Mary Omnipotent?

[Steve]

Re: reply

I have a favorable opinion of Pope John Paul because he came to everybody with love, but I doubt if he knew much of what the Bible says.

You must be kidding. Have you read anything he wrote. He was a prolific writer and his writings referred to and quoted scripture all over the place. He knew scripture backward and forward. I guarantee you, far better than anyone who posts on this board. You simply don't know what you are talking about if you don't think he knew much of what the Bible says. :-?

Go to this page and open up any one of his encyclicals and see if he knows scripture.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... /index.htm

I have never had a favourable opinion of him. He was a syncretist and a heretic. Things like his summits of world religions at the Basilica in Assisi where they sat a Buddha on the altar; kissing the Koran; taking dung on his forehead to mark him as a follower of Shiva. Oy. I had no use for him at all. Just because you can quote Scripture doesn't necessarily mean one is a Christian. The popes are now big-time ecumenists.

 

[thessalonian]

Spoken in ignorance once again. You don't even know what the concept of ecumenism is in Catholicism. It means haveing an open dialogue with people of other beliefs. That is what Paul was doing in Acts 17, but I suppose that is not in your bible. It does not in any way mean compromising the truth or denying it. Do you have a problem with this?

Anyone who has read Dominus Iesus and JP II's low view of indifferentism will know that he was not a syncretis. But you of course will ignore those words and go after the "no salvatoin outside the church" theology of that document.

That was not a shiva priestest.

 

[golfjack]

reply

For sure, there are many problems within the Catholic Church. I was a Catholic until the age of 38. It was then, that I discovered the truth of the Gospel. I did read from the site that Thess. gave me, especially the sermon about Mary. This doctrine is a big cornerstone of their faith, which to me where the devil has a big stronghold.

The idea that Mary has no sin is not supported in Scripture. She bore Jesus as the son of man, but not the Son of God, as the Word says, He was born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had spiritual DNA. They say Mary was assumed up to heaven, but no Biblical support. In fact, I don't think Catholics have to believe this. They say, she is Co-Matrix. What that really means, I don't know. But once on EWTN, I saw a cross with Jesus there, and Mary over Him, nailed too. It was bloody too. I am not making this up. After talking to another Catholic, he first denied it, but later said this was true. Also, I believe Catholics do not have to believe in the Marion visions and miracles. Therefore, I think Catholics have a vivid immagination, and assume things happened in Biblical times. Many will tell you that the first five books of the Bible are not inspired. Even on TV. a priest said this, and the book of Acts was not inspired. I met a priest about 2 years ago, and he said that the Pauline Epistles are just Philosphy. But the Pauline Epistles take over half the New Testament.

One more thing I have a concern about is the Opus-dei group in the Catholic Church. It is not enough that they beat themselves with a whip on the back, but also put some kind of pointed strap on their legs for 12 hours, that makes them bleed. Why, I think they want to get closer to God, and try to tame the flesh. Some even our freemasons.


what I have said is my testimony, and not intended to be Catholic bashing. But this is the truth as came to experience it.


May God bless, golfjack

 

[thessalonian]

That's all about as good as your testimony that Jerome was a pope. :-? I notice you didn't back up any of your statements in this regard or about the Catholic Church killing millions of Jews.

Co-matrix? You really are putting your ignorance on display. I don't mean to be mean but this is sad. You say you were Catholic until you were 38? Not a very educated one it seems.

Just curious and please answer, where were those "nails" you saw in Mary. Hands and feet or heart?

. She bore Jesus as the son of man, but not the Son of God

Jesus was in two separately definable parts? Was he not God when he was in here womb? Could his humanity only be said to be Lord? "How is it that the mother of my LORD should come to me". I won't even talk about Isaiha. I am not sure you know your Bible near as well as the pope. In fact I know you don't.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

Firstly, exellent point brought up concerning the FEAR of death that one would exhibit by the USE of a 'bullet proof' limo. Those that LOVE God have NOTHING to fear of death. It's those that LOVE LIFE that have EVERYTHING to fear.

And an open dialogue has NOTHING to do with appeasing the masses. That is the nature of the world and IT'S leaders, (to appease the masses). This is NOTHING short of 'making way' for the anti-Christ. There needs be acceptance of a 'universal' sort for the anti-Christ to be accepted by MOST, if not ALL the world once he makes his appearance. THIS is what the CC has tried to do with it's 'new age' acceptance of 'other' religions. All one need do is study their behavior and intollerance of the past to understand their acceptance of the 'present'.

MEC

 

[thessalonian]

But once on EWTN, I saw a cross with Jesus there, and Mary over Him, nailed too. It was bloody too. I am not making this up. After talking to another Catholic, he first denied it, but later said this was true

This kinda cracks me up except that it shows your glaring ignorance of scripture. Do you not recall when Mary presented Jesus in the temple and simeon said:

Luke.2
[35] (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."

I have seen what you saw on EWTN and it is an artists dipiction of that passage. Those were daggers, not nails. Surely Mary's heart was pierced as she saw here son die on the cross. I do hope you correct the false impression that you gave your friend. But I highly doudt you will. :o

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

Ah yes, it's all sinister isn't it. I am getting rather sick of the stupidity of your posts MEC. You do no reading on these matters and have no understanding of Catholicism, as demonstarted by a history of pure prejudicial postings, yet you speak as if you know something. The Bible has a term for that. I'll let you look it up. It's a word very frequently used in proverbs.

The part about the limo is truly stupid. You apparently did not read of the events surrounding JP II's death and how he knew his time was up and wanted to go to the Lord. :roll: Prejudice riegns in your heart MEC.

 

[Imagican]

So Thess, why don't YOU with all your insight and understanding explain to us ignorant Rubes, exactly WHAT was the PURPOSE behind spending SO MUCH MONEY on PROTECTING THIS MAN'S life. No, I KNOW you and DON'T expect an answer. Just more rhetoric on my stupidity or misunderstanding. I see in you the SAME love offered by the CC for thousands of years, my friend. And it's CERTAINLY a 'differnt' kind of love than what I understand.

Those that LOVE this life WILL LOSE life eternal. Do you understand what that means? And those that LOSE their lives, for the sake of Christ or others will GAIN life eternal. So what was the Pope afraid of? If it was God's will that he be sacrificed or martyred for the sake of Christ, who would he be to challenge this. Where's the 'FAITH', my friend?

No doubt, when one comes face to face with mortality thier desires can become 'different' than those that they have when their mortality is the furthest thing from their minds. Someone 'DYING' of cancer will inevitably start to attempt to 'make things right'. What about the years that they lived with little or NO physical hardship? Those years that they WERE able to do for others instead of themselves? See, this is what I continually 'try' to offer concerning wisdom or understanding. But even when exposed to it outright, many continue to avoid or evade NO MATTER WHAT. So be it.

And Thess, I bet you've BEEN tired of my comments of 'truth'. For the 'truth', to those that choose to follow lies IS a 'burden indeed'. No one that steals wants to be called a 'theif'. Nor do those that murder wish to be called murderers. They would RATHER 'think' that they are 'just like everybody else'. The truth IS the truth however and this dictates that REGARDLESS of the 'feelings' of others, it be UPHELD.

Satan HATES the truth as well. I'm sure that just the 'thought' of Jesus Christ sends him into convulsions of anger. So, Thess, if you would like to revel in the truth as I, let go of the false teachings of your 'religion' and simply accept Christ into your heart and begin to develope a 'true relationship' with God. Otherwise, you condemn yourself to the hatred that you are SO apt to point out in others.

For you see, there is NO hate within my heart. What you mistake as hate is nothing more than a love for my brothers and sisters to the point that I would CERTAINLY 'go against the flow' in order to WARN them of the folly of following others to damnation. I do not need to hate something to be aware of it's detriment and make ever effort possible to warn others that may not be aware. You know, kinda like a medical warning on a pack of cigarettes. There is NO hate there, just concern.


MEC

 

[Steve]

Spoken in ignorance once again. You don't even know what the concept of ecumenism is in Catholicism. It means haveing an open dialogue with people of other beliefs. That is what Paul was doing in Acts 17, but I suppose that is not in your bible. It does not in any way mean compromising the truth or denying it. Do you have a problem with this?

Anyone who has read Dominus Iesus and JP II's low view of indifferentism will know that he was not a syncretis. But you of course will ignore those words and go after the "no salvatoin outside the church" theology of that document.

That was not a shiva priestest.

There is NOTHING to dialogue about with other religions. You modernistic Catholics are something else. And the bad part is, you don't even see it. You never would have spouted that crap BEFORE Vatican 2.

 

[thessalonian]

Steve,

You sound bitter. :o I know there are Catholics who have the wrong idea about ecumenism. JP II and Benedict XVI are not two of them. You quite apparently have not read Dominus Iesus. Nothing in Vatican II was new in this regard if you read the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia with regard to other religions. Also Ludwig Ott's book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is a pre-vatican II classic. I will try find time to look it up.

 

[thessalonian]

And Thess, I bet you've BEEN tired of my comments of 'truth'. For the 'truth', to those that choose to follow lies IS a 'burden indeed'.

No, it's hardly your "truths" that tire me out.

ing: ing: ing:

Don't have time to play today with your nonsense. Sorry.

 

[francisdesales]

There is NOTHING to dialogue about with other religions. You modernistic Catholics are something else. And the bad part is, you don't even see it. You never would have spouted that crap BEFORE Vatican 2.

Steve,

Actually, Vatican 2 and Gaudium et Spes is a return to the Catholicism of the Patristic era. What you may be remembering is the pre-Vatican 2's defense vs. the Enlightenment and Modernism, an apologetics that became so defensive that it equated faith in God with knowledge of the doctrines of Catholicism. In its attempt to defend against Rationalism, many apologetics and polemics, in effect, turned the faith INTO Rationalism by attempting to remove faith from the equation and "proving" the faith where the mind was "forced" to follow the doctrines of the non-Liturgical creeds and doctrines.

However, if you read the Church Fathers, back to even St. Justin the Martyr, you'll find that "no salvation outside the church" was never an exclusivist or triumphant concept. This destroys the whole idea of "catholic"! Vatican 2, esp. with the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World is merely a recognition of the faith of old, a return to the CATHOLIC faith that recognizes truth in all positive religions - since the searching for God is engrained within all men (the Greek Fathers were quite adamant that the Logos came to all men, even before He took on flesh). Thus, this is not "crap". It is true Catholicism from over 1000 years ago.

Regards

 

[ahimsaman72]

After reading the plethora of ignorant and hateful posts by the Bible-thumpers, I am more convinced that this kind of mentality of absolutism and fundamentalism is the scourge of the Christian faith.

Thess began this thread with a question (logical, mind you) about the ability for Mother Mary to hear many prayers at once. It was easy to see that it would indeed be possible for her to be able to do so, as is the case with St. Joseph and the thousands of other saints.

I fought this kind of doctrine for a while, but only because I didn't want to see it as true. There is no difference between me and Thess praying together and me praying to a saint in heaven. So, either get back to the topic and answer the arguments or go crawl in a hole.

Who cares about the Muslims and His Holiness Pope John Paul 2? Create another thread if you want to talk about that, will ya?

Peace...

Woody

 

[Vic C.]

Who cares about the Muslims and His Holiness Pope John Paul 2? Create another thread if you want to talk about that, will ya?

Thanks woody. The Catholics know what the Prots think and the Prots know what the Catholics think. Geesh, it's only been going on for a few hundred years. Nothing new under the sun is putting it lightly. If we can't agree to disagree and do it in a stern but loving fashion, why bother? IF Jesus were to come back right now, would He like what He finds? :o

If we were face to face with each other, would we still talk to each other in this manner? God forbid. Is this really a battle for Truth or is pride somehow entering into the equation? Mostly evenyone claims to be led by the Spirit. I wasn't aware there were so many incarnations of the Holy Spirit. :-?

 

[jgredline]

Thess began this thread with a question (logical, mind you) about the ability for Mother Mary to hear many prayers at once. It was easy to see that it would indeed be possible for her to be able to do so, as is the case with St. Joseph and the thousands of other saints.

I fought this kind of doctrine for a while, but only because I didn't want to see it as true. There is no difference between me and Thess praying together and me praying to a saint in heaven. So, either get back to the topic and answer the arguments or go crawl in a hole.


Woody

please forgive my ignorance.
Where in the bible is this taught?
I have searched and searched but can't find it.
Please help.
Thanks Jg

 

[ahimsaman72]

Thess began this thread with a question (logical, mind you) about the ability for Mother Mary to hear many prayers at once. It was easy to see that it would indeed be possible for her to be able to do so, as is the case with St. Joseph and the thousands of other saints.

I fought this kind of doctrine for a while, but only because I didn't want to see it as true. There is no difference between me and Thess praying together and me praying to a saint in heaven. So, either get back to the topic and answer the arguments or go crawl in a hole.


Woody

please forgive my ignorance.
Where in the bible is this taught?
I have searched and searched but can't find it.
Please help.
Thanks Jg

If you are coming from the camp of Sola Scriptura, then I'm afraid there isn't much "Here it is right here!". Someone already pointed to the verses in Revelation that speak of this. I'll have to go back and get you that. I'm running out of time and will get back to this in the morning :morning:

Besides that, it is logical that there is a connection between heaven and earth, Heavenly beings and earthly beings. Angels come from Heaven and minister to us. Christ came from Heaven and ministered to us (and continues to do so).

If you believe in soul-sleep then I can see your point. If you believe in immortality of the soul, then it all makes sense. I see it as true from a logical standpoint, regardless of what Scripture says about it. There's almost 2000 years of Tradition and church theologians who taught it. For most reasonable people these evidences would be enough.

Woody

 

[jgredline]

Woody
Thanks. I will be waiting for the scriptures.
Jg

 

[ahimsaman72]

Revelation 5:8 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 8:2-4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

2And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and to them were given seven trumpets.

3Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. 4The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand.[/i]

These verses implicate the belief in the communion of saints. Of course, it isn't exhaustive, but this is what I have to share this morning. I had thought Thess had posted these passages, but when I looked back I didn't see them.

Again, if we view the Bible in a vacuum you would have reason to say that this isn't enough to hang your hat on. But, the Bible wasn't created in a vacuum. It needs to be viewed reasonably against the background of culture, language, history and context.

There are many, many Christians since the apostles and throughout church history who offer valid reasons for beliefs, some are part of Tradition, some are not. But, they all help us to understand the Christian faith from a broad perspective rather than micro-managing the Scripture to fit our own notions about what is true or not.

Woody

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but your slant on these verses is so far off, that you miss the whole point of these verse. Angels existed long before the saints ever went to heaven. So angels & saints are 2 entirely different beings. So projecting your own imagination into those verses cannot change the bible to read any differently than it does. Read the whole bible. Don't just look for passages to to try to justify your made up gospel because you will distort the verses and your made-up gospel. :roll:

 

[ahimsaman72]

And your infallible interpretation is better?

Okay, I don't understand your point. Yes, angels existed prior to humans. Yes, angels and saints are two different beings, one is heavenly or celestial while the other is earthly. So, what's your point?

Did you read my earlier post where I talked about the connection between heaven and earth? We pray in the Our Father that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Angels are ministering spirits sent to help us. Christ took human form to show us the Father. These are all indicators of the relationship between heaven and earth.

Don't blame me, take it to your Bible that was compiled painstakingly by the Catholic Church for you to enjoy :roll:

Peace...

Woody