve of All Saints' Day in 1517, Martin Luther, professor of theology at Wittenberg University in Saxony, posted on the castle church door ninety-five theses that primarily concerned the sale of indulgences--papal grants of mitigation of penalties, including release from purgatory. Luther challenged the secular orientation of the Roman Catholic Church and, more fundamentally, the authority of pope and church in matters of faith, affirming instead the authority of Holy Scripture and salvation by faith alone. Because of the invention of movable type, Luther's theses, posted to stimulate debate among academics and clergy, spread rapidly throughout Germany. In 1520, in the midst of the crisis he had created, Luther published three pamphlets calling for religious reformation and for the establishment of a German national church, independent of Rome. In 1521 both Rome and the empire banned Luther, who found sanctuary among the German princes.

The oppressed German peasantry read into Luther's pamphlet "On the Freedom of a Christian Man" a promise of social reform and, stimulated by the successful struggle of Swiss peasants against the Habsburgs, revolted against the princes in the Great Peasant War of 1525. The war originated in the area of Lake Constance near the Swiss border and spread to central Germany, receiving support from dissatisfied city dwellers and rebellious knights. Luther, a social and political conservative who relied on the nobility for support in his religious revolution, ALLIED HIMSELF WITH THE PRINCES IN THEIR BLOODY SUPPRESSION OF THE PEASANT REVOLT.

The Habsburg emperor Charles V (1519-56), who had inherited Spain, the Netherlands, southern Italy, Sicily, and the Austrian lands as patrimony, determined to restore the unity of the German empire, which was divided between Catholics and Protestants and threatened by foreign powers. In 1521 he became engaged in a struggle with Francis I of France, who had resolved to destroy the power of the Habsburgs. During a campaign against Francis I, German mercenary soldiers, most of them Lutheran, sacked Rome in 1527. The capture of Rome restored imperial control of the Middle Kingdom, which had been lost during the Great Interregnum. A staunch Catholic and a firm believer in the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles assumed responsibility for protecting the Roman Catholic Church in the Lutheran revolt. However, many German princes, hoping to subordinate a German national church to the authority of the sovereign states and thus further consolidate their power, supported Luther's doctrines. They led a reform movement and in 1530 created the Protestant League of Schmalkalden to oppose the emperor. By 1545 all northeastern and northwestern Germany and large parts of southern Germany were Protestant. In 1546 Charles, in an attempt to suppress the growing heresy, declared war on the Protestant princes. The war continued for a number of years until a compromise settlement was reached in the Peace of Augsburg of 1555. In the settlement, which represented a victory for the princes, Lutheranism and Catholicism were granted formal recognition in Germany, and each prince gained the right to decide the religion to be practiced within his state.

Religious warfare resumed in the early seventeenth century with the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), a European-wide struggle that devastated Germany and reduced the size and power of the empire (see fig. 3). The Thirty Years' War resulted from a local rebellion. In 1618 the Habsburg-ruled Bohemian kingdom, opposed to Emperor Matthias's designation of his cousin Ferdinand as future king of Bohemia, elected Frederick of the Palatinate, a German Calvinist, to the throne. In 1620, in an attempt to wrest back control, imperial armies and the Catholic League under General Johann von Tilly defeated the Bohemians at the Battle of the White Mountain near Prague. Neighboring Protestant countries, alarmed by the resulting superior strength of the Catholic League and the possibility of Catholic supremacy in Europe, and France, opposed to the increasing power of the Habsburgs, supported the Protestant German princes, who seized the opportunity to renew their struggle against the emperor. However, by 1627 the imperial armies of Ferdinand II (1619-37) and the Catholic League, under the supreme command of General Albrecht von Wallenstein, had defeated the Protestants and secured a foothold in northern Germany. Invading armies from Sweden, which, secretly supported by Catholic France, had come to the defense of the Protestant cause, were defeated in 1635, and the Peace of Prague was signed. In that same year, however, France had openly joined Sweden and declared war on Spain, a traditional ally of Habsburg Austria. The war continued to rage, for the most part on German soil, until the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648. The settlement, which signaled the re-emergence of France as the main power on the continent, gave German territories to France and Sweden and extended toleration to Calvinism.

And the scars in Europe still remain.

Yes, Faith, I have been persecuted by other Christians since becoming Catholic. Mocked, ridiculed, made fun of (BY PROTESTANTS) but it's all worth it, because I am finally home.

Ever heard of the Sudan, Faith? Do you know how many Catholics have died there in the past 10-15 years at the hands of Muslims? What do you think, that in other countries where Christian oppression is rampant that Catholics are exempt?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 21, 2004.

Yes, and it was these exact words of Luther that gave the go-ahead to the "princes" of German to slaughter the poor to their hearts content.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 21, 2004.

To be fair, I think Luther changed his mind about this 'war' after about 100,000 died. (and they call the Inquisition a terrible event .. approx 6,000 died in all the decades of the Inquisition).

Dean reminds me of Luther ... or is it Clark?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Faith, are you being sarcastic, or are you truly sorry for the horrible blood shed that occurred in phase one of the Reformation?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 21, 2004.

Faith says Catholics haven’t suffered persecution. The length and breadth of the UK there are churches run by the Church of England that were stolen from us during the Reformation. There are homes with hidden rooms in them that priests would hide in so that they wouldn’t be caught and executed. They had to say Mass in safe houses. Martyrs died for their faith, they were literally persecuted to death. Men had to leave the UK and go to seminary in mainland Europe to train to be priests, literally risking life and limb to do so.

The UK took parts of Ireland and populated it with English Presbyterians, giving them land, making them landlords of the peasant Irish Catholics. The Catholics literally starved to death because of the rents being imposed on them for their own land. Catholics didn’t have a vote, so they were powerless. It was illegal for Catholics to be educated. Priests tried to teach the children to read and write, doing so by hiding under hedges. Catholics had to leave Ireland because of the potato famine, and went to the UK, many to Scotland, where they were again persecuted because of being Catholic. They were taunted, scorned and couldn’t get jobs, the Catholic church started a Catholic schooling system which was eventually incorporated into and funded by the state.

Faith may have heard of Guy Fawkes…a man who fought for civil rights for Catholics…burned at the stake. To this day the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom MAY NOT BE CATHOLIC!

Gosh there are so many tales of Catholic persecution that I can’t even begin to tell her them all, so I’ll stop now, before the smoke coming out of my ears does some damage!

God bles

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 21, 2004.

When I studied Church history, we breifly discussed Martin Luther, but what we were taught was that he was a pretty nice guy(for lack of better words). What I read so far, I'm curious about what type of guy he really was. What's a good website that reveals the TRUTH about Luther and the Reformation?

-- Shawn Gisewhite (sharvin@csworld.net), January 21, 2004.

'It truly amazes me that anyone would think the Catholic Church is persecuted. You enjoy polical clout unknown to the rest of the Christian world.., and you are so large in number that you are favored everywhere. Persecution? Where?'

There Faith, that's where you said it

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 21, 2004.

Faith, The USA isn't the only place that has Catholics today, or do you mean it only matters about what happens there, doesn't matter that, for example, we in the UK can't have a Catholic Prime Minister.

Incidentally, I never said that Catholics have never done anything wrong or that other Christians hadn't also been persecuted,...you're the one who denied that Catholics were persecuted!

Anyway I'm off to sleep, it's one am and I have to be up at 6.30

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 21, 2004.

Yes...in fact, in this country--today, you are not persecuted. That is for sure. You or any other Christian for that matter.

really faith, youre so sure? perhaps you havent heard a good anti catholic joke lately? i dont hear many anti baptist/episcople/ (insert protestant church here) jokes...

also, lets look at the media. hhhmmmmmmnnnn, catholic priests have the LOWEST percentage of child molesting ministers of ANY organization, all protestant churches included. and yet, who gets the air time? the catholics, because 95% of the media HATES the catholic church. why? because we cant agree with sailing peoples lives down a river just to make a story...

ever see dogma? or any other number of anti catholic movies? no offense, i think the movie dogma is hilarious, but that is because i know it was written from an entirely uneducated perspective. had the person been knowledgable, they would have understood a bit more about our faith and not protracted so many myths. point is, when was the last time hollywood persecuted YOUR church unjustly in a movie?

or even on a more personal level. you know, all these fundies like to ask me what church i belong to. the second you say catholic, they get rather dejected, change the subject, and end the conversation ASAP, or they fight you about why your church is wrong. hows that for discrimination and persecution?

No, faith, the only reason you THINK the christian church isnt being crucified is because you are in the part which is not standing to weather the storm, but instead fell to the currents LONG ago...

But I don't deny history...and if you will be honest, then you know that people were killed by the Catholic Church because they refused to accept false doctrine and protested!

Christ said "blessed are they who ARE persecuted in my name..." not who's ancestors were persecuted. you know what that means faith? if your religion isnt a constant target for the hate of the world, then youre not in the right one. Furthermore, if you want to talk about history, maybe you should consider the persecution by rome. but for the endurance of the catholic church, you wouldnt be here. youd be a pagan roman subject.

but either way, lets talk about history... lets talk about inquisitions as well. how about we talk about Cathars, a militant ultra conservative group bent on subverting church and governments alike to bring about THEIR vision of morality. a heresy. not the idea that they should be allowed to read the bible, and that people should not be baptized as youth, as chick would have you believe... but instead a heresy that procreation for any reason was wrong, and those who tried to procreate should be severely punished. how would you like it if these people had taken over a nation, killing people for having sex?

OH, you must mean the SPANISH inquisition, when you talk about the catholic church burning people... well, good thing the spanish inquisition was started by the government of spain. in fact, its a good thing the vatican put a stop to it.

Or were you talking about the salem witch trials... no, couldnt have been that. in your hypocracy im sure you didnt mean to mention that protestants have burned other protestants in the past too.

All Christians have been persecuted, not just Catholics.

yes, faith, and when was YOUR church persecuted? didnt you just get done saying that churches in america dont get persecuted?

so, tell me faith, when did your invisable church get burned down by cossacks, romans, nazis, or cathars? when did you hide underground for years evading a government so that you could worship, knowing every day might see you drawn and quartered or crucified?

when did your church reopen the holy lands so that everyone, even protestants, could make pilgrimages there? When did your church become responsable for saving HUNDREDS of thousands of jews from the nazis? when did your church have many of its leaders crucified, stoned, beheaded, assasinated, and just plain murdered? how many times has your central church been put to seige by countries attempting to dominate the world?

yes, please enlighten us about YOUR churchs' history faith, in what way has it been persecuted? in what ways has it survived persecution? how has the Holy Spirit shown that through adversity your church has survived even the most powerful forces man could muster against it?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 22, 2004.

Sorry, ''Faith''--
You've got it wrong. Our Church isn't the majority..head count wise,

She's Jesus Christ's Church; His only, Holy Church. What did you expect, that Christ's Gospel wouldn't bring souls to salvation by the hundred millions? The Holy Gospel has circled the globe close to 2,000 years now, as preached by the Catholic Church. The Bible has been in existence for more than eighteen centuries (written form) and all because of the Catholic Church. Your own blessed ancestors loved and believed the Word of God in His Church; it isn't their fault you abandoned the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

The Bible tells us that the road is narrow and few find the right path....so where does that leave your billions of Catholics?

or a better question, since catholics only make up 20% of the worlds population (few who find the right path)... where does that leave your 80% of the world, yourself included?

No Sara..., My point was in response to the few posters here who claim they are suffering persecution., and they think it is because they are Catholic.

no faith, when somebody tells an anti catholic joke, cuts on the catholic church in the media and ignores everyone else, or won't talk to me when i reveal that i am catholic, that is NOT persecution because i am male, or because i am young, or because i am white, etc etc etc. it is persecution because i am catholic. you just dont see it because youre on the wrong side.

I suggested that Americans don't really know persecution like other Christians do outside of this country. And I also made it clear that not only Catholic Christians are persecuted.

you havent made it clear at all faith. you havent even begun to prove that protestants have suffered any relevant level of persecution at all similar to what the catholics have survived. why dont you answer all the persecution questions i asked you in the last one? or is all you can say "because the church is big"?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 22, 2004.

The Bible tells us that the road is narrow and few find the right path....so where does that leave your billions of Catholics?

Paul answered you just fine: a better question, since Catholics only make up 20% of the world's population (who find the right path) They are that ''few''. Where does that leave your 80% of the world-- and yourself? On the wide path, of course. The answer is always the same. Get back on the narrow path which has brought many millions of souls to Christ; since 33 A.D. Including some of your own ancestors. Give up the wide path of spiritual permissiveness and sola scriptura, Faith.

Furthermore, you're wrong: ''I also made it clear that not only Catholic Christians are persecuted.'' You cannot say the other Christians have all been persecuted for Christ's holy faith. Sorry, but to be martyred or to suffer for the faith, you must first embrace the TRUE faith. Just as Catholic martyrs did; and still do. Remember, it's not just saying to Him, ''Lord, Lord.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

in the days of noah, only 8 were saved...not hundreds

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 22, 2004.

''It is really about the Word of God''. Of course; and you distort and deny it repeatedly.

''People are rejecting Jesus and the are rejecting the truth as revealed in His Word.'' / / / / / You do that; and other ''denominations'' do it. To return to Jesus, all of you must return to the one true Church He founded. It's there for all of you, plain as day. The Holy Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

His Holiness the Pope is NOT intolerant of your sects. He is continually trying to teach you to love God and show it by re-uniting with the Holy Church your ancestors all belonged to. Far from not accepting you; he wants your salvation. You are the ones who reject the Catholic Church. Satan has made you blind and proud. Proud of your blindness!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 22, 2004.

faith is still saved, she will only spend more time in purgatory. and you will to if you keep being insulting.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 22, 2004.

Why are you telling us the future? Is Junior authorized to send souls to heaven, hell or purgatory?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

yes i am.

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 23, 2004.

Well. I hope you aren't sending me to hell.

Did you send anyone else to hell? Any members of your family? A sister? Brother? Are you fooling me?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

show me where our catholic church tells us it is ok to insult people. how are we to win them over to the faith with that attitude? you should be ashamed of youself for being like that; i.e. an old grump. don't take out your troubles on other people. don't bring them to the forum too!

-- jr (none@nowhere.com), January 23, 2004.

jr,

eugene is not insulting "faith." he is admonishing "faith" into the truth. eugene, with his many years of catholic experience, has the wisdom to refute a brood of viper like "faith." you are too generous to judge "faith" as going to purgatory; if she has a single mortal sin on her death, she is most likely to go to hell; just like you, if you have a single mortal sin on your death, you are most likely to go to hell, too.

her fake "faith" was a heresy of the 16th century. pope leo x excommunicated the brood of viper martin luther and all his followers. his excommunication of the protestant revolters still stands, it has not been recanted by the holy catholic church.

-- III (III@III.III), January 23, 2004.

Junior,
We aren't about to ''win'' Faith over just by a nice attitude. I am nice to those who serve God faithfully, and I'm grumpy as you say, to those who would like to serve God, and yet disobey Him.

I can assure you I wouldn't say harsh things from anger or because it makes me feel superior to another.

We have a great store of Catholic ''knowledge'' to draw from here. Myself and a number of other good Catholics in the forum. Our gentle contributorss keep trying the friendly, co- operative approach with Faith. I try a rougher treatment called tough love. But let me assure you; I'm only motivated by love for God and love for my neighbor.

We have to approach difficult jobs with the best tools God gave us. Mine are words that strike at your conscience. But I also have words for good folks, that extend Christian love. Just don't mistake servants of the devil for good folks, JR. --That's not faith. Remember the super song Don Quixote sang, (he was off his bean, of course), with the words,

''And be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly Cause!''

That's what we do here, My Friend. We want to pull Faith out of the devil's fires even if it hurts her.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

Just a note about the "Peasant War," which was a series of peasant conflicts arising from a number of grievances including self determination and a vision of reform (according to Brad S. Gregory) that was closer to Huldrych Zwingli's. ( he had split from Luther) Also Thomas Muntzer, another reformer who had broken from Luther had a major hand in encouraging thousands of underarmed peasants to revolt, promising God's protection.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 26, 2004.

I know we all disagree gentleman, I am just glad to see that there are so many Christians posting to this wonderful website, we will fight amongst ourselves until the true enemy appears, then the oppostion will clearly define and the most organized army(religion) will lead the way for Christians around the world. I am a Catholic born and raised. To everybody posting in this forum, Catholic or Protestant, continue to study Gods word and every once and a while take time to notice we are on the same team.

Mack D. Rodriguez III (Catholic)

-- Mack David Rodriguez (Mackdarod@yahoo.com), August 26, 2004.