Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
Are you Roman Catholic? I didn’t reply to your PM, it wasn’t sincere or friendly so I wasn’t sure.
I already posted reference to paragraph 66 and 67 a
few pages back when private revelation was rejected again
by our dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
see...paragraph 67.
They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, BUT TO HELP LIVE MORE FULLY BY IT in a certain period of history.
And what does paragraph 66 say....
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made COMPLETELY EXPLICIT; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Prophecy, private revelation, approved and yet to be approved make God’s revelation more EXPLICIT, yes, it is a help.
Read Kevin’s message, it confirms Catholic Truth. All the new replies this evening, what a fuss but still no comment on the paragraph excerpt itself.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [first cause,source,origin] of the creation of God;”
Or in keeping with the meaning of “arche” could read “...the first created one of the creation of God” which would make more sense seeing the Father is the Origin and First Cause since “all things” were created through the Son.
“Bottom line, John 1:3 remains your obstacle to any theory of creature-Creator agency relationship. The creature you need to have in place does not exist until Jesus creates him. He is an undocumented creature. You have yet to refute this.”
You’re arguing, I think, that “all things” cannot have any exceptions as John 1:3 says,
“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.)
“and without him not one thing came into being”
Of course “all things” and “not one thing” excepts the Logos himself unless you make the argument he created himself, which isn't likely.
Paul use similar language in Col. 1:15-18 calling the Son not God or God the Son but the image of God and the firstborn of creation adding that “all things have been created through (dia) him”.
Paul doesn't need to make an exception in “all things” to the Son himself as that would be understood that he wasn't created through himself.
At another time “all things” has the exception noted as “all things” obviously excepted God to who the Christ would be subject. (1 Cor. 15:27)
So “all things” is not quite as tight a definition as you've described and John 1:3 presents no problem.
“What are those last two words? Worship God. Any creature who is an agent of God MUST refuse worship, for only God may be worshipped. Or do you wish have it suggested that God has instituted the heinous idolatry of angel worship? God forbid. I believe to a certainty you oppose idolatry.”
The word usually translated “worship” is the Greek “proskuneo”, a word that basically means to bow down, to prostrate ones self before a superior. It can also mean “obeisance” or “homage”. Which word is used often depends upon the judgment/bias of the translator and the context.
For example at Matthew 18:26-34 Jesus told the story of the slave who owed a great deal of money to his Lord. He falls before his master begging patience, he is either worshiping, doing obeisance, or homage as he prostrates himself depending upon the translation.
“John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
By the trinitarian definition of the term “God” the Logos was with himself. And the Logos being “God” consisted of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Of course that makes no sense but then I don't think the trinitarian definition of God makes sense.
“Alright you say, then why isn’t theos an indefinite object, as in one of many gods, as in the NWT? If it lacks the definite article, why can’t we just supply the indefinite article?”
The NWT is not alone in its ue of “a god” or similar but that's for tomorrow.
When there is no article the context can determine whether or not to use on in English. In John 4:19 the woman at the well says to Jesus, “I see you are prophet”.
She wasn't saying he was THE prophet or the prophet from somewhere but A prophet, one of several that could be called “prophet”.
She could see Jesus was a prophet by what he did not by birth or appointment or even self proclamation.
But when the article is used there is no question of being definite as in John 1:1, “the God” vs. “god” without the article.
“It asserts that he has the nature of God.”
And that is what? Power, knowledge, spiritness?
But God is unique, not a class likes “gods” that includes humans. Paul could say that were many gods and lords but it was the Father that was God, not the Son. (1 Cor. 8:6)
Son, I have been fighting for the Faith on FR since 2004. My record is intact. My PM is sincere but cautious. I invited you to explain yourself. You have, now.
Please cease and desist from identifying yourself as Catholic. Occasionally we actual Catholics find ourselves playing the role of:
“Kevin Barrett’s revelations do not belong to the deposit of the Faith. Furthermore, they cannot be judged valid until examined by the Church and declared valid. Therefore this Catholic must consider Kevin Barret’s blog and writings invalid. I urge both Catholic and non Catholic alike, who are faithful to the Revelation of Christ, to reject this man’s writings.”
~ ~ ~
Correction, “Kevin Barrett’s revelations” and all private
revelation do not belong to the deposit of the Faith. About
his message from Jesus.
Kevin’s message spoke the truth, it is faith and works, not “Faith Alone.” If Kevin’s message from Our Lord had supported Luther’s heresy, Protestants here would be jumping for joy, commenting on every line of the excerpt.
Jesus is correcting, teaching, preparing non-Catholic Christians to accept the faith, Roman Catholicism.
Catholics can believe or disbelieve private revelation, approved or yet to be approved. The Church is prudent, it takes time to approve. Plus very important, certain events spoken of in current prophecy haven’t take place yet.
The only private revelation to be avoided, rejected, is private revelation CONDEMNED by the Church. Too bad, very sad rejecting prophecy, your own messengers. The time ahead is going to be confusing.
1 Corinthians 12:28
And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly PROPHETS, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
That kind of thinkng is starting to infiltrate pentecostal churches.
Son, I have been fighting for the Faith on FR since 2004. My record is intact. My PM is sincere but cautious. I invited you to explain yourself. You have, now.
Please cease and desist from identifying yourself as Catholic. Occasionally we actual Catholics find ourselves playing the role of:
~ ~ ~
What can I say, don’t begin a post with your condescending “son”....
You aren’t sincere, you also said to someone else, “this should be interesting”, like a true know it all. Your posts today show you aren’t always right. Be kind instead.
If you are truly Catholic, you would stand up for what
was stated in that one prophetic paragraph, it was Catholic.
Instead, you are following the Protestants, helping their
rejection of the faith. Jesus rejects “Faith Alone”
more than once and very simply.
God bless you,
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Protestants here, they’ve been running away, from being specific for a couple of days, they won’t say what is false in this message. Please, you read it and comment. Where is the falsehood that goes against the faith? I would appreciate it.
~ ~ ~
Kevin’s website: http://hearhisheart.wordpress.com/
an excerpt fro the April 1, 2012 message:
Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets? Did I not say in My word that not all that say to me ‘Lord’ ‘Lord’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, save those that DO the will of the Father who is in heaven? Then why do you still go about doing your own will and tell yourselves that you are My bride? My people, you have been lied to by the enemy of your soul. Seek Me in these things. Surely I will reveal My truth to you. I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the FALSE shepherds and prophets. They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your BELIEF on My name. These are all lies, My people. For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous? Yes, My people, you are made righteous by your faith in Me, but it is FULLFILLED BY YOUR OBEDIENCE to My voice. IT IS NOT IMPUTED TO YOU BY A ONE-TIME CONFESSION OF MY NAME. Oh, My people, you have been lied to. Read My word for yourselves. Why listen to those that fatten themselves by fleecing My sheep? I have not sent many of the shepherds that are out there. They have sent themselves for their own glory and their own profit. Oh, My people, did I not say in My word to judge them by their fruit? Then where is the fruit, My people? Oh, but those that have itching ears care not about the fruit. They want to be told all is well and that they shall PROSPER if they simply believe on My name and My promises. Lies, lies, lies, I tell you.
It’s interesting.
Although we may disagree on which authority is to be used to verify or validate these so-called “prophets”, nevertheless, we both recognize that no one should take the words of any of these guys seriously on their own merits.
It also appears that pio doesn’t consider you a Catholic either.
It’s ironic because at this point, I don’t consider him a Catholic either. There’s simply no solid evidence of such.
Okay, I’ll try. It’s difficult when people attack prophecy,
a great help, it is second to the Apostles. And when people
can’t, instead remain silent about a specific message, they
attack the one who posted it personally.
That’s how it goes....
blessings,
It’s interesting.
“Although we may disagree on which authority is to be used to verify or validate these so-called “prophets”, nevertheless, we both recognize that no one should take the words of any of these guys seriously on their own merits.
It also appears that pio doesn’t consider you a Catholic either.
It’s ironic because at this point, I don’t consider him a Catholic either. There’s simply no solid evidence of such.”
~ ~ ~
Sounds almost gleeful.
Really metmom....coming from a fallen away Catholic. It’s so true, fallen-away Catholics are bitter about their choice.
Causing more difficulties, trying to pit Catholic against
Catholic?
Believe.... It’s true, come Home, Our Lord wants everyone to believe the same.
What does Kevin have that proves he is NOT also a "hireling, false teacher, false prophet"? What sets him apart from the "Prosperity Gospel" televangelists? What is Kevin's ratio of prophecy to fulfilled prophecy? This WAS one of the main ways the LORD God gave to His people so that they could know who really WAS a prophet of God and who wasn't. So what are Kevin's credentials? Why should anyone believe what he claims Jesus is telling him? Why should what he says Jesus tells him be believed over what the Bible tells us? These are serious questions and ignoring them will only prove you are not paying due diligence to speak the truth.
Also, there is a BIG, HUGE difference between the gift of prophecy for teaching the revealed word of God and someone who claims to be speaking prophecies FROM God directly. All those who legitimately had that gift have their revelations written down for all generation in Holy Scripture. Anyone who claims NEW revelation FROM God is speaking falsely. The canon of Scripture is complete and has been for nearly two thousand years. There is NOTHING new for God to reveal to us that hasn't already been compiled in the Bible. I DO hope you at least are aware of this restriction and are not being tricked by wolves in sheep's clothing.
The RF is full of very sincere, yet wrong posters of every stripe. It is unfair and unwarranted to call out Markbsnr for cautioning you to more closely and cautiously adhere to Church teachings. Mark is one of the more sincere and knowledgable Catholic posters. You woul do well to listen to him
Taking you at your word that you are indeed Catholic you have a duty to not foster and propagate unsubstantiated private revelation, but rather to take it to your pastor and bishop so that the Church can assess its merits. It alone has been entrusted by Jesus with a teaching authority.
Peace be with you
1. Rev 3:14,
You said:
“Or in keeping with the meaning of “arche” could read …”
But the broader context, which includes John 1:3 among others, does not allow a use of temporal beginning as with a created being, and so one of the other meanings must be chosen, unless you are willing to live with an outright contradiction in Scripture. That is not my view of how a God-breathed document works. God does not contradict himself. Rev 3:14 cannot be properly understood by arbitrarily separating it from the crystal clear meaning of John 1:1-3, to which we now return.
2. John 1:1
You appear to be taking the lack of a definite article as an inference of an indefinite object, yet you offered your own evidence that this is not the case, as your passage at John 4:19 demonstrates, and which is actually part of the point I was making. So I am confused as to why you would raise evidence against your own side. But that of course is up to you.
So now that you have essentially admitted that in Greek a definite article is not necessary to discuss a definite object, but usage is determined by context, you should have no problem seeing why AT Robertson and many others, and an overwhelming majority of translations, both old and new, have chosen the very reasonable rendering, “the Word was God.”
As for doubting whether God could be a member of a class, perhaps you are simply are unfamiliar with the Greek notion of being. In philosophy, we call it ontology, the “words about being.” The Greeks classified absolutely every kind of existing thing, even classes where there could only be one member. It is a mathematical way of thinking, and it runs rampant through the language and thought of ancient Greece.
So yes, God could be and definitely is in a class of beings, of which there is only one, by definition. That’s just how categories work. By leaving out the definite article, but moving theos into the emphatic position, he is precluding any possible misunderstanding of a multiplicity of gods, which would be anathema to his Hebrew mind anyway.
Instead, he uses the emphatic position combined with the lack of a concretizing article to describe an abstraction, a category of being called God, which perfectly describes who Jesus is in his own being. Hence the Nicene talk of substance. Not physical matter as we are used to understanding it, but a unique nature, the highest order of being possible, God.
3. John 1:3, Again
As for John 1:3, you have not quoted the text accurately, and your error makes all the difference. What Greek manuscript base are you using? Both the Byzantine and the Westscott-Hort agree here. There is no dispute as to the base text, and it is absolutely not what you recite here:
Your inaccurate rendition:
“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.) “and without him not one thing came into being”
The actual text, first in Greek, so you don’t miss anything:
Panta di autou egeneto kai xoris autou egeneto oude ev ho gegonen
Broken down, this is what you have to deal with:
Panta —> All things
di —> by means of
autou —> him
egeneto —> were created
kai —> and
xoris —> without
autou —> him
egeneto —> was created
oude —> not even
ev —> one
ho gegonen —> created thing.
Do you see what you are missing? Not even one *created* thing was created apart from him. Not your oversimplification of “all things,” which you require for your theory of exception to work.
I have to admit, I read these lines of your post several times over trying to understand your logic and how it went wrong. I think I figured it out. As I’ve said, you need to have an implied exception, or you end up with an uncreated Logos, which you apparently do not want.
So the question is how to get there from here, because the words as they are will not support your implied exception. The class of all *created* things, which is what the verse actually describes, if it were allowed to stand, is smaller than the set of all things, and you would lose your implied exception.
Therefore, to make the set so big that an exception would necessarily be implied, the set has to be erroneously expanded to include both created and uncreated things, from which it would then and *only* then be possible to draw your implied exception.
Except the language of the text does not support this “creative” solution. The set of things being discussed is explicitly only all *created* things, not *absolutely* all things, as your rendering has it. John intentionally and explicitly excluded uncreated things, thus firmly denying any possibility of an implied exception for a “created creator.”
This whole misadventure gives me pause. I am curious to know from what text you derived your mangled reading. Again, no Greek manuscript of which I am aware excludes the final “gegonen” which you omitted. Can you explain to me how you managed to omit it?
Because every omission from the word of God is serious. God breathed each and every word for His own purposes. We may struggle with a translation here or there, and He understands our frailties in these matters, better than we do in fact. But He has also provided us with sufficient notice that He will not look kindly on either additions or deletions. Those are His word choices, and those are the words we have to deal with, one way or another.
Peace,
SR
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. (John 8:24)
Forgive me everyone, I am sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. I love you all.
We shouldn’t disagree, then argue about our differences. Especially if you believe prophecy, Jesus is going to bring us all to one belief soon. A miracle and another amazing, God put us in this time!!
I came across and saved a brief writing by a non-Catholic Christian. I am not sure the year it was written, it’s beautiful.
The Loneliness of the Christian
By: A. W. Tozer
The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an
ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the
fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate
world.
His God-given instincts cry out for companionship with others of his
kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his
absorptions in the love of Christ; and because with his circle of friends
there are few who share his inner experiences, he’s forced to walk alone.
The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused
them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord himself suffered in
the same way.
The man (or woman) who has passed on into the divine Presence in actual
inner experience will not find many who understand him. He finds few
who care to talk about that which is the supreme object of his interest, so
he is often silent and preoccupied in the midst of noisy religious shoptalk.
For this he earns the reputation of being dull and over-serious, so he is
avoided, and the gulf between him and society widens. He searches for the
friends upon whose garments he can detect the smell of myrrh and aloes
and cassia out of the ivory palaces, and finding few or none, he, like the
Mother of God, keeps these things in his heart.
It is this very loneliness that throws him back upon God. His inability to find
human companionship drives him to seek in God what he can find nowhere
else.
—
“You aren’t sincere,...”
The RF is full of very sincere, yet wrong posters of every stripe. It is unfair and unwarranted to call out Markbsnr for cautioning you to more closely and cautiously adhere to Church teachings. Mark is one of the more sincere and knowledgable Catholic posters. You woul do well to listen to him
Taking you at your word that you are indeed Catholic you have a duty to not foster and propagate unsubstantiated private revelation, but rather to take it to your pastor and bishop so that the Church can assess its merits. It alone has been entrusted by Jesus with a teaching authority.
Peace be with you
~ ~ ~
Markbnsr did more than that, he stated Kevin was a false prophet and misinterpreted the Catechism. One can believe or reject approved and yet to be approved Private Revelation. I didn’t care for his “Troll” pic either.
Mark has not written one positive supportive comment to
me. I can only go by what he has written to me and said about me to someone else in the thread. You can argue
“Faith Alone” is a lie for another four hundred years
but if you show Jesus is saying the same to a current
Protestant messenger it might change someone’s mind/heart.
The message was the Truth, from Our Lord to Kevin Barrett.
I disagree, there is nothing wrong with sharing the messages from Heaven. They have not been condemned. Jesus is trying to reach the world by His loving messages. These are serious times.
blessings to you,
Yet Paul as well as many other writers in Scripture DID call Jesus God:
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Mat. 1:23 cf Isa. 7:14)
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (II Cor. 4:3,4)
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (II Cor. 4:6)
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (I Tim. 6:14-16)
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom. 8:9)
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. (Rom. 14:8-9)
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. (Rom. 15:16)
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (I Cor. 1:24)
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (II Cor. 5:19)
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb. 1:3)
Paul as well as Peter taught through Scripture that there is ONLY one God and that God became a man, was incarnated, in the flesh. They also spoke of and used words that describe the reality of God being manifested to mankind as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that though there were three, they were STILL all one God. Jesus cannot be "a god" or even just "mighty god" and the Father Almighty God because Scripture uses those names for both the Father and the Son:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa. 9:6)
The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. (Psa. 50:1)
Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name, (Jer. 32:18)
I agree with you that the "Trinity" definition makes no sense, it makes no human finite thinking sense, but we don't understand probably a fraction of our physical world, what makes us think we should understand heavenly things? We Trinitarians accept this doctrine by faith just like we do about how the shed blood of Jesus Christ can make propitiation for all our sins and that God gifts to us eternal life in heaven when we DO accept it by faith. There are many things I cannot fully grasp but it doesn't mean it isn't true. I believe that there is a more than ample Biblical foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't believe the early church just invented it out of whole cloth but both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament in addition to the teachings of the Apostles gave them these truths by which the Christian faith was defined. I hope you have a good day.
John 4:19 has no article in Greek so the translator can supply it in English which is exactly the situation in John 1:3) making “prophet” indefinite.
I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
“Your inaccurate rendition:
“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.) “and without him not one thing came into being”
The words in ellipses are mine. The quotation is from The New Revised Standard Version that appears in the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, published by tthe United Bible Society. (p.s., They are trinitarians)
The NAB John 1:3, reads:
“All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be”.
It, then, is not my “inaccurate rendition” at all.
“This whole misadventure gives me pause. I am curious to know from what text you derived your mangled reading. Again, no Greek manuscript of which I am aware excludes the final “gegonen” which you omitted. Can you explain to me how you managed to omit it?”
I omitted nothing. I quoted a translation by a major Protestant body and now the approved translation for Catholics so if you want to call it a “mangled reading” take it up with their translators.
“But the broader context, which includes John 1:3 among others, does not allow a use of temporal beginning as with a created being, and so one of the other meanings must be chosen, unless you are willing to live with an outright contradiction in Scripture.”
This broader must include the way Paul described Christ, as he did at Col.1. and 1 Cor. 8:6.
If we use the trinitarian definition of God to analyze John 1:1-3 then we end up with defining the Logos as either the Father or as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Part of that broader context was how the term God or god was used in the Scriptures making it wholly correct to call the Logos “a god” since even Moses was called such.
“Broken down, this is what you have to deal with:
Panta —> All things
di —> by means of
autou —> him
egeneto —> were created
kai —> and
xoris —> without
autou —> him
egeneto —> was created
oude —> not even
ev —> one
ho gegonen —> created thing.”
Be aware the order of words in the Greek has little to do with the order when translated into English.
Heaven speaks every day, if you doubt a message, take the good from it. Don’t skip the messages and reject the prophets. A grave message this one and it begins with confess your sins to God for the life of your soul, Catholics seek out a “consecrated son”, go to Confession. I know...
Catholicbinder posts one lady, her Protestant messages, Glynda Lomax. http://www.catholicbinder.com
plus the link to this message.
_ _ _ _ _
Messages to an Anonymous Visionary
By the name of ‘Tenderheart’
www.JabezInAction.blogspot.com/
Note from Web Master: The anonymous visionary that these messages are received by has asked me if I would list her as “Tenderheart”, a name that the Lord has referred to her by throughout her messages. So, for now on in my update menu, her messages will be listed as being from Tenderheart.
July 16th, 2012
It Is Your Duty To Seek Out The Truth
Children of My Divine Heart, I Am. I Am the Alpha and the Omega. I Am the Lord of Hosts. Rejoice for the One True God seeks you out. Open your hearts. Surrender without condition. Surrender completely. Give Me permission to transform you. My Little Ones, you must live each day as your last. Events escalate all over the Earth. Many are being called home, and unfortunately enter into an eternity of torment. Satan’s harvest increases daily. My Children, you must walk in holiness, and remain pure. Seek out My consecrated sons, and remain blameless before Me. DO NOT keep MORTAL sins upon your souls. Do not remain indifferent to sin as you will surely be caught off guard, and reap your just judgement. Listen to the news, My Little Ones. Purification is underway. Judgement comes for many who are unprepared, who have shut Me out, and who have prayed Lucifer. PRAY! Pray WITHOUT ceasing. Many who enter into Hell’s fire complain that they did not know Hell existed. They never sought the Truth. They never believed it to be possible. Satan’s ruses chain many to the tortures of Hell. It is your duty to seek out the Truth. Be vigilant. Protect your soul as much as possible for it is your most prized possession. Satan will find countless ways to deceive you, My Children. Beware. Ponder these words, and make reparation for past transgressions. I love you, My Children, but you must remain obedient, and be a holy people. I leave you My kiss of peace. Shalom
As if that would silence the straw men used by select servants of Rome to “refute” sola fide.
“We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; “ (2 Corinthians 4:13)
What we do is ultimately a manifestation of what we truly believe, as it moves the will to act in correspondence to what we believe.
“Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, “ (Hebrews 11:33)
“Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: “ (Hebrews 11:35)
One who believes in Allah can be moved to put on the bomb vest to do to kill his enemies. And one who believes in the Lord Jesus will be moved to risk his life to save souls.
If our chief source of security and object of affection is money and material good, so that will be reflected in our life decisions, while if one’s God is the Lord Jesus then such must be considered transitory and expendable because He has faith.
Again, he has made himself unworthy of meaningful exchange, with his willingness to believe,
a straw man of sola fide, which my neglected link and many other post substantiates it is (as if “sola” means that salvific faith can be one that would not effect works, rather moving the will to obey),
as well as to uncritically believe a most dubious assertion as fact,
and that sola fide was a novel doctrine by Luther,
while neglecting to even look at a list of sexually active popes which nukes his attempt to postulate they were likely popes who were not duly elected (and failure to post all the popes he does not think were not duly elected)
as well as his failure to see he was rejected even by some of your own as a manifest Catholic or at least as faithfully representing Catholicism in posting unapproved prophecy,
while thrice hastily supposing another Catholic was an ex-Catholic due to not reading or misunderstanding the original article, or because he differed with his fringe traditionalist stance on Protestants being saved apart from Rome,
while resorting to dismissing reproof by baseless charges of bitterness and pride.
“it might be important to note this word of caution by E.G. Schwiebert in his exhaustive biography Luther and His Times:
. . . Copied by twelve table companions over a period of twenty-some years the Table Talks are often unreliable, of uneven quality, and written at varying periods of time. Certainly little, if any, of the material was copied in the Reformer’s presence. Rather, the copyists later recorded in their rooms their recollections of the evening’s conversations. These recordings, purported to be the exact words of Luther, were often invented and embellished, and additional errors crept in later when the table companions began to copy stories from each other. In time it was difficult to know by whom and when the original might have been made. Melanchthon on one occasion warned some of the table companions as to the hazardous nature of such practice, realizing that posterity would read meaning into these conversations that Luther had never intended. Furthermore, where every topic imaginable was discussed and the conversation was spontaneous, it is difficult to distinguish jest from serious statement. It is hardly fair, then, to hold Luther responsible for all that has come to us in the Table Talks. Obviously, a careful checking against evidence from Luther’s own writings and additional sources is absolutely essential. (http://www.lutherquest.org/discus/messages/13/13063.html?1060604822)
To which Armstrong states,
I am in agreement with this, insofar as one certainly cannot deduce Luther's views from the Table-Talk alone (the last sentence in particular is a crucial point).
He also records the comments of a poster Ehamilton, 8/11/03:
It's not as if we don't have an enormous body of evidence to support the orthodoxy of Luther's Christology, and there is good anecdotal data corroborating his absolute hostility toward blasphemy of any sort. It just seems so hard for me to believe that there isn't some deeper logic behind the remark. Granted, Luther being Luther, it may be rather convoluted and idiosyncratic logic. But I don't think anyone with even a modest familiarity with the vast corpus of Luther's work (and that's all I'd claim for myself) would want to dump it in the trash simply on the basis of some random weird quote dredged up from who knows what context. There is no question what Luther's formal opinion of Christ's sinlessness was-- i.e., that Christ was sinless by nature, but "made sin" by imputation-- since his whole theory of the atonement hinged crucially on that point. Quoting here from his Galatians commentary:
Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor. The Law of Moses leaves no loopholes. It says that a transgressor should be hanged. Who are the other sinners? We are. The sentence of death and everlasting damnation had long been pronounced over us. But Christ took all our sins and died for them on the Cross. "He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.)
All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood. The curse struck Him. The Law found Him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest Himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged Him for a sinner.
In separating Christ from us sinners and holding Him up as a holy exemplar, errorists rob us of our best comfort. They misrepresent Him as a threatening tyrant who is ready to slaughter us at the slightest provocation.
I am told that it is preposterous and wicked to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer: If you deny that He is a condemned sinner, you are forced to deny that Christ died. It is not less preposterous to say, the Son of God died, than to say, the Son of God was a sinner.
John the Baptist called Him "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever. (Chapter 3, pp. 106-135 )
Luther loved wild talk and hyperbole. That was just his nature. To some extent it was a symptom of the era in which he lived. To some extent it was a conscious imitation of the Scripture-- Christ telling everyone to "hate his family", or promising to tear down the temple, were most certainly viewed as bizarre behavior by the Jews. Whatever Luther was trying to say, I feel reasonably confident that he did not actually intend to teach that Christ committed adultery.
By the way, I'm not a Lutheran, and I don't feel much need to defend his formal theology, which I reject on several important points. Morever, I think there's plenty of room to criticize him ad hominem for, say, his botched handling of the Peasant's Revolt, or his anti-semitism. I just don't think that a "Luther as blasphemer" angle is likely to impress many Lutheran scholars as a serious-minded critique.
To whom Armstrong concludes,
This is not a cut-and-dried case. That makes for good discussion, because one must get the gears in their head going round, to figure out wonderfully-intellectually-stimulating things like plausibility structures...(http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/05/did-martin-luther-believe-that-jesus.html)
“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.
"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable"
“In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (Pelikan 46-49, 51-52).
— Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran, scholar of Christianity history, theology and medieval intellectual history, later Orthodox convert), The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, More: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/trajectory-of-church-history.html
The Roman Catholic reaction to Luther and to sola fide in higher levels today can seem overall quite moderate, and often nuanced in allowing justification by faith, but not by a faith apart from works.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification states in part,
31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.
37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
On 29 October (2008), two days before Reformation Day, Benedict spoke on the "theology of the cross" in his General Audience address, and states,
And to the Christians of Rome he reasserts that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds "we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: "justified by faith alone"...
Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)." (Pope Benedict XVI,11/19/08 General Audience; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html)
Benedict is still teaching works justify as one unit with faith, but the fact is that “faith alone” is not opposed to faith in charity, in love, but the sola refers to faith being what actually appropriates justification, but not a type of faith that will not effect confession of the Lord Jesus in word in deed, baptism normally being the first outward formal expression of that, and which confession "justifies" that the person has saving faith. For as faith is known by its fruits, so man is judged by His words and works, manifesting whether he had true faith — though some are saved with works failing the test — (1Cor. 3:15) and is “worthy” of rewards given in grace, (Mt. 25:33-40; Heb. 10:35; Rv. 3:4) — though what all truly deserve is damnation — (Rm. 6:23) or was a false believer, professing by not possessing true faith.
Thus Paul can say that "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," (Romans 4:5) as well as (regarding judgment) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. " (Romans 2:13)
Note that the “further observances are no longer necessary” quote above, taken form a long discourse, is referring to the ceremonial law, as well as Pharisaical interpretations and requirements according to Benedict, though the latter is not what Paul is referring to in speaking of the Law, nor is the exclusion of works restricted to that system, (Titus 3:5) but any works of righteousness by which man earns eternal life, or rests upon them for acceptance with God as one worthy, rather than casting all His faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save Him by His sinless shed blood, and therefore he follows Him, which confession “justifies”his faith as salvific. (Rm. 10:9,10)
I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me.
Right from the pit. God shares His glory with no other.
It is a lie that righteousness isn't imputed by faith. It most certainly is.
Romans 4:1-25
4 What then shall we say was gained by[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[b] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead ( since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
So here we have a choice. To either believe that Paul is lying. Or that your so-called "prophet" is lying.
And remind us again..... Why is he to be considered a prophet? On whose say so? His?!?!?!?!
FOTFLOL!!!!
I'm not *fallen away*. I walked away.
And ex-Catholics are not bitter about their choice. It wasn't forced on them. It's not an irrevocable choice so there's no reason to be bitter over it. If someone regretted it, they could simply go back. But then Catholics wouldn't have anything to feel smug about concerning ex-Catholics and nothing to try to discredit them with.
Causing more difficulties, trying to pit Catholic against Catholic?
Nope. Can't when there's only one Catholic involved.
Believe.... It’s true, come Home, Our Lord wants everyone to believe the same.
This is the only way that everybody needs to believe the same.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.
It doesn't mean that all people have to become Roman Catholic. Or Baptist. Or Lutheran. Or whatever other man made religion you choose. Salvation is through faith in CHRIST, not faith in faith or a religion.
Again, how do you KNOW they're from heaven?
What kind of spiritual discernment do you have to determine that? I certainly haven't seen you post any authenication from the Catholic church concerning his prophecies or his role as a recognized prophet.
The titles given the son at Isa. 9:6 are quite fitting as Jesus was to act as a councelor and mighty god and father. As far back as Justin Martyr's time it was recognized that these titles applied to Christ did not make him THE Father or the one Almighty God.
Wrote Justin Martyr in his Dialog with Trypho:
“And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him”.
Is the Son the Father?
One of the great joys of the Christian religion is its simplicity so that the common man was attracted to it unlike the mystery religions of Pythagoras and other Greek philosophers.
Since Jesus went to great lengths to make sure his disciples understood what he taught by parables and examples of everyday life it seems odd that this so-called “central doctrine” has not a bit of explanation or discussion in the Scriptures.
” Jesus cannot be “a god” or even just “mighty god” and the Father Almighty God because Scripture uses those names for both the Father and the Son:”
John, in fact, calls Jesus “the only begotten god” at John 1:18.
Are you saying Jesus is the Father?
How does he receive these messages? Are they feelings? Impressions? Does he go into a trance? Hear voices in his head? Audibly?
What exactly is the mechanism by which these prophets you're so fond of receive their revelation and how do they discern the source, to verify they are not from the enemy?
Whose authority is he under and how does he hold himself accountable to avoid slipping into error?
Why should any one of us accept his so-called revelations?
John 14:8-118 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Met, also do note that this is the same kind of tripe that Quix would post...
Err.. stpio. I would like xone to become Catholic, but quoting this Kevin dude ain’t going to make that happen.
Quite frankly I've never understood the entire "Rapture" piece (the Harold Camping version, not the Blondie version -- the blondie version I get :) -- why get so obsessed about what's going to happen in the end-times? Be good, follow God and don't worry about tomorrow.
I also find these guys highly amusing, like Jerry Duplantis (youtube Jerry Duplantis visits heaven!) -- it's funny to watch....
Glad to hear the mangled text is not yours. But it is mangled nonetheless. The UBS has been on a bad trajectory for a long time . The NRSV is just one more manifestation that they ate abandoning verbal plenary inspiration as a cornerstone doctrine. Did you know that translation is one of the first new generation of politically correct bibles, where they are openly mistranslating male pronouns at every opportunity, just to avoid offending their liberal old line denominational pals?
As for john 1:3, what happened to you is the translators, after nearly two millennia, have finally decided to follow the Gnostic placement of the period. That moves the final ho gegonen to the beginning of the next sentence, which, BTW, renders verse 4 unintelligible, but hey, if you don’t believe every word is inspired, what’s a few garbled verses between friends.
It certainly didn’t bother the early gnostic editors who apparently were the first to recommend this punctuation. Chrysostom has happily recorded that it was recognized for the theologically motivated hack job it was as was rejected for that reason. I’d give you the quote but I’m tapping this out on my droid so maybe later.
As for firstborn, also need to do a longer response, but the short form is that there are two words in Greek that can be rendered as firstborn. One of these is constrained to our first in time notion in English, and this is used of Christ only in connection with his resurrection, not some alleged time of creation, which is good, because it prevents a contradiction with all those other passages which clearly make him eternal and uncreated. The other firstborn, when it is used of Christ and other subjects, again goes back to some form of primacy, but definitely not oriented toward first in time. More like first in authority, power, position of inheritance, etc.
Anyway, more later. Doing this with the droid is like boxing in a straightjacket. :)
Peace,
SR
I do recognize it. There are other FReeprs who post like trash as threads.
I don’t show them any mercy either.
I don’t accept as valid any pronouncements from self-proclaimed prophets.
God has told us all we need to know in Scripture. If people aren’t going to obey that, then what’s the point of giving them mormrevelation that they’re not going to obey either?
My opinion is that if it doesn’t line up with Scripture then it’s clearly from the enemy and not to be considered.
If it does line up with Scripture, it’s redundant and not needed. I am then suspect of the motivation of the person putting themselves forth as something special, that they’re doing it only for the attention.
Two words are “protokos”, #4416, and “monogenes”, #3439.
Protokos is used at Col. 1:15-18 twice and seems to include a ranking as to importance as Paul calls Christ the “firstborn” from the dead. Others were resurrected before him but like Lazarus they died later. Christ was resurrected to a life like none before him hence rank in importance and time.
Momogenes is used at John 1:18 to mean only one, “only begotten god”, so not quite the same.
“John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
In John 17:20-26 Jesus, in prayer, notes how he and his Father are one. It is in the way he prays for his followers to be one with Jesus. Father, Son, followers all in union as one.
Do you then think Jesus, the Son is saying he is God the Father at John 14:8-11?
And he most likely is. Only time will tell.
The problem I have with your prophetic posts is the apparent lack of any objective standard. Your posting history suggests you fancy yourself a seer of sorts and you have posted about membership in a yahoo seer group. It seems to me, anyway, that you put more stock in the self proclaimed prophet de jour than you do on Scripture and the Catechism. Do not be surprised when no one takes you or them very seriously.
Peace be with you
he stated Kevin was a false prophet...
“And he most likely is. Only time will tell.
The problem I have with your prophetic posts is the apparent lack of any objective standard. Your posting history suggests you fancy yourself a seer of sorts and you have posted about membership in a yahoo seer group. It seems to me, anyway, that you put more stock in the self proclaimed prophet de jour than you do on Scripture and the Catechism. Do not be surprised when no one takes you or them very seriously.”
~ ~ ~
I NEVER ever said I was a seer. I share the messages from Heaven, they are a help for the times which the Catechism states.
“Only time will tell”, why? There was nothing prophetic in the paragraph from the message. The words Jesus stated to Kevin have been believed for 2000 years by Catholics. Jesus is helping Protestants recognize their heresies are lies. The Remnant is Roman Catholic, it’s there in Scripture and Prophecy. Arguing over the Truth is useless, instead, non-Catholics should ask questions about Catholicism, let Catholics explain their misunderstandings and pray for a change of heart, asking God to help them believe the faith. He is going to show the world, every person on the earth very soon in the prophesied Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17).
Natural Law, I posted three Scripture verses to show “Faith Alone” is false so I am not ignoring Scripture, no response, Protestants wouldn’t touch them. That’s why I posted the message to Kevin Barrett.
There is a good part to the Net, remember, when the Word is preached world wide. Prophecy is God’s Word made explicit. There aren’t that many current present day prophets so why reject them?
I wish everyone would sign up for Yahoo Groups, to read Seers 2. It can’t hurt you. A direct link is http://www.catholicbinder.com/ The messages from Heaven confirm Scripture and the Catechism. Protestants should do the same, check the Protestant sites with their messages. Here is one. http://ft111.com/eagles.htm
blessings,
“Err.. stpio. I would like xone to become Catholic, but quoting this Kevin dude ain’t going to make that happen.”
~ ~ ~
True, I’ve learned. Protestants reading the thread never came against the message itself. How many days later...tee hee.
Which is decidedly NOT true that there has been no response. All anyone has to do is read through the thread to see that your challenge has been accepted and answered.
For my part, that is posts 182, 431, and 478.
Others can point to their own posts.
So whose interpretaton of the prophecies are we to accept?
What is this now?
No YOPIOS but YOPIOP?
How do you know that you’re interpreting it correctly? The Catholic church teaches against one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. How then, can one’s own personal interpretation of prophecy be acceptable?
Son, anyone claiming to receive direct communications from Jesus, especially in this kind of manner and form, and communicating it in such fashion usually winds up either drinking the koolaid or handing it out.
The only private revelation to be avoided, rejected, is private revelation CONDEMNED by the Church. Too bad, very sad rejecting prophecy, your own messengers. The time ahead is going to be confusing.
Negative. The only private revelation to avoided and rejected is that not accepted by the Church. The Church procedures are over a millennium old and guess what? they work. They just take time. The Church ponders because they wish to get it right.
Your yapping yahoo claims all kinds of revelation and communication from Christ. I put on hip waders and wandered into his swamp briefly. Enough to convince me.
I don't care what Protestants celebrate. I do care what the Church tells us is the Truth and the Faith. If you follow Barrett rather than the Catechism, what does say about your faith?
I defer to the RM on this one; there are more direct descriptors.
If you are truly Catholic, you would stand up for what was stated in that one prophetic paragraph, it was Catholic. Instead, you are following the Protestants, helping their rejection of the faith. Jesus rejects “Faith Alone” more than once and very simply.
Simply coinciding with a particular Catholic belief, but arriving at the justification of that belief in a manner forbidden by the Church is most certainly not Catholic. A stopped clock is correct twice per day, after all.
For one thing, the manner in which it was claimed to be obtained. We had an idiot on FR that posted as if he spoke for God as well for a while and was soundly and rightly lambasted for it. Your particular idiot appears to have a similar mindset.
In spite of our differences, we do agree on much.
It also appears that pio doesn’t consider you a Catholic either.
Try to imagine how much I care. :)
It’s ironic because at this point, I don’t consider him a Catholic either. There’s simply no solid evidence of such.
There is enough evidence presented to create a pretty solid impression.
...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.