Monday, August 30, 2010

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: The White-Ferrara Marian Debate - Some Follow-Up

More from TurretinFan on the Immaculate Conception.

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: The White-Ferrara Marian Debate - Some Follow-Up

In the post TurretinFan links to 'Ineffibilis Deus' which is the document which declares the Immaculate Conception to be official Church Dogma. Here is a quote from it that shows the purpose of the doctrine and the spirit of it, which is offensive beyond words:
All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin -- in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign "from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth," and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.

All these things ascribed to Mary are things that only God Himself does, and our hope and praise should go to Him alone. Christ is the one who crushed the head of the serpent. This is why I am offended and continue to feel the need to expose the spirit behind this doctrine.

I posted this whole chapter a few days ago and bolded this passage, hoping it might strike a chord: 1 Peter 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
We believe in God the Father through Christ alone, and our faith and hope are in Him.

133 comments:

Jennie said...

Here's an interesting statement and question at the end of another of TurretinFan's recent posts:http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Will anyone dare to suggest that Jesus forgot about his own mother?

Jennie said...

Here's a thought:
On reading some of the comments under TurretinFan's post on the debate, someone quoted from an early theologian or Father that Mary may have been purified by the Holy Spirit before Jesus' conception rather than when she was in the womb or conceived. This would not mean that she could never sin, but that she was cleansed by the faith of her assent. Here's some more wild speculation on my part: why is it necessary that we believe that she never sinned in her whole life? It may be that she was purified and sanctified for the time when Jesus was in her womb, and given grace to not sin during that time. But this would not mean she could never sin later on, or before.
I believe scripture says that we are all sinners, and that Mary is included in that, but maybe she was purified, as I said, for the time that Jesus was carried in her womb.
When I read things like the quote from 'Ineffibilis Deus' it is so revolting to me that I want to totally disregard any possibility that anything Catholics say or have said about Mary, just because I want to get as far from the awfulness as possible. It seems like protestants might naturally 'over-protest' sometimes because some things are so upsetting. But it isn't unreasonable or unscriptural to think Mary was sanctified at the time of Jesus' conception, and made pure, just as we are made pure when we are forgiven and justified by faith.
I do think that she could sin later and still needed to come to full faith after understanding Christ's death and resurrection, just as the other disciples did.
I believe the RCC is way over-reaching here in 'Ineffibilis Deus' and is making Mary's role the same as God's. She should be honored in her place alongside the other Bible saints, but not above them. Again, Christ in His word does not place her next to Himself.

Elena said...

...and this is why I could never leave the depth, breadth and coherance of the Catholic Church - it is so much more comprehensive than anything I have ever read on the Protestant side. Jennie's comments on her own post- perfect example.

Jennie said...

Why Elena,
because I speculated on something which is not explained in scripture, and which believers have been speculating about and arguing about for 1800 years? I believe the subject is something that is mostly better left alone as scripture leaves it. But I also believe that the truth is worth fighting for, and 'Ineffibilis Deus' is an affront to the Truth of God's Word.

Christine said...

Again, I repeat that to be consistent, if you have to leave alone things that are not spelled out in scripture, then you must reject the Trinity and the canon.

By your measure the Bible you hold is merely "speculating" that it is the complete, inerrant word of God.

Christine said...

Elena - you are so right. Depth, breadth, and 2000 years of wisdom/understanding/intellect/inspiration that is infinitely beyond my own abilities. I don't want to have to "lean on my own understanding" about crucial faith matters. And yet a Catholic is never to blindly follow but rather seek deep understanding and knowledge every step of the way.

Jennie said...

Again, I repeat that to be consistent, if you have to leave alone things that are not spelled out in scripture, then you must reject the Trinity and the canon.

By your measure the Bible you hold is merely "speculating" that it is the complete, inerrant word of God.


You apparently didn't read the posts I linked to in the other thread about the trinity. I believe the Apostles clearly understood the triune nature of God when they taught the new church after pentecost, and when they wrote the New Testament. It is there clearly.
The word of God was and is recognized by God's people. 'My sheep hear My voice.'

Jennie said...

Christine and Elena,
Certainly there is depth in Roman Catholicism, but is it the measureless depth of God's word, full of endless treasures, or is it the depth of 1700 years of accumulated and gathered tradition and stories of many interesting people and places, some of whom are saints and some of whom are not? The part of it that comes from God's word is the only part that will not be shaken in the end.

Jennie said...

Let's keep this thread on the subject. I would like people to answer the things that I've said about the official document that explains the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and why, if it is so horrifying to protestants, is it acceptable to you? Or is it? Remember this is the official document that explains the reason for this doctrine.

Christine said...

If you read ALL of Ineffabilis Deus you get a complete picture of the role of Mary in Catholic doctrine. The selection you posted is the very end of the encyclical in which the total dependence of Mary upon the merits of Christ were made clear in earlier portions. You didn't even include the beginning of the final section, which leads into what you posted: "Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother."

So, just like with the Concordat, you post a small, misleading portion of something, giving it a different character.

Do I feel comfortable with Ineffibilis Deus? It is a beautiful document, painstakingly expressed, from scripture, tradition, through all the events of Mary's life that show what and who she is.

Taken out of context, the portion you posted is disturbing and frankly, is trying to create a disturbing impression. Stop doing that!!

Read the real version!!
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Leo said...

Jennie,

I make a friendly wager that your brother is like the prodigal son and you are like the older brother. He and his family have come back to the Church with humility and now experience the peace that surpasses all understanding.

You, on the other hand, probably know 10 times as much about scripture as he does and you are spending all your free time laboring to discredit him and the Church he has come back to.

As a complete guess, my sense is that you do not possess the same peace that he does and it is driving you nuts.

I could be wrong, but I certainly don't sense any peace in your heart just based on your blogs. You are captive in your sola scriptura world, whereas we know the Truth and the Truth has set us free...

Christine said...

Jennie - I understand how patently foreign and offensive the Marian dogmas seem to evangelicals, because I used to be one. At the same time, part of me LONGED to know her as Catholics did. Her mother-ness, and how I feel about it, is hard to express. I yearn for more of my spiritual mother, yet nothing is more offensive to me than the idea of goddess-worship, or radical feminism in the Church and all of that. Mary is the polar opposite of all that power-seeking. She's His mother, and ours, by His grace.

Jennie said...

Christine,
I did read most of the document, and it is the 'real version'. I just went back and read the rest, since before I had stopped because I didn't see the point of prolonging the quivering with anger that began when I was reading it. Here is the part that you mentioned I left out, which I couldn't bear to put in because, along with almost every sentence of the document, it has no truth in it; hardly one phrase in it coming from scripture, but from fables. Fables which sound beautiful only if you don't know that they are lies that contradict God's word:

Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin -- in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers.

So Jesus is going to accept the RCC's thanks for something He never did, and which has no basis in His word, as if He would be glad for people to give all His praise and His names to another who is only a created being. This makes me very angry.

You thought reading the whole thing would help? The whole thing is a big lie: that the church has always believed this doctrine; then he boasts that they overcame all who opposed it, which is a travesty: because they desired to lift up the one they love, they listened to no voice of truth that stood against them; the same as in the Reformation.

Jennie said...

Jennie - I understand how patently foreign and offensive the Marian dogmas seem to evangelicals, because I used to be one. At the same time, part of me LONGED to know her as Catholics did. Her mother-ness, and how I feel about it, is hard to express. I yearn for more of my spiritual mother, yet nothing is more offensive to me than the idea of goddess-worship, or radical feminism in the Church and all of that. Mary is the polar opposite of all that power-seeking. She's His mother, and ours, by His grace.
Christine,
Maybe the offensiveness should be a warning rather than something to be overcome. I look at it as a temptation to depend on someone other than God, who is described in scripture by characteristics of both mother and father. Not that He is a mother, but He is everything to us. He is the one who feeds us like a mother bird, and covers us with His feathers like a mother hen, and also our Father and protector and provider. God's word never tells us to look to Mary as our mother, but to look to God for all our needs. To say that God ordained it this way when He doesn't speak a word of it, but says just the opposite, is to speak in opposition to revealed truth.

Jennie said...

Leo,
I don't really want to go into detail about my family; and yes, you are wrong, as you said you could be.
I have peace about the things that pertain to myself, but not to the subtle and not-so-subtle discrepancies I see when comparing RC doctrine to scripture.

Elena said...

Hmmm. I don't see why your family things are off the table. You did, after all, say that was one of the reasons for starting this blog. So I for one would be very interested to understand the family dynamic as it pertains to Catholicism.

Elena said...

Maybe the offensiveness should be a warning rather than something to be overcome.

An analogy:

Back in 1990 or so, I remember driving back from a college class I was taking and flipping on the radio to listen to this arrogant, radical nitwit with all of these totally false ideas about politics. Rush Limbaugh. I couldn't listen to the man for more than 5 minutes without my blood starting to boil. But eventually, bit by bit I came to see that I could absolutely not fault his logic. That, along with some other life events lead to my world-view conversion from young liberal to avowed conservative.

Just my 0.02 cents

Elena said...

You thought reading the whole thing would help?

I, for one, knew that it would not. You do not have the education, understanding or the background for that type of document.

Elena said...

it is so horrifying to protestants, is it acceptable to you?

Yes. I am all for horrifying Protestants. ; )

Christine said...

When Jesus is on the cross, we hear that he told the "beloved disciple", "behold your mother". You'd agree that the word choice is always deliberate by the gospel writers, and John chose to say "beloved disciple", not his own name, "John". That is the scripture reference where Catholics see Mary given to us, the "beloved disciples" as mother. You don't agree with the interpretation, but the basis is there. I know as a evangelical, we always breezed on past that verse as fast as possible - as we did wherever Mary appears. I couldn't believe it when I read the bible on my own. Calling it unscriptural is false.

Mary isn't there to make up for a lack in God or Jesus. No, not at all, that would be heretical, just as you say. But the creating of and bestowing of Mary was and is done in the abundance of God's gifts to us.

It is so offensive to you, okay. But for those who can accept it, it is a gift, if rightly understood.

Jennie said...

I'm sure everyone is very interested, but I don't think it's appropriate to talk about my brother and his family and their personal concerns online. The only think I'll say is that we don't get to discuss these things much, as we usually see each other only at my parent's house surrounded by our combined 9 children. And if we did, my mother, who is allergic to conflict of all kinds, would never forgive ME. Don't know why it's ok if I'm upset, but that's the way it is. And emails and phone calls to discuss things with my brother are not well received, either.

Jennie said...

About the Rush Limbaugh analogy; I've always been conservative, and I still am, but conservative politics annoys me about as much as liberal politics does now. I think they're all corrupt. I don't really enjoy listening to Rush anymore either, though I used to.
But politics isn't the same as Christianity. I can't get over this offense, because it has to do with God's word. I don't accept the RCC as a trustworthy authority, and that document is opposed to scripture.

Jennie said...

You do not have the education, understanding or the background for that type of document.

In other words, I haven't been catechized, or whatever the word is.
Or maybe you just mean I'm dumb.

Elena, I can understand English. And I can see that the things it says are not true when compared to history and scripture.

Jennie said...

When Jesus is on the cross, we hear that he told the "beloved disciple", "behold your mother". You'd agree that the word choice is always deliberate by the gospel writers, and John chose to say "beloved disciple", not his own name, "John". That is the scripture reference where Catholics see Mary given to us, the "beloved disciples" as mother. You don't agree with the interpretation, but the basis is there. I know as a evangelical, we always breezed on past that verse as fast as possible - as we did wherever Mary appears. I couldn't believe it when I read the bible on my own.

John calls himself the 'beloved disciple' all through the gospel, so I don't know that it is specifically significant in that passage. I do agree that word choice is deliberate in scripture. I have been careful not to 'breeze past' verses for that reason, but to pray and seek understanding and not be afraid of the truth, and not to always immediately accept traditional interpretations. Also it's important to compare scripture to other scripture to be sure we don't come up with things contrary to the rest of scripture.

The rest of scripture doesn't call Mary our mother, and says that Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was without mother and father (Hebrews). I believe on that basis that Jesus gave Mary to John because she could no longer be his mother, since He was returning to the Father and taking His place at His right hand again. Of course He loved her dearly, but as God He also knew that she needed to now know and accept Him as Savior, and not as her son.

Elena said...

Yea well I can read pretty well too Jennie, but I wouldn't pretend to understand advanced economics, psychology, sociology, or mathematics because I don't have enough background in any of those things.

And when it comes to Catholicism - neither do you, although, for some reason that doesn't seem to stop you from opining - which is annoying at worst but mildly amusing at best.

One of my pet peeves in bloggers and I suppose in real life too, are folks that put a little bit of stuff out there (i.e. my family converted to Catholicism and I want to understand it...) but then slam the door on any further discussion. You put it out there, so as far as I'm concerned it's fair game. And if it's not then you really shouldn't be discussing any of this on an open blog anyway.

Jennie said...

Elena,
I didn't know I was transgressing some kind of blog law by expressing my beliefs, but not sharing all my family's personal business. I'm free to share or not share whatever I like.
I don't think people need to know the details of my family's interactions in order to discuss this subject.
Finally,
I don't have to be an expert on Catholicism to see that this document contradicts scripture and the facts of history. It's blatant. I only need to know God's word, and I can see what is in opposition to it. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

Jennie said...

See I don't have to be an expert, only a sheep who recognizes the voice of her shepherd but runs from a stranger, or a little child who knows her father's voice, but is afraid of a stranger's voice.

Leo said...

"Yes. I am all for horrifying Protestants. ; )"

Ba dum ching!

Leo said...

"I didn't know I was transgressing some kind of blog law by expressing my beliefs"

Yes, it is in Section 7, paragraph 2 of Blog Scripture. We believe in 'sola blog scriptura', so you are automatically wrong for disagreeing with us...

Leo said...

"I believe on that basis that Jesus gave Mary to John because she could no longer be his mother,"

Jennie, this goes back to the crossword analogy. You say that 'you believe this' because it fits neatly with your scripture pretzel. Of course this now begs the issue of the intersecting clue, which involves the 'brothers and sisters' of Jesus.

You see, in Jewish practice, there was no way that a mother would ever be taken care of by a stranger if her children were still alive. It just simply would not happen. Yet, you are okay with interpreting that verse to mean that Jesus was giving Mary to John as his physical mother to take care of. When you tie both of your interpretations together, it becomes clear that they simply do not fit properly.

You never did answer the question about forgiveness of sin. You claim that we all have the authority to forgive sins. Fine, so are you then claiming that you have the authority to forgive Osama bin Laden for what he has done?

Leo said...

Elena said it quite well. You speak flippantly about heavenly and eternal things which are outside of your understanding due in large part to your self-imposed limits on Truth.

You are like a person from another culture who peers into our home through a side window because they see a strange light. They observe candles lit on some round platform being presented to a small child by a group of people gathered around. The child is wearing some type of strange headdress and the people are singing some sort of praises directed at the child.

The following morning we are accused of worshipping a child by lighting candles, chanting, and singing praises to the child.

We try to explain that no, we were singing 'Happy Birthday' and that we were in no way worshipping and ascribing divinity to the child.

What we hear incessantly is "I know what I saw. Those were acts of worship and you can say what you want. You are all giving the glory to a child that belongs to God alone."

Silly analogy? Perhaps, but that's the way we honestly see your accusations. You really don't get the fact that there is no way that we could even dream of calling Mary a goddess or ascribing any divinity to her. It is beyond offensive to think that way.

You know, as another analogy, it would be like someone accusing you of child molestation because you hug your children and show your affection to them regularly. It really is that offensive.

Christine said...

Your crossword puzzle and birthday analogies are very apt, Leo.

Jennie - to Elena's point, it SEEMS like you need to be right at any cost in your family situation. I hope you are not harassing your Catholic relatives with your prejudices and misconceptions. If someone is truly at peace with their OWN beliefs and relationship with God, then he/she will not be contentious in attacking others. If your Catholic relatives are being rude to you, you can ask them to respect your beliefs and lay off. But if you are the one who can't keep from anti-Catholic digs and jabs, then that is on you. Anyone reading your blog would guess that you cannot live with Catholic folks actually thinking that they are right about the Church, and that you, Jennie, are able to interpret scripture to definitively refute the Church which is ever-ancient and ever-new.

Elena said...

I didn't know I was transgressing some kind of blog law by expressing my beliefs, but not sharing all my family's personal business.

Hey, I'm just saying you brough it up. So quit whining about others asking about it. As far as I'm concerned since that was the original impetus for this blog it is totally fair game to be brought up and discussed. In fact, I wouldn't mind reading your brother's opinion on the things you write.


Finally,
I don't have to be an expert on Catholicism to see that this document contradicts scripture and the facts of history.


Sure you do Jennie. Because you have an amateurish/outsiders view of Catholicism. I have no idea what your scripture background is. Does it include a study of Hebrew? Koine Greek? Ancient cultures? Have you studied any Catholic scholars or just the anti-Catholic ones. I find your understanding of both to be lacking on a number of levels, and her exegesis and evangelizing skills to be lacking as well.

Christine said...

Jennie - it's bit hypocritical to fault our papacy, but then make your own definitive pronouncements. That's a big reason I started to see flaws in evangelicalism - everyone is their own pope, interpreting scripture every which way, each sincere as all get-out.

I feel bad for you because you seem to see corruption everywhere and seem to feel isolated even though you see "truth" so well.

Jennie said...

You see, in Jewish practice, there was no way that a mother would ever be taken care of by a stranger if her children were still alive. It just simply would not happen. Yet, you are okay with interpreting that verse to mean that Jesus was giving Mary to John as his physical mother to take care of. When you tie both of your interpretations together, it becomes clear that they simply do not fit properly.

Leo,
the passage specifically says that John took Mary physically into his home from then on, so we know they both understood it to mean that she would live with John as if he were her son. It isn't explained why she didn't go live with Jesus' brothers or sisters. We do know that scripture said His brothers did not yet believe in Him, but that they did later. Possibly as her oldest son, and her God, Jesus wanted her to live with a believer. He had the authority to do so.

Jennie said...

You never did answer the question about forgiveness of sin. You claim that we all have the authority to forgive sins. Fine, so are you then claiming that you have the authority to forgive Osama bin Laden for what he has done?

Leo, I already said that I'm going to do a post on that soon and that it isn't the subject of this thread.

Jennie said...

Elena said it quite well. You speak flippantly about heavenly and eternal things which are outside of your understanding due in large part to your self-imposed limits on Truth.

Leo, if I were being flippant I wouldn't be here taking this subject seriously, and I wouldn't care if anyone believed what 'Ineffibilis Deus' says. I'm here sharing what God's word says about it because I believe it's eternally important.
The limits on Truth that are imposed on me are from God's word itself. Since scripture is God's word, then it by definition is the God-imposed limit on Truth. I respect my Father's word, and fear the consequences of transgressing it, for myself and others.
God's word gives understanding, and the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Because I love His word, I abhor what opposes it.

Jennie said...

Leo,
your birthday analogy only goes so far. I'm not just looking at a wordless moving picture and I'm not looking at a totally alien culture. I am seeing what's being done and hearing the words that are being said, and comparing them to God's word. I am familiar enough with our common history and with the doctrines and practices to be able to compare them to the truth. Your analogy and Elena's statements that I can't understand Catholicism without alot of education are just distractions from the light of God's word that I've held up to the doctrine. God's word says that His wisdom from His word is enough for His people to be able to discern truth from error, even if we are not 'wise' and 'learned' according to the world's definition.

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption—that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31

Jennie said...

Jennie - it's bit hypocritical to fault our papacy, but then make your own definitive pronouncements. That's a big reason I started to see flaws in evangelicalism - everyone is their own pope, interpreting scripture every which way, each sincere as all get-out.

Christine,
No one is prohibited from making 'definitive pronouncements'. Those who love God's word and trust in Him, and who abide in His word, having the Holy Spirit guiding them, will come more and more into unity in the Spirit and in the Truth. Errors will be discarded along the way. This doesn't mean that everyone is doing this. To the extent that we hold on to our own 'traditions' we will not be in unity with God and each other.(Eph. 4)

Peter said:
1 Peter 4:11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.

Elena said...

Your analogy and Elena's statements that I can't understand Catholicism without alot of education are just distractions from the light of God's word that I've held up to the doctrine

I think they're more illuminating on why you consistently get your interpretations of Catholic doctrine wrong.

Jennie said...

Jennie - to Elena's point, it SEEMS like you need to be right at any cost in your family situation. I hope you are not harassing your Catholic relatives with your prejudices and misconceptions. If someone is truly at peace with their OWN beliefs and relationship with God, then he/she will not be contentious in attacking others. If your Catholic relatives are being rude to you, you can ask them to respect your beliefs and lay off. But if you are the one who can't keep from anti-Catholic digs and jabs, then that is on you. Anyone reading your blog would guess that you cannot live with Catholic folks actually thinking that they are right about the Church, and that you, Jennie, are able to interpret scripture to definitively refute the Church which is ever-ancient and ever-new.
Christine,
As I said before, my brother and I haven't been able to discuss it much. I tried to talk to him about it when my parents first told me of his decision. He didn't tell me in person, probably because he didn't want any discussion about it; even though I had never talked about Catholicism positively or negatively before. He knew we were Baptist and might not understand.
Since then I just studied it, and I did talk to my parents about it at different times. But they would never risk offending him by repeating what I thought. I did recently ask my brother to read my blog and maybe discuss some of it, but he only said he 'took a look at it' and didn't say anything else. He doesn't like conflict either, like my mom. I don't bring up the subject at all, or make digs or faces when they talk about things when I'm there. I just hope someday I can talk to him without everyone else around to glare at me, as I know they would. My mom and I have that 'mother-daughter guilt thing' where I know by a look when she disapproves. I love my mom dearly and we talk about all kinds of things, including Catholicism, but it's off limits with little brother and daughter-in-law.

Jennie said...

Hey, I'm just saying you brough it up. So quit whining about others asking about it. As far as I'm concerned since that was the original impetus for this blog it is totally fair game to be brought up and discussed. In fact, I wouldn't mind reading your brother's opinion on the things you write.

I would love to read my brother's opinion on what I've written. As I said above, he said he 'took a quick look at it' but didn't comment. Conflict is to be avoided at all costs, unless we're talking about politics, but then we mostly agree on that.

Christine said...

To say "I took a look at it" and not comment is courageous on your brother's part.

I cannot think of a more offensive way for you to communicate with a loved one than to point them to a blog which attacks his/her faith so arrogantly.

Can you IMAGINE if one of your siblings singled out "Bible Christianity" for a blog subject, and posted twisted interpretations day after day attacking it? And then asking you to look at it and comment?

If your brother and his wife are able to resist engaging with you about your blog, then they are far FAR ahead of me in forbearance, patience, generosity, and love.

Christine said...

The family would glare at you if you tried to discuss religion - because of how you approach the subject. You're not studying it, you're just seeking ways to undermine it, all the while covering that with the pretense of "loving God's word". Not that you don't love God's word, but that's not what comes across as your primary objective. That's very very obvious, and if you deny it, you are lying to yourself about your motives. In my opinion, from reading what you write.

Unless and until your brother ASKS for your opinion on his religion, there's no call for you to "discuss" it. What you call discussion, others would definitely call unfair criticism and divisiveness.

Jennie said...

Christine,
I didn't really want to talk about my family, so the little I've said isn't enough for you to understand or make a judgment about our characters and motives. You are just making assumptions.
Why is it offensive to ask my brother to read my blog? We've had lots of interesting discussions here and on Elena's blog. It doesn't hurt for people to discuss things even if they disagree strongly. Both sides might learn something. I'm not afraid of conflict, and try not to take disagreements personally, but as a way to sharpen each other. I have learned alot about individual Catholics' faith even while disagreeing strongly with the official doctrines and teachings. I would like to know what my brother actually believes, which I'm not quite sure of, except for strong conservatism. He jokes around alot but doesn't speak about personal feelings much.
I don't know if it's courageous of him or not, or if it's courageous or cowardly of me to not speak out about it in person. But like I said, we're never alone, and my quiet voice is drowned out in my family when the others discuss politics or religion. I guess that's why I like to write, because people can't interrupt me and override me.
Lots of families can discuss things like this even if they disagree; mine isn't one of them. I wish it were.

Anyway, I'm not going to talk about it anymore because it's just a distraction from the subject of the thread.

Jennie said...

No one has commented on my first comment above about Jesus saying no one is good but God.

Also no one has addressed why you think it's ok in the quote from 'Ineffibilis Deus' to give Mary all the offices and names of Christ, when God's word never does this.

Jennie said...

Here is another quote from 'Ineffibilis Deus':

This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges -- these the Fathers beheld in that ark of Noah, which was built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world;[15] in the ladder which Jacob saw reaching from the earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose top the Lord himself leaned'[16] in that bush which Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, which was not consumed or injured in any way but grew green and blossomed beautifully;[17] in that impregnable tower before the enemy, from which hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor of the strong;[18] in that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots;[19] as in that resplendent city of God, which has its foundations on the holy mountains;[20] in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine splendors, is full of the glory of God;[21] and in very many other biblical types of this kind. In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence and her sanctity unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner.

Scripture and the Fathers do not teach these allusions. If any did say these things it was only a few in much later times. The ark of Noah represents Christ Himself in which the people who fear Him take refuge in the storm.
The ladder of Jacob represents Christ as our way to heaven, and nothing is mentioned about God leaning on it. God is our strong tower, and the lover in Song of Solomon is also called a tower. She represents the church which is the assembly of God's people, His bride. The enclosed garden, the city of God and the temple are also pictures of the church and bride, not of Mary. It is not true to give those distinctions to Mary alone. She is a member and representative of the body of Christ, not the thing itself.

Jennie said...

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Another quote:
In like manner did they use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.
As if Mary is the end and purpose of all prophecies, she is given all these titles by the Church. Mary is never called the throne of God in scripture. The lover in Song of Solomon is called a dove, and is said to come out of the wilderness leaning on her beloved. That is also a picture of the church and Christ. The bride is spotless only after Christ redeems her and His plan is complete. Mary is a part of the body of Christ, not the fullness of God's purpose. How could Mary be the bride of Christ, when she is one person and is His mother? She is part of God's plan and part of the Bride. When these designations are given to her to praise her, it removes her from her living and humble place in God's word and plan and places her as an image to be lifted up and praised and worshiped in itself.

Christine said...

Do you believe that no one is good, but God the Father? We know that Jesus was good, even though he denies it in this quote. I've always read, both as an evangelical and a Catholic that this type of quote is a rhetorical device common to that culture, called hyperbole. Just like other sayings such as "call no man father", "if your right hand offends you, cut it off" and other statements which are said to make a point strongly, and people of the time understood that. If we took all these literally, we would have "male parents" and no hands or eyes :)

When the encyclical about Mary is read knowing that all her qualities are conferred on her BY Christ's merits and not hers, then there is not a problem, but rather an awe at God's grace to Mary and to us.

And your repeated mini-encyclicals on what various symbols represent may be correct or they may not, but they are your opinion - not more or less than that.

This one's a losing battle, Jennie, because as you said, God can do anything He wants and we believe he did great things for Mary, as scripture attests.

Jennie said...

Jesus is God, and is included in the statement that God is good. He knew that, even if the people He was speaking to did not. The Bible says in many places that 'all have sinned', and 'all have been included in disobedience that all may be shown mercy', 'there is none righteous', and so on.

Christine said...

Re: Jesus - yes, he's God but at the beginning of the quote he says "Why do you call me good?" etc. I don't have time to look it up, but he certainly conveys "I'm not good, but God is" even though we know that he is God and he is good.

Re: Mary

"the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built"

These Marian types imply her vessel-ness, containing God within her.

I didn't see where she's called the Bride - could you copy and paste that? We know that she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit in that she became pregnant. Imagine that! You are a young virgin and are pregnant, by God, with God.

Leo said...

Jennie,

The fact is that really DON'T understand the Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles. Part of reason may be the fact that, like the Reformers, you do not have any familiarity with Judaism and its corresponding liturgical practices on which our Faith is based.

Liturgical practices were always intricate and filled with profound meaning. They were not simply a bunch of guys getting together to eat some bread, drink some wine, read a little scripture and sing a few songs. Each priest is a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, and offers bread and wine which is transformed into Jesus Christ. In fact, holy water, incense, and the liturgy of the Word all came directly out of the Sabbath worship in the temple.

You miss the liturgical concept just as Calvin did. Of course, they were not familiar with Jews or their faith, so they had nothing to base it on. Not only was there no internet, there were no printing presses either.

Incidentally, Mary was the first Catholic. She was the very first to accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior into herself at the Anunciation. It was not until after Jesus returned to heaven that He could come and live inside the other believers.

This is the reason the Church also came to be referred to as our Mother and 'She'. Mary is the archetype of the Church and where the concepts first arose that many scriptures thus refer to both Mary AND the Church...

Jennie said...

One of the quotes I gave calls her the queen coming forth leaning on her beloved. The 'leaning on her beloved' comes from Song of Solomon, which is a picture of the Bridegroom and Bride.

Jennie said...

The fact is that really DON'T understand the Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles. Part of reason may be the fact that, like the Reformers, you do not have any familiarity with Judaism and its corresponding liturgical practices on which our Faith is based.

Liturgical practices were always intricate and filled with profound meaning. They were not simply a bunch of guys getting together to eat some bread, drink some wine, read a little scripture and sing a few songs. Each priest is a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, and offers bread and wine which is transformed into Jesus Christ. In fact, holy water, incense, and the liturgy of the Word all came directly out of the Sabbath worship in the temple.

You miss the liturgical concept just as Calvin did. Of course, they were not familiar with Jews or their faith, so they had nothing to base it on. Not only was there no internet, there were no printing presses either.


Duh, Leo, the Bible describes the liturgical practices of Israel, so all we have to do is read it and study it. And it's not so hard to find sources to explain more about it. I'm very aware of the deeper meanings in the Old Testament practices, and always love to learn more about it.
Calvin was a Catholic priest and a Bible scholar who would have been very familiar with these things too.

Christine said...

In the OT there is the office of the queen mother, who was prominent in the king's realm. Check out the role that Bathsheba played in Solomon's kingship. This is the OT type for the queenship of Mary.

Leo said...

Jennie,

You seem to really be stuck on the fact that Jesus seated His mother at His side and chooses to give her authority in heaven and on earth.

Did not St. Michael the Archangel receive the power to cast Lucifer out of heaven? The difference between the angels and saints in heaven is that angels are separate spiritual beings.

The saints in heaven, on the other hand, are united directly to the Trinity as adopted sons and daughters and there is indeed a hierarchy.

Thus, by indwelling of the divine, the saints are given great authority, but, when they act, it is always by the power of Almighty God.

He chose Mary to visit Guadalupe when human sacrifices numbered upwards of 100,000 per year. Immediately after her visit, 6 million people became Catholic by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and joining the Church. Human sacrifice stopped in that part of the world.

It has been foretold that Jesus is sending Mary prior to His second coming, just as He sent John the Baptist prior to His first coming...

Jennie said...

Christine,
the queen mother thing is actually not spoken of much in scripture. Bathsheba is the main one spoken of, but her intervention did not have a good ending. Most of the other Israelite queen mother's referred to in scripture were evil. We've discussed that here at length:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/05/not-so-funny-thing-about-mary.html

Christine said...

True that the OT queen mothers were often dastardly divas. But the actual role itself is one that Jews would instantly recognize.

Jennie said...

He chose Mary to visit Guadalupe when human sacrifices numbered upwards of 100,000 per year. Immediately after her visit, 6 million people became Catholic by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and joining the Church. Human sacrifice stopped in that part of the world.

It has been foretold that Jesus is sending Mary prior to His second coming, just as He sent John the Baptist prior to His first coming...

Forgive me if I question a million people becoming Catholic and worshiping her image as a good thing. Human sacrifice is horrible, but so is idolatry.

There is no prophecy in scripture about Jesus sending Mary prior to His second coming. Scripture is the only sure prophecy. If you're looking for Mary, you'll be misled.

Leo said...

"Duh, Leo, the Bible describes the liturgical practices of Israel, so all we have to do is read it and study it."

You would not say that if you had ever attended any high Jewish liturgies. They are actually far more elaborate than the Catholic ones and are NOT clearly knowable from sola scriptura.

"I'm very aware of the deeper meanings in the Old Testament practices, and always love to learn more about it."

Well, unfortunately, those are empty words. You reject all the clear deeper meanings that lead to the fullness of the Catholic Faith. Your bias prevents you from seeing the rich faith that we really have.

"Calvin was a Catholic priest"

Sorry, but that statement is simply not true. Once again, you so want things to be the way you see them, that you won't even let facts get in the way.

When you are even misstating facts in your own mind, it should give you pause to question your own objectivity.

Leo said...

"the queen mother thing is actually not spoken of much in scripture."

Once again, Jennie, not so. Virtually every King of Judah has his queen mother also mentioned by name. Not so in Israel...

Since Jesus is of the line of David, it only makes sense. There would be no reason for scripture to do that unless there was a greater purpose and foreshadowing. And, as you know, there always is.

Leo said...

"Forgive me if I question a million people becoming Catholic and worshiping her image as a good thing."

Oh yeah, that's right...I forgot. They all bowed down and worshipped the image and asked it to save them and get them to heaven. So silly of me to miss that...

Funny, my actual quote talked about her visit resulting in 6 million people accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and you came up with the ridiculous notion that they all stopped sacrificing humans because they were too preoccupied worshipping her image on a piece of cloth?

Calling your conclusion 'ridiculous and absurd' would be giving you too much credit...

Jennie said...

Leo,
I apologize; you are right that Calvin was not a Catholic priest; he did begin studying to be one, but either he or his father changed his course to study to be a lawyer.
Being a Bible scholar I am sure Calvin had a good understanding of the Hebrew practices ordained by God.

Jennie said...

Leo,
The apparition at Guadalupe did not speak the truth and commanded that a temple be built 'to me', and she claimed to be the one whom the people should look to for help. Following is a post I did once on it, and a website dedicated to her that has quotes from the apparition and the story of it.

http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/12/word-of-god-vs-word-of-our-lady-of.html


http://www.sancta.org/nican.html
Here's one quote from the apparition, which shows that the whole thing is based on a lying spirit who wants a temple built to itself, and worship for itself:
“Know and understand well, you the most humble of my son, that I am the ever virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the True God for whom we live, of the Creator of all things, Lord of heaven and the earth. I wish that a temple be erected here quickly, so I may therein exhibit and give all my love, compassion, help, and protection, because I am your merciful mother, to you, and to all the inhabitants on this land and all the rest who love me, invoke and confide in me; listen there to their lamentations, and remedy all their miseries, afflictions and sorrows. And to accomplish what my clemency pretends, go to the palace of the bishop of Mexico, and you will say to him that I manifest my great desire, that here on this plain a temple be built to me; you will accurately relate all you have seen and admired, and what you have heard. Be assured that I will be most grateful and will reward you, because I will make you happy and worthy of recompense for the effort and fatigue in what you will obtain of what I have entrusted. Behold, you have heard my mandate, my humble son; go and put forth all your effort.”

Jennie said...

Once again, Jennie, not so. Virtually every King of Judah has his queen mother also mentioned by name. Not so in Israel...

Actually, if you read the lists of kings in the books of Kings and Chronicles, they don't always list the mothers of the kings of Judah either. I'm sure the ones who are thought important are listed. It may be because they are in the royal line of David and Christ. But quite a few of the queen mothers of Judah were evil. For instance,Maachah the grandmother of King Asa was removed from being queen mother because she set up the image of a female deity, the asherah. Asa removed her and cut down the image and burned it.

Christine said...

The point isn't about the character of OT queen mothers. The kings could be bad too, but that doesn't mean that Jesus isn't King of Kings.

The role of the queen mother existed only by virtue of relationship to the king. So with Mary.

Jennie said...

If you read the post I linked to about Adonijah asking Bathsheba to intercede for him with Solomon, you might see that story has an important lesson in it. The King was very angry with what Adonijah had done in trying to gain influence by asking Bathsheba for his desire, and not happy with Bathsheba either. I don't see any good examples of queen mother intervention stories.

Elena said...

...and a good example of a king in scripture would be?


Once again Jennie you entirely miss it.

Leo said...

"Being a Bible scholar I am sure Calvin had a good understanding of the Hebrew practices ordained by God."

Please allow me to repeat. Jewish liturgy is far more elaborate than what is written in scripture. You can no more understand Jewish liturgy than you can Catholic liturgy just by reading the bible. Since Calvin and the other reformers had no contact with Jewish worship, they reduced liturgy to something unrecognizable.

It would be like reading a book that mentions baseball and describes it in general terms. Then, imagine yourself setting up weekly games based strictly on what you have read and deduced from that.

Your game would be so different from the real game that it would be laughable. Well, you are like a person who has read about baseball, telling people who have played and managed at the Major League level what the game is all about.

Jennie said...

Do you believe that no one is good, but God the Father? We know that Jesus was good, even though he denies it in this quote. I've always read, both as an evangelical and a Catholic that this type of quote is a rhetorical device common to that culture, called hyperbole. Just like other sayings such as "call no man father", "if your right hand offends you, cut it off" and other statements which are said to make a point strongly, and people of the time understood that. If we took all these literally, we would have "male parents" and no hands or eyes :)

So what did Jesus really mean the, when HE said call no man Father? Nothing? Or at least that we should not call certain men 'Father'?

The question Jesus asked is certainly an ironic device, but the statement He made that 'no one is good but God can't just be dismissed. The question just shows that the man didn't know who Jesus was, but still called Him good. The statement should be taken seriously, as it is said in many places in scripture.

Jennie said...

...and a good example of a king in scripture would be?


Once again Jennie you entirely miss it.


Quite a few were called kings that followed the Lord as David their father had done. They tore down the images and worshiped God as God had commanded.

And no, you entirely miss it, because the stories that do speak of queen mothers are all negative.
The lessons in them are specific: when you go to the queen instead of the king, you die. When you set up images to worship instead of God, you own't be queen mother anymore.

Leo said...

"For instance,Maachah the grandmother of King Asa was removed from being queen mother"

So, as you can see,the queen mother ruled until she died. Funny how that is specifically included to clarify the length of her rule. And, yes, I believe that all but two were mentioned by name. She was even recognized with the king in Jeremiah.

They were not mentioned out of importance but because they were in the lineage of King David, foreshadowing Jesus and His queen mother who rules at His side until she dies...oh yeah, that's right, she lives for all eternity so that means...forever!

Jennie said...

Please allow me to repeat. Jewish liturgy is far more elaborate than what is written in scripture. You can no more understand Jewish liturgy than you can Catholic liturgy just by reading the bible. Since Calvin and the other reformers had no contact with Jewish worship, they reduced liturgy to something unrecognizable.

And we should be copying Jewish liturgy that's not in scripture because....?

Jennie said...

Leo,
abut the queen mother ruling forever, look at my comment above yours.

Leo said...

"The apparition at Guadalupe did not speak the truth and commanded that a temple be built 'to me', and she claimed to be the one whom the people should look to for help"

Jennie, a few points here:

1. We do not know for sure what Mary told Juan Diego and what she did not tell him. The words spoken are not considered inspired writing as scripture is. Remember that this took place ~500 years ago.

2. We do know that science has been confounded by the image. The tilma is of a burlap type material which itself should have decomposed centuries ago. The image has no pigments or dyes and is actually above the material. Recent invesigation focused on the eyes, when someone realized that they should reflect what she was looking at if it was real. Well, computers have developed the reflection to show who was in the room with her. Also, the image from each eye is off by the exact angle it would be due to the distance between the eyes. Clearly, this is of supernatural origin.

3. This phenomenon has been thoroughly investigated by the Vatican and deemed worthy of faith. You need to understand that it is still officially a private revelation, however, and no one is bound to believe it as an article of Faith.

4. Every true Marian apparition requests people to believe in God and to pray. She points everyone to Jesus Christ.

5. God chooses how to release His graces. With Mary, it appears that some of the graces coming through her will not be released until we turn to her. It is not really different than when Jesus told the man to wash in the Pool of Siloam. Did Jesus need the pool to heal him? No, but that is how He chose to do it. Do you think the man would still have been healed had he refused to wash there?

6. We do know that 6 million people gave their lives and were converted to a living faith in Jesus Christ. By their fruits we will know them. By nitpicking how Jesus did that through Mary, you are like the Pharisees who criticized Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Are you accusing Mary of leading people to Jesus by the power of Beelzebub?

Leo said...

Jennie,

To show how you repeatedly distort the facts, you painstakingly pointed out that they were not always mentioned and I told you that it was only twice. Let me give you the entire list for effect:
And finally, the political importance of the gebhirah is illustrated by the fact that in the Books of Kings, with two exceptions, the names of the Jewish kings are recorded together with those of their respective mothers; they are as follows: Naamah, the Ammonitess, the mother of Rehoboam (1 Ki 14:21; compare 14:31, and 2 Ch 12:13); Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom (1 Ki 15:2) or Absalom (2 Ch 11:20) the mother of Abijah; Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom, the mother (grandmother?) of Asa (1 Ki 15:10; compare 2 Ch 15:16); Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, the mother of Jehoshaphat (1 Ki 22:42; compare 2 Ch 20:31); Athaliah, the grand-daughter of Omri, the mother of Ahaziah (2 Ki 8:26; compare 2 Ch 22:2); Zibiah of Beersheba, the mother of Jehoash (2 Ki 12:1; compare 2 Ch 24:1); Jehoaddin (Jehoaddan, 2 Ch 25:1) of Jerusalem, the mother of Amaziah (2 Ki 14:2); Jecoliah (Jechiliah, 2 Ch 26:3) of Jerusalem, the mother of Azariah (2 Ki 15:2) or Uzziah (2 Ki 15:13,30, etc.; compare 2 Ch 26:3); Jerusha (Jerushah, 2 Ch 27:1), the daughter of Zadok, the mother of Jotham (2 Ki 15:33); Abi (Abijah, 2 Ch 29:1), the daughter of Zechariah, the mother of Hezekiah (2 Ki 18:2); Hephzibah, the mother of Manasseh (2 Ki 21:1); Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah, the mother of Amon (2 Ki 21:19); Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath, the mother of Josiah (2 Ki 22:1); Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother of Jehoahaz (2 Ki 23:31); Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah, the mother of Jehoiakim (2 Ki 23:36); Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem, the mother of Jehoiachin (2 Ki 24:8); Hamutal (Hamital), the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother Of Zedekiah (2 Ki 24:18). The exceptions are Jehoram and Ahaz.

Yet, you focused on the two...typical...

Leo said...

"And we should be copying Jewish liturgy that's not in scripture because....?"

Since you cannot understand Jewish liturgy from scripture alone, you also cannot understand Church liturgy from scripture alone. The Church is the fulfillment of Judaism. Most believers in the early Church were all Jews who simply accepted Jesus Christ as the long awaited Messiah.

It is your lack of understanding of the faith and practices of the chosen people that prevent you from seeing the seamless transition into the Church.

Christine said...

You are being even more obtuse than usual about the queen mother role. Just as Jesus fulfulls the "King" role perfectly as the Kings of Israel did not, Mary fulfills the queen mother role, this time uncorrupted. Just as she is the new Eve, who said yes where Eve fell.

RE: "the statement He made that 'no one is good but God can't just be dismissed." Scripture also calls certain people "righteous" and then in other places say "no one is righteous". It says "Call no man father", but then Paul refers to Abraham as father, and there are other examples of that. I don't think it's too tough to get the point of each - don't seek to glorify yourself. If I had a problem with these seeming contradiction, I'd go to a Catholic scripture commentary for more background and explanation. And I know I'd find it.

Jennie said...

Christine,
do I call you names? I'm being stubborn about this because I think you are all missing the point on the other end of the argument. Kings have mothers, who are honored, but they don't rule the people or take the place of the king. They aren't allowed to make ruling decisons, or to intercede for those who should come to the king himself. They aren't allowed to remain if they lead the people into idolatry.
Bathsheba was given honor because she was Solomon's mother, but she didn't rule the people. She probably rarely saw the people. Adonijah came to her because they were both in the royal family and he knew she had influence. He should have gone to Solomon himself, but he also asked for something that only belonged to the king. The stories about the wicked queens are there for a reason, for specific lessons. We shouldn't ignore them because they don't fit what we want.

Jennie said...

1. We do not know for sure what Mary told Juan Diego and what she did not tell him. The words spoken are not considered inspired writing as scripture is. Remember that this took place ~500 years ago.

The things we read in scripture took place 2000 or more years ago, and yet we know what they said. We also know many other things historical people said hundreds of years ago. The fact that this story was written down from what Juan Diego related, and that people know what was written down, yet they still choose to follow it, means that they don't care if what the apparition said is in accord with scripture or not. Whether or not it's really what happened, that's what people think happened, and they still accept it. The appararition spoke of people looking to her for all their comfort and help, when scripture teaches us to look to God alone for this, and everything.
I have no doubt it was a lying spirit, yet it is accepted all over the world, and people pray to dedicate themselves to it and ask it to come in and fill them, like int the prayer I linked to above.

Jennie said...

2. We do know that science has been confounded by the image. The tilma is of a burlap type material which itself should have decomposed centuries ago. The image has no pigments or dyes and is actually above the material. Recent invesigation focused on the eyes, when someone realized that they should reflect what she was looking at if it was real. Well, computers have developed the reflection to show who was in the room with her. Also, the image from each eye is off by the exact angle it would be due to the distance between the eyes. Clearly, this is of supernatural origin.

Clearly, if this is true, since the apparition lied and claimed God's rights for itself, then it is of Satan.

Jennie said...

4. Every true Marian apparition requests people to believe in God and to pray. She points everyone to Jesus Christ.

I've read quite a few of the statements made by apparitions and have found many things that are not true. This one is pointing to herself as our help and best comfort, and asking for a temple to herself. That's of Satan.

Christine said...

Jennie, I truly did not intend to call you a name by saying you're being obtuse. I'm sorry.

You said, "Kings have mothers, who are honored, but they don't rule the people or take the place of the king. They aren't allowed to make ruling decisions, or to intercede for those who should come to the king himself."

We agree with all but the interceding part. Mary does intercede for us as she did at Cana. We all, in fact, may intercede for others when we pray for them.

"The prayers of a righteous person is very effective". How much more, then, Mary and the saints in heaven, as the MOST righteous intercessors having been perfected.

Leo said...

Oh Jennie, you are treading on such dangerous ground when you attribute anything of our Blessed Mother to Satan. You repeatedly slander heavenly beings with reckless impunity. You think you know what you are doing and saying, but you do not. You are like the soldiers at the cross whom the Lord asked His Father to forgive for they knew not what they were doing.

Fortunately for your sake, I am sure that our Blessed Mother is praying the same way for you.

God will elevate anyone He wishes to the highest positions in heaven. He did not appoint you to say what He has or has not chosen to do.

Jennie said...

5. God chooses how to release His graces. With Mary, it appears that some of the graces coming through her will not be released until we turn to her. It is not really different than when Jesus told the man to wash in the Pool of Siloam. Did Jesus need the pool to heal him? No, but that is how He chose to do it. Do you think the man would still have been healed had he refused to wash there?

Scripture never refers to 'graces' but only 'grace' which is said to come from God. It never mentions Mary giving grace or graces to anyone, or that we should look to her for anything whatsoever.
How does it 'appear' that some of the graces coming through her will not be released until we turn to her? Does it 'appear' in scripture; or does it 'appear' because some spirit 'appeared' and said to 'turn to her'? If you are turning to her then you are turning from the truth to a lie, and falling into a trap, that you will gain graces by her.

Jennie said...

6. We do know that 6 million people gave their lives and were converted to a living faith in Jesus Christ. By their fruits we will know them. By nitpicking how Jesus did that through Mary, you are like the Pharisees who criticized Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Are you accusing Mary of leading people to Jesus by the power of Beelzebub?

I don't know that people were converted to a living faith in Jesus Christ. They were converted to Mary by a 'wonder' in the form of an image of Mary. They look to her and even today carry her image.
I'm accusing the RCC of allowing people to believe in an apparition that spoke lies, and so redirecting worship to 'Mary' as their hope and provision. That doesn't mean that none of them over the years actually had faith in God.

Elena said...

Quite a few were called kings that followed the Lord as David their father had done. They tore down the images and worshiped God as God had commanded.

And no, you entirely miss it, because the stories that do speak of queen mothers are all negative.
The lessons in them are specific: when you go to the queen instead of the king, you die. When you set up images to worship instead of God, you own't be queen mother anymore.


But none of the kings were sinless were they Jennie. Most of them had failings and in fact the greater the king the bigger the transgression.

The point Christine was making was that there was a precedence in the culture for the Queen Mother to be a position of honor. The people of the time understood that and with Jesus as King, of course that honor (like it or not) belonged to Mary.

BTW, we don't worship "images" and the fact that you still say that makes me wonder as much as about your reading comprehension as it does your sincerity.

Elena said...

So what did Jesus really mean the, when HE said call no man Father? Nothing? Or at least that we should not call certain men 'Father'?



Issue: Why do Catholics call priests “father,” since Jesus says “call no man your father on earth” (Mt. 23:9)?

Response: In Matthew 23:9, Jesus emphasizes the primary role of our Heavenly Father. He created us in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-28). He made us His children through baptism in the death and resurrection of His Son (Rom. 5:12-21; 6:3-4; 8:12-17). Because God created us in His image and likeness, we share in the attributes of God. Insofar as men share in the attributes of the Father, they participate in the one fatherhood of God.

Discussion: In Matthew 23:9 Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Many people interpret this to mean, “Do not call a priest “father,” and do not call your dad “father.” Some who hold this opinion go further and believe that calling a priest “father” is a sin because it directly violates a command from Jesus. Many Protestants make this a common objection against Catholicism.

If we believe these opinions, then what are we to make of the Scriptures that contradict this one? For example, in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for not honoring their “fathers.” Furthermore, calling the apostles and their successors “father” was common within the early Christian communities (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Jn. 2:12, Acts 7:2, 22:1). As in the case of all scriptural interpretations, we must understand this passage in light of the rest of Scripture (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). This interpretative principle is called the “analogy of faith” [Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), no. 114]

From Catholics United For the Faith

Elena said...

So what did Jesus really mean the, when HE said call no man Father? Nothing? Or at least that we should not call certain men 'Father'?

In Matthew 23:9 Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Many people interpret this to mean, “Do not call a priest “father,” and do not call your dad “father.” Some who hold this opinion go further and believe that calling a priest “father” is a sin because it directly violates a command from Jesus. Many Protestants make this a common objection against Catholicism.

If we believe these opinions, then what are we to make of the Scriptures that contradict this one? For example, in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for not honoring their “fathers.” Furthermore, calling the apostles and their successors “father” was common within the early Christian communities (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Jn. 2:12, Acts 7:2, 22:1). As in the case of all scriptural interpretations, we must understand this passage in light of the rest of Scripture (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). This interpretative principle is called the “analogy of faith” [Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), no. 114

from the CUF web site

Jennie said...

Christine,
Thanks for the apology; it's accepted. And I was being obtuse on purpose, so you can see there are two edges to the sword. The queen mother is there, but 'who is My mother, and brother, and sister?' If the queen mother, whether 'Mary' or the Church or anyone else, leads people astray or otherwise presumes, then that is not good, and consequences will follow. Of course Mary herself can't lead anyone astray, but false spirits or false teachings can. I don't believe Mary sits as a queen in heaven, but the Church often acts as if itself were queen. Scripture doesn't say what Mary is right now, but maybe someday when His kingdom fills earth and heaven, we'll see what we all will be, and we'll be able to give honor rightly, neither too much nor too little.


We agree with all but the interceding part. Mary does intercede for us as she did at Cana. We all, in fact, may intercede for others when we pray for them.

"The prayers of a righteous person is very effective". How much more, then, Mary and the saints in heaven, as the MOST righteous intercessors having been perfected.

We are taught to pray only to God in heaven, and to pray for one another. I'm sure the saints already in heaven obey this. We pray for one another on earth because we all know we are weak and need God. We also can help and encourage each other. This teaches us to depend on God and love each other. Praying to saints teaches us to depend on them as greater than we, instead of God who is greatest. Psalm 73:25 Whom have I in heaven but You?
And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You.
26 My flesh and my heart fail;
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

Jennie said...

Elena,
the thing about the 'father' was only an example by Christine comparing it to the 'no one is good but God' statement as a figure of speech. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion to that.
I'll just say that there are right ways to be a father and wrong ways. Fathers lead their children to be fathers and mothers in turn, rather than always keeping them as children that have to depend on them. God is the only father that is always to be depended upon; we are always children compared to Him.

Christine said...

Praying to saints and Mary is, for Catholics, a request for intercession with the understanding that God is the source of all. I remember not understanding that at all as a Protestant. We are so not caught up in all your protestations because it's so ingrained that God is the source of the merits and grace of Mary and the saints. We see God as One Who abundantly shares Himself with His created beings who seek him. Why else create Mary, the angels, or us in the first place? We also believe we've been given the Church as an earthly family, Teacher, and Mother - again God's power and grace at work. I don't think we'll ever agree on this because it's two very different views of the way God acts. And we both can use scripture to make our case.

Jennie said...

Christine,
I protest because it's not taught in scripture to pray to anyone but God in heaven. It is too easy for this to be abused. I believe that's why it's not taught in God's word. Jesus taught us to pray directly to God the Father. Just because He didn't say NOT to pray to saints for intercession doesn't mean it's good. It's good to remember the saints and know that they are 'a great cloud of witnesses' that we can remember as examples and as a reminder of our own future hope.

Christine said...

Here's what I don't get. No one is trying to force you to pray to Mary or the saints. The Church doesn't require that we do so. Why do you feel you must lecture people about it, why is an issue that even affects you, since you are not Catholic? You don't seem to want to win Catholics over, so what is your goal?

Leo said...

"This one is pointing to herself as our help and best comfort"

Have you been appointed by God as your children's help and best comfort? Of course you have. Is there anything wrong with telling them, "Mommy is here to protect you?" Of course not.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Mary's soul doth magnify the Lord? She is not opaque; rather, her sinless soul is trasparent and we can see God even more clearly through her. She is the telescope which I was referring to in an earlier post.

Leo said...

"I protest because it's not taught in scripture to pray to anyone but God in heaven."

And I protest because it's not taught in scripture to only go by what is in scripture.

"I believe that's why it's not taught in God's word."

It is in God's word even if not specifically in scripture.

" Just because He didn't say NOT to pray to saints for intercession doesn't mean it's good."

It doesn't mean it's bad, either. Jesus always corrected corrupt practices. Do you not remember how He even had a parable about the man who was praying to 'father Abraham'? He never condemned the concept.

Stop trying to limit God to a single book. I can honestly imagine you arguing with Jesus Himself about what He means and doesn't mean.

Christine said...

Good point about mothers, Leo.

"Arguing with Jesus himself" - yes I can picture that too, as in "Jesus! Stop it, it is unscriptural to honor your mother like that."

Jennie- can't you be comfortable with Mary's literal and spiritual motherhood? Jesus is our brother, right? His mom is ours too, then.

Elena said...

And I protest because it's not taught in scripture to only go by what is in scripture.

Amen!

Christine said...

And Amen!

Christine said...

I find myself disconcerted by the fact that you said the queen mothers were hardly mentioned. Then Leo corrects that - there's quite a few! And luckily I bothered check out your "concordat" post - again, you had the facts wrong and didn't correct it. And with "Ineffabilis Deus" you posted an small out-of-context portion as representative of the document.

This is disturbing - I actually had taken your word for it about the very few queen mothers mentioned. Why is this happening?

Jennie said...

Christine,
What I said was "the queen mother thing is actually not spoken of much in scripture. Bathsheba is the main one spoken of, but her intervention did not have a good ending. Most of the other Israelite queen mother's referred to in scripture were evil."
I did not say "the mothers of the kings of Judah are not listed." I meant that the Bible doesn't make a big deal about queen mothers, and that all the ones who have stories, rather than just being listed, are negative stories.

Please remind me or tell me what fact I had wrong about the Concordat post, and that I did not correct. I still believe the concordat is wrong and nobody bothered to listen to the video to see what the protestants were concerned about in their own country.

I already explained that the whole 'Ineffibilis Deus' document is incorrect, not just the part I quoted. I couldn't quote the whole thing in a com box. I don't see one paragraph in it that's correct, so why would I be so selective, especially since TurretinFan gave the link to read the whole document? You said I left out the part right before my quote because it spoke of Jesus being the one who we thank for the doctrine. I said I left it out because it's abhorrent to me to say that Jesus gave us that lie. That part I quoted was just the worst of it.

Jennie said...

So it's not taught in scripture that God's word is the law, and that God is our Father and final authority?

Jennie said...

Leo,
you haven't answered how it 'appears' that some graces are not given until we turn to Mary. If it doesn't 'appear' in scripture, then it must be from some other source, like the apparitions themselves. Why should we take that word as true when you won't take God's word as final?

Jennie said...

And I protest because it's not taught in scripture to only go by what is in scripture.

Amen!


And Amen!


Nehemiah 8:1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. 2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding on the first day of the seventh month. 3 Then he read from it in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate from morning until midday, before the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.
4 So Ezra the scribe stood on a platform of wood which they had made for the purpose; and beside him, at his right hand, stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Urijah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah; and at his left hand Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. 5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. 6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God.
Then all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Christine said...

"So it's not taught in scripture that God's word is the law, and that God is our Father and final authority?"

Those things ARE taught in scripture. What's not taught in scripture is that God's word is only found in scripture. In fact, it says otherwise.

Jennie said...

What's not taught in scripture is that God's word is only found in scripture. In fact, it says otherwise.
Where does it say otherwise?
What other word do we have that is called God's inspired word?

Christine said...

Leo and Elena can do better I'm sure, but just off the top of my head, scripture says that God's word was or is in the burning bush, in the still small voice, in the person of Jesus (the Logos), in the oral teaching/Tradition of the Church. John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" - an eternal Word, Jesus, who's not confined to the pages of scripture - holy and inerrant as those are. John also said there were many things Jesus said and did that were not recorded in the book - those things were God's word also, and passed on faithfully by the church as Tradition. When Jesus said "Go ye therefore and teach all nations" there wasn't a New Testament yet - but they certainly weren't lacking in God's word - they proclaimed it.

Jennie said...

What God said in the burning bush is recorded in scripture, and the still, small voice. Why did the Holy Spirit bother to inspire scripture if there was going to be words that we needed that were only passed down orally? How do we know that what was passed down orally is not changed or added to unless we have something recorded, given by God to His men, to compare it to?
Of course Jesus is the Word, and scripture is from beginning to end the revelation of Jesus Christ the Savior and King, the Word in written form, given directly by God, just as Jesus was given by God the Father.
The Bible says the word or gospel was given in both written and spoken form by the Apostles and prophets. There is now no more inspired word being given. The Apostles are in heaven and there are no more of them as eyewitnesses of Christ. There is no reason to think that the written tradition was different than the spoken tradition. They were both the same gospel. Paul said that if anyone, even himself or an angel from heaven were to come and teach a different gospel than that which was first delivered to them, let him be accursed. The only way to know what was delivered is from scripture. No one can prove oral tradition because it isn't written down.

Christine said...

Yep - they ARE the same gospel. You say "How do we know that what was passed down orally is not changed or added to" - someone else could say "How do we know that what was passed down in writing is not changed or added to". And many people do say that, but not Catholics, because we believe that both oral and written word of God have been authenticated by the church founded by Christ to guard the truth.

Jennie said...

Many people believe that the teachings of the RCC are different than scripture, and have explained in detail what these things are.
Also many things that the RCC claims have always been taught have been shown to be later developments, such as the papacy itself, and the marian doctrines. Especially important is the difference in the teachings on justification, salvation, faith, and works. I have posts on all these subjects.

Christine said...

"Many people believe that the teachings of the RCC are different than scripture"

But they aren't

Elena said...

Just an FYI Jennie - I absolutely HATE IT when you put up some random verses (I don't care if you put them in bold, italics, red or with a bow on them!) and then leave them there as if "HA! Now I have you, you stupid Catholic!"

I read what you pasted and think, " what the heck does that have to do with anything?"

The bit about Ezra is in no way a compelling or persusasive argument for Sola Sciptura. Catholics revere Scripture too. Been to a Catholic mass? The scriptures are carried above the head of the priest and there are other signs of reverence too. We all agree that the scritpures are to be revered.

It was just a really lame attempt.

Elena said...

Many people believe that the teachings of the RCC are different than scripture, and have explained in detail what these things are.

Appeal to the majority logical fallacy. Also appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

Double lame attempt.

Elena said...

What God said in the burning bush is recorded in scripture, and the still, small voice. Why did the Holy Spirit bother to inspire scripture if there was going to be words that we needed that were only passed down orally?

False dilemma logical fallacy.

Actually God used both - written and oral. In fact, the oral did the majority of the job for many centuries.

For written to be the main way of transmitting the word of God you need a literate population, a way of mass producing the scriptures and mass distribution - all relatively modern situations. Clearly if you look at the history of it, God didn't necessarily intend for the written to take the prominence that Protestants give it. If he did he would have left St. Paul with instructions on the printing press and how to develop a world wide distribution system.

Turns out he didn't!

Leo said...

"you haven't answered how it 'appears' that some graces are not given until we turn to Mary. If it doesn't 'appear' in scripture, then it must be from some other source, like the apparitions themselves."

Jennie, did you really miss my point or are you just messin' with me? I hope you are not serious.

But, assuming that you are, there are many types of graces, or gifts from God. Some are small answers to prayers and some result in full conversions. The point is that some people only receive the gift of Faith as a result of turning to Mary and asking her to intercede in a deeper way. I know a number of people who are on fire for the Lord as a result of visiting one of Mary's shrines. It is far beyond me to question why God does what He does and why He does it that way.

Look, there are times Jesus spit in the mud to restore sight and there are times people got in Peter's shadow to be healed by Jesus. Perhaps you had an ancestor who condemned those who ran to get into Peter's shadow for being idolators...

"Why should we take that word as true when you won't take God's word as final?"

You know, you may think yourself quite clever by couching your question incorrectly, but by doing so you are being disingenuous.

God's word IS final but it is not limited to the bible. How dare you tell God that He can't do something if He didn't put it clearly in scripture? There is NOTHING in any Church-approved apparition which contradicts God's word.

Jennie said...

Elena,
I'm not appealing to the majority, I'm just stating a fact that many dissenting voices have attested to the doctrines that are contrary to scripture. It has nothing to do with numbers, just with doctrines compared to the truth.
And carrying the Bible above your head doesn't equate with obeying it.

Leo said...

Jennie, you said,"Actually, if you read the lists of kings in the books of Kings and Chronicles, they don't always list the mothers of the kings of Judah either. I'm sure the ones who are thought important are listed. It may be because they are in the royal line of David and Christ. But quite a few of the queen mothers of Judah were evil."

Then Christine took you to task for downplaying and you responded with "Christine,
What I said was "the queen mother thing is actually not spoken of much in scripture."

Jennie, can you honestly not see your own bias?

First you say they are not all listed and then follow by saying that the ones that are important are listed...Okay, so all but two are listed so they must all be important. Even the unlisted may have died early or during childbirth, but we don't know.

So you downplay how many are listed to purposely mislead, then you further misdirect by saying that 'quite a few...were evil'. Okay, so what percentage were evil according to scripture? According to the way you wrote it, must be over 90%, but ...that simply is not so. Why is it so hard for you to be honest in your arguments?

Elena said...

I am referring to your line of thinking. You are using a logical fallacy

As to your last remark - I wonder if you know how biggoted you sound?

My point was that we revere the Scriptures. That is one of the forms of reference that is shown to the scriptures. It's something we supposidly have in common.

Elena said...

Christine wrote:

Here's what I don't get. No one is trying to force you to pray to Mary or the saints. The Church doesn't require that we do so. Why do you feel you must lecture people about it, why is an issue that even affects you, since you are not Catholic? You don't seem to want to win Catholics over, so what is your goal?

I'd like to know this as well.

Jennie said...

On the Ezra passage, I was just struck by the contrast between what Leo said about Scripture not saying to only go by Scripture, which got a double amen, and what the passage in Nehemiah said, that the people heard the book of the Law which the LORD had commanded Moses and said Amen! Amen! and worshiped God.
What Leo said is like saying God doesn't say to only God by what God says. If somebody speaks something that is in agreement with God's word, it is the gospel. If someone speaks something that is not in agreement with God's word, it is not the gospel or God's word, no matter who calls it Tradition with a capital T.
For example, many of the anathemas of the Council of Trent are a direct repudiation of what Paul teaches. In other words, the pope 'anathemad' the gospel, while Paul 'anathemad' those who taught another gospel. Here's one article by a protestant on that:http://carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification

Jennie said...

Oops. I mean 'What Leo said is like saying God doesn't say to only GO by what God says.'

Jennie said...

God's word IS final but it is not limited to the bible. How dare you tell God that He can't do something if He didn't put it clearly in scripture? There is NOTHING in any Church-approved apparition which contradicts God's word.

I'm not telling God He can't do something. I'm telling you that something is a lie if it is contrary to scripture. The Guadalupe apparition lied by saying it was Mary and that people should depend on her for every need and build a temple to her. The whole devotion to her is built upon a lie and a lying wonder.
The whole doctrine of the immaculate conception is built upon the lies calling Mary the names of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and saying this was always taught by the church.

Elena said...

which of course isn't what Leo was saying at all.


I'm taking a break for tonight.

Jennie I think you seriously need to get on your knees tonight and think about what you're doing here. you're not building bridges or understanding. The deliberate misreads aren't even mildly interesting any more.

It's clear Leo, Christine, and I are secure enough to stand our ground. You have a marvelous opportunity to really try to get where REAL Catholics are coming from but you don't really seem to care about that.

I really wish you'd explain to us, what is your point?

Jennie said...

Leo,
I've explained what I meant when speaking of the queens. You are twisting what I said. I apologize if I was imprecise, but I did not mean to mislead anyone. I was not thinking or speaking of the lists when I said the bible doesn't speak alot about the queen mother subject. I was speaking of the bible not making a big deal of it since only a few stories are shared, and all are negative. And it is true that all are not listed. The whole thing is really immaterial, since the Apostles didn't teach us to call Mary the queen, or to look to her, or pray to her. The queen mother could just as well represent the church in history which needs to take heed not to fall into idolatry or to teach people to look to another besides God for provision. So stop insinuating that I'm lying about it.

Jennie said...

Christine,
I want Catholics to know that the truth is in scripture which is the only sure word of teaching. I want them to know that the historical Church is not our foundation, but Christ Himself and His word is. If the church doesn't stand on the word then it isn't the pillar of the truth because it is on sinking sand.
If the Church is teaching things that are contrary to scripture, persecuting God's people, and uniting itself with governments, then it is acting as the harlot of Babylon, which the reformers and earlier dissenters recognized. She is called that because she leaves the protection of her husband and unites herself with other protectors (states), seduces people by a false gospel, and kills those who do not comply. This is the picture in Revelation 17. This is what the reformers and other earlier bible christians saw and testified to. Thousands and thousands were killed for not bowing to this 'church'. This was happening for hundreds of years, up until the late 1800's. The papacy lost temporal power then, but still influenced states by concordats and other treaties in the last century and this one. I believe it will happen again, and be united with other 'church' hierarchies to persecute those who hold to the word of Christ. So I am here to give this perspective as a warning to watch for the signs of the times.
Unfortunately, most people don't see any faults with their denomination or church, and so don't see that the warnings of Christ in Revelation 2 and 3 apply to them. Catholics think their church and pope are infallible. That's why I am trying to show you that they are not.

Elena said...

... uh... if you're worried about a certain religion taking over the world I think you're barking up the wrong tree! It wasn't the Catholics that flew those planes into the twin towers!

perhaps your energies would be better served going after a real threat.

Leo said...

"Why did the Holy Spirit bother to inspire scripture if there was going to be words that we needed that were only passed down orally?"

When I get to heaven, I'll ask Him. It might help if you quit trying to tell God how to do His job all the time...

"How do we know that what was passed down orally is not changed or added to unless we have something recorded, given by God to His men"

That's where the Church comes in.

"The only way to know what was delivered is from scripture."

No, it is not the only way. Official Church teaching is full of oral tradition written down...

"No one can prove oral tradition because it isn't written down."

Oh really? The fact that scripture is written down is what proves it?

Ridiculous...

Jennie said...

Elena,
the real threat is not to be persecuted, but to be joined with and judged with the persecutors. That's why Jesus said "come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."

Leo said...

"Many people believe that the teachings of the RCC are different than scripture, and have explained in detail what these things are."

Many people believe that Obama is a good president and have explained in detail why he is. Many people also believe that we never landed on the moon and have extensive explanations why.

Actually, many more people believe that Catholic teachings agree perfectly with scripture since they have the same author and they back it up with details.

Leo said...

"And carrying the Bible above your head doesn't equate with obeying it."

We also carry it over our heads to swat any disobedient Protestants that might happen to wander in...

Jennie said...

Leo,
if the church is infallible, then why do the Apostles and Jesus spend so much time warning believers to hold fast to that which was delivered, to earnestly contend for the faith, and to watch for false teachers and false doctrines? Why did Paul mourn that after he was gone ravenous wolves would come in not sparing the flock? Why did the Old Testament church fail over and over and suffer judgment after judgment? God told Israel that they would not fail as long as they were obedient to His word. The New Testament church is the same. The gates of death shall not prevail as long as we stand upon the Rock.

Leo said...

"I was just struck by the contrast between what Leo said about Scripture not saying to only go by Scripture, which got a double amen, and what the passage in Nehemiah said, that the people heard the book of the Law which the LORD had commanded Moses and said Amen! Amen! and worshiped God."

Jennie, God was probably speaking to you to show you that both statements were the Word of God. You just were not listening, as usual...


"If somebody speaks something that is in agreement with God's word, it is the gospel." That's right...so stop with your sola scriptura nonsense...

Jennie said...

The Rock is Jesus Christ.
and on that note I'm closing comments for now.