Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $71,687
Woo hoo!! And now less than $13.4k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Pope Francis to General Audience: "We will all meet in Heaven"

    11/26/2014 8:28:32 PM PST · 56 of 57
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Yes I saw those comments from Fr. Longnecker. Interesting that whenever Pope Francis says something [controversial] , someone else tells us he means different.

    The interpreters need interpretation. "But this is not infallible teaching" is the cry. Yet that it held to make up a minority of RC teaching, though just what is and its meaning is subject to debate,

  • Pope Francis to General Audience: "We will all meet in Heaven"

    11/26/2014 8:23:34 PM PST · 55 of 57
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy
    Perhaps Cardinal Avery Dulles, one of the ten greatest Catholic intellectuals in American history, can explain it for us: Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given. -- concluding paragraph (formatting mine), from the thread Who Can Be Saved?. Article by Cardinal Avery Dulles

    Which interpretation is subject to interpretation by those in the church the settles the problem of too often having to engage in interpretation to know what it True.

  • Pope Francis to General Audience: "We will all meet in Heaven"

    11/26/2014 8:13:18 PM PST · 54 of 57
    daniel1212 to redleghunter; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Springfield Reformer; ...
    "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there." -Pope Francis

    Wow and here you and other RCs just two weeks ago cried havoc when Billy Graham stated his assurance of salvation based on Grace and not his works but Christ's work.

    Indeed, And is a source for said quote

    Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account ( of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

    “They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

  • Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

    11/26/2014 3:48:25 PM PST · 425 of 469
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    The trouble with writing off so much of Scripture as mere allegories, myths, legends or folk tales is that, with that kind of hermeneutic, NOTHING can be taken literally

    You mean like "Hath God said?" Then you have the demonic other extreme, in which someone will take something literal which was obviously (in the light of the rest of Scripture) figurative as denoting spiritual (as the "lamb" of God in Jn. 1, Lord referring to the temple in Jn 2, "born" in Jn. 3, "water" and "meat" in Jn. 4, and flesh and blood in Jn. 6, etc.)

  • Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

    11/24/2014 8:23:16 PM PST · 180 of 469
    daniel1212 to allendale; NYer; Resettozero; Boogieman; Alex Murphy; tiki; HereInTheHeartland; plain talk; ...
    This nonsense should not be confused as Catholic doctrine.

    Some disagree:

    No legitimate Catholic theologian, rational Catholic, or Church dogma accepts a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories. Fundamentalists are on their own.

    Indeed, like Luke which traces the genealogy of the Son of God (thru Mary it seems) back to Adam, and the Lord who invoked Gn. 2:24. And RC scholarship also relegates many historical accounts to being fables or folk tales, such as has been seen the RC NAB Bible commentary and foot notes for decades. The latter even on that of the Vatican today!

    I myself first became aware of the basic liberal bent in the NAB when reading the notes in the NAB, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction. The NAB has gone through revisions, but I have found the same O. T. footnotes in “The Catholic Study Bible,” Oxford University Press, 1990, which also has the proper stamps, and uses the 1970 O.T. text and the 1986 revised N.T. And a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds.

    The study aids therein teaches that, "The Bible is God’s word and man’s word. One must understand man’s word first in order to understand the word of God." ("A Library of Books," p. 19) and warns,

    You may hear interpreters of the Bible who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairly tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road.” (15. “How do you know”)

    However, they are clearly driving on the left.

    It “explains”, under “Literary Genres” (p. 19) that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

    It next states that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. After all, its understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.” What this means is that the NAB rejects such things as that the Bible's attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,

    Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)

    It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.” (8. “The Bible on God.”)

    The Preface to Genesis in my St. Joseph's 1970 NAB edition attributes it to many authors, rather than Moses as indicated in Dt. 31:24, and the footnote to Gn. 1:5 refers to the days of creation as a “highly artificial literal structure.”

    Even in the the current online NABRE, the The footnote ( to Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT. Likewise, the footnote to Ex. 10:19 ( regarding the Red Sea informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!

    Its (NABRE) footnote ( in regards to Gn. 6 and the sons of heaven having relations with the daughters of men explains it as apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are the celestial beings of mythology.”

    In addition, even the ages of the patriarchs after the flood are deemed to be “artificial and devoid of historical value.” (Genesis 11:10-26)

    All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.

    More .

  • "What in God's name is Pope Francis doing?"

    11/24/2014 6:16:24 PM PST · 59 of 76
    daniel1212 to Friendofgeorge
    Hey I dont want to fight with anybody...I read my Bible every night , sometimes/mostly in order, and mostly The New Testament , right now today am reading chapter 2 of the Gospel of John , I praise Jesus in songs, I/we sing The Lords prayer for starters...actually put on The Lords Prayer by Parry Como, best version ever, and sing along and to the Lord

    We sing a bunch of great praise songs to God,,,To God Be the Glory for the things He has done, By His Blood He has Saved me, By His Power he hath Raised me...

    Followed by Blessed be the name of the Lord, The Old Rugged Cross, Just as I am,Amazing Grace,What a Friend We have in Jesus, then we include 3 or 4 Christmas Hymns, mix it up a bit,

    The we pray for every child woman and man of the world, the orphans and the widows, the persecuted Christians, the people in jail, innocent and guilty, all the sick children and sick people, people in hospitals, old age homes, and people that have no home

    We pray for every creature under the sun, from the Dogs and cats in traps and cages, wildlife in traps and cages, any suffering creature under the sun.

    We pray for our family and leaders by name, we pray that NOBODY will die with out Christ.

    Prayer, Worship,scripture reading.. we memorize scripture etc etc

    Send away for 5000 little Bibles miniatures at a time, hand them out leave them in dr offices and grocery stores etc, they have great Scriptures in them along with a sinners prayer to ask Jesus into their life, thanking Jesus for dying on the cross for sins etc, the promise to repent and ask Jesus to be Lord and Savor

    more than anybody wanted to know.

    Popes with funny hats sainting people, shaking canisters etc, being addressed as your eminence, Father etc...not proper

    Also any minister from any Christian denomination, it`s really not proper to even be addressed as Reverend, it`s really Not...NO I DONT GO AROUND SAYING THAT, just throwing it out there.

    Wonderful! Praise God + Amen. What a contrast to the dead ritualism of Rome with her perfunctory professions or cultic devotion.

    May your tribe increase.

  • "What in God's name is Pope Francis doing?"

    11/24/2014 5:29:38 PM PST · 57 of 76
    daniel1212 to stig
    The Greek Orthodox Church believes in Apostolic succession. Supposedly their Bishops can trace their Apostolic lineage back to the Apostles. Where in the Roman Catholic Church the lineage has been lost to history and only assumed since only a Bishop may ordinate another Bishop.

    As with "unanimous consent of the fathers , "unbroken" is defined as allowing for no popes for years or even rival popes, while preservation even means the kind of church that RCs condemn many Prots for basically holding Rome became, necessitating the Reformation, while the deformation was actually deeper.

    Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

    "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

    Joseph Lortz,    German Roman Catholic theologian:

    The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution...”

    Cardinal Bellarmine:

     "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

    Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion: “What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” (The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare)

    Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy at the time of the Reformation: 

    Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

    In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III appointed Cardinals Contarini and Cafara and a commission to study church Reform. The report of this commission, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, was completed in March 1537.  The final paragraphs deal with the corruptions of Renaissance Rome itself:

    the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …” 

    The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.” (G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pp. 100,102)

    In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681]

    As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body .... These were not, I confess, new scandals: I should rather say that the barbarism and ignorance of preceding centuries, in some sort, concealed such vices; but,, on the subsequent revival of the light of learning, the spots which I have pointed out became more manifest, and as the unlearned who were corrupt could not endure the light through the pain which it caused to their eyes, so neither did the learned spare them, turning them to ridicule and delighting to expose their turpitude and to decry their superstitions.

    Bossuet* in the opening statements of his “Histoire des Variations,” admits the frightful corruptions of the Church for centuries before the Reformation; and he has been followed in our own times by Frederic von Schlegel [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.]

  • "What in God's name is Pope Francis doing?"

    11/24/2014 5:20:34 PM PST · 56 of 76
    daniel1212 to NeoCaveman; miss marmelstein; RoosterRedux; BipolarBob; Friendofgeorge; Popman

    Since you brought it up,

    It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323).

    Catholic Encyclopedia (

    During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, “Adv. haer.”, III, iv).

    The next five hundred years [after 1,000 AD] show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text. ( St. Gregory VII, “Epist.”, vii, xi).

    In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned....

    The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.

    Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index... (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)

    New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse, France (1229) and Terragona, Spain, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible...

    Pius IV (1499 -1565) required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.” (Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1887, page 82)


    Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors...

    Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books...(

    The most stringent censorship decree after the Reformation was the Papal bull “Inter Solicitudines,” issued by Pope Leo X, December 1516, which Leo X ordered censorship to be applied to all translations from Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Chaldaic into Latin, and from Latin into the vernacular... (Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550 [1967] 90).

    “When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History,

    The Douay–Rheims a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church.

    Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all,....

    or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God’s Word and honour or edification of the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

    and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church,..(

    The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:

    79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

    80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

    81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

    82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

    Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

    85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730, CLEMENT XII 1730-174,

    “A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted.” — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.

    More .

  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/24/2014 5:17:08 PM PST · 101 of 101
    daniel1212 to tired&retired
    Thank you for sharing the excellent scriptures... Yes, I mis-spoke when I made the statement and I offer my apologies. I think my last post should clarify what I meant to say... Allow me to add that I don’t just believe that Jesus is my Savior, I know for certain that Jesus is my Savior.

    Bless the Lord.

  • "What in God's name is Pope Francis doing?"

    11/24/2014 5:16:35 PM PST · 55 of 76
    daniel1212 to Friendofgeorge; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Peter did not wear a funny hat, my denomination is Christian

    That Peter did not wear a funny hat certainly has the weight of probability on its side, but cannot be proven, and far less can it be proven, among other things from Scriptures showing the life of the NT church,

    that NT pastors were distinctively titled "hierus=priests,"

    as their man function was a uniquely sacrificial one in offering the Eucharist as an atonement for sin,

    by which souls obtained spiritual life,

    and prayed to saints,

    and who looked to a supreme exalted infallible pope in Rome

    whose church possessed assured perpetual infallibility as the instruments and stewards of Scripture,

    which infallibility is essential to know which writings are of God.

  • "What in God's name is Pope Francis doing?"

    11/24/2014 5:11:08 PM PST · 54 of 76
    daniel1212 to St_Thomas_Aquinas; RoosterRedux
    Moreover, the Bible ALONE as the sole or ultimate rule of faith is not biblical. Period.

    Wrong as regard sole supreme ultimate rule of faith, by which oral truth claims were established. It is abundantly evidenced that as the word of God came to be put into writing, and that it usually is, then Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

  • Rick Warren at the Vatican: "We’re More Effective and Better Together Than We Are Apart"

    11/24/2014 4:53:29 PM PST · 53 of 94
    daniel1212 to piusv
    Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. Thus we have one of the many interpretations of Rome by a RC, while they censure Prots for doing to their supreme authority, and tell us we need a supreme head to settle matters,
  • Seal of confession is absolute, even after penitent dies, officials say

    11/24/2014 2:54:20 PM PST · 219 of 229
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan
    The Pope wasn’t hearing Ted’s confession and wasn’t called upon to give or deny Ted absolution. Ted wrote the Pope a letter for no discernible reason, and the Pope wrote back an inoffensive letter. Frankly, that's lame. You think "The Pope wasn’t hearing Ted’s confession" excuses the lack of censure while he had time to express appreciation for this dead man's prayers, etc. You think the only place for rebuke is when hearing confession? Its no wonder Teddy expressed not contrite confession.

    Rome gave him masses at his own house, and treated him as a son of the church, and what one does constitutes the evidence of what one really believes, so why should he think he really needed repentance, any more than his RC supporters do? Rome shows what she really believes by treating them as accepted members in life and in death, despite the interpretation of others .

  • Seal of confession is absolute, even after penitent dies, officials say

    11/24/2014 11:17:35 AM PST · 217 of 229
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; Elsie
    If I had been his confessor, I would have made a public repudiation of his public sins—support for abortion and other social evils—a condition of absolution.

    I just saw this thread, but want to say that your problem is that you were not his priest, and impenitent Ted even wrote to the pope and who wrote back, thanking him for his prayers and without any known word of censure. And as,

    "the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock... the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:

    then you are to do what RCs tell us to do, that of looking to Roman leadership for what the truth, which Scripture teaches it manifest by what one does. (Ja. 2:18) And which overall count and treat even prosodomy proabortion public figures as members in life and in death.

    Those (such as SSPX types) who interpret what the church teaches differently than they do are somewhat akin to Protestants in principal.

  • Seal of confession is absolute, even after penitent dies, officials say

    11/24/2014 6:11:32 AM PST · 216 of 229
    daniel1212 to NYer; Elsie; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    According to the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, conference participants heard that since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 spelled out the penalties in church law for violating the secret of the confessional, “the discipline of the church in this matter has remained substantially the same,” with the exception of additional protections.

    It also forbids

    No cleric may pronounce a sentence of death, or execute such a sentence, or be present at its execution

    "No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting." (CANON 18;

  • Thousands of ancient artifacts uncovered at awesome Mexican temple

    11/24/2014 5:43:03 AM PST · 43 of 48
    daniel1212 to Elsie; Tennessee Nana; Colofornian
    he uses the fraudulent Newark Stone and the fraudulent Bat Creek stone Hebrew inscriptions as proof of Hebrew among the Indians. He dismisses the claims of fraud as a Smithsonian conspiracy to demean the intelligence of the Native American... - -


  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/24/2014 3:51:51 AM PST · 95 of 101
    daniel1212 to tired&retired
    Jesus never told us to believe in Him. He told us to be “in Him.”

    Well that's a new difference without a distinction. Sounds like a way to start a new cult. For not only did He and the Spirit tell us to believe Him, in/into/on Him and His words - and condemned those who did not - but that is how to be in Him.

    For neither did his brethren believe in him. (John 7:5)

    Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1)

    That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:15-16)

    And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (Joh 11:26)

    While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. (John 12:36)

    But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat 18:6)

    For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (John 5:46)

    Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:29)

    He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

    Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (John 17:20)

    That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)

  • Thousands of ancient artifacts uncovered at awesome Mexican temple

    11/24/2014 2:16:35 AM PST · 35 of 48
    daniel1212 to Tennessee Nana
    Is that a flying curelom in the #8 pic ???

    As seen with "the eye of faith." But pray for them.

  • Thousands of ancient artifacts uncovered at awesome Mexican temple

    11/23/2014 7:00:50 PM PST · 26 of 48
    daniel1212 to familyop; Elsie; Tennessee Nana; Colofornian

    Actually, its the long lost evidence of the Mormonic 10 tribes of Israel with their vast S. America civilization. If you cannot see it, its because you are not squinting hard enough.

  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/23/2014 6:46:36 PM PST · 84 of 101
    daniel1212 to ScottfromNJ
    2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 is discussing unbelievers

    But your post was countering the statement that "Sin is anything that seperates you from God" which was in response to "What is "Sin"?, and you make no distinction btwn believers and the lost,

    Believers because they believe are in Christ, and thus follow Him and repent when convicted that they did not in some way. God also exhorts to continue in the confidence, and warns against departing from the faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26,38; Gal. 5:1-4) by which faith ye are saved, and works to bring them to repentance if need be, lest they be condemned with the world.(1Cor. 11:32)

    Thanks be to God.

  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/23/2014 6:33:58 PM PST · 83 of 101
    daniel1212 to Slambat
    I was being sarcastic anyway.

    Got it.

  • Why It Is Unethical for SOME Freepers to Argue Against Illegals Getting Free Benefits from Obama

    11/23/2014 5:40:59 PM PST · 82 of 82
    daniel1212 to xzins
    I am. I’ve tried to go to some sites and they are so slowed down by their ads, and so cluttered with their ads, that it’s a bad experience. Breitbart is so bad that it locks this computer up more than half the time I go there, and this computer is only about a year and a half old. Also, advertisers try to manipulate the views and voice of those who host their ads. They think: “Get them dependent on your money and you can change who they are.”

    Indeed. We do not appreciate this. And so i was glad to be able to help a bit by God's grace.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/23/2014 6:43:05 AM PST · 92 of 92
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; Petrosius; roamer_1; BlueDragon
    Here Augustine, using John 6 as an example, recognizes that asking someone to eat literal human flesh and drink literal human blood appears to be inciting a "crime or vice," and therefore must be seen as a figure, because God would not encourage us to commit crime or surrender to vice.

    True, and the metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is the only one that is wholly consistent with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular.

    And to be consistent with the "verily, verily" unequivocal imperative of Jn. 6:53: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," RCs must exclude from salvation all who reject the literalistic view.

    Yet nowhere is spiritual life obtained by eating anything, and only in paganism by consuming human flesh, such as shown here.

    Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

    For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

    More examples would be when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

    And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    • In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    • In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

    • In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    • In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    • In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

    • In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    • In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    • In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    More on John by God's grace.

  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/23/2014 6:06:22 AM PST · 26 of 101
    daniel1212 to MosesKnows
    Nothing a person does can separate him from God.


    Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:1-2)

    God may hate the sin but God will forever love the sinner.


    And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10)

    Church is not a rest home for saints. Church is a hospital for sinners.

    But with the goal of making it being a holy temple unto the Lord.

    That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:27)

    Thus those overtaken in a fault are to be restored, yet impenitent manifest sinners are to be shunned.

    Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

    For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

    Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, (Hebrews 12:1)

    That's what i need to do daily.

    Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

    But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

  • What is "Sin"? (Vanity)

    11/23/2014 5:54:25 AM PST · 20 of 101
    daniel1212 to Slambat; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    “What is “Sin”?” Anything I disagree with.

    By itself, that is moral anarchy, every man doing what he feels or reasons is right in his own eyes, with not supreme standard to hold him to, even if somewhat interpretive.

    How would you feel if or when your children act according to your basis for morality?

    Granted that is that supreme moral standard is deficient or can be reasonably shown to be wrong than dissent would be justified, but it is not even practical to have no supreme moral standard to work from.

    And which I hold is the Bible, understood in the light of Christ.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/22/2014 9:23:30 PM PST · 90 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; Springfield Reformer
    With all this being said I hope you can understand the Catholic position and that we can agree that the Catholic use of the term "priest", however inaccurate you think it may be, is not a false attempt to impose the concept of hiereus on the office of presbuteros but is drawn from our understanding of the Catholic priesthood as a continuation of the biblical presbuteros.

    I appreciate your civility in this discussion, but while i concur that the English word "priest" as coming from preost was a valid if it only was used for presbuteros, distinctive of hiereus, yet since priest is the word which came to used for the Jewish hiereus, then it is wrong to use it for NT presbuteros, as it ignores the distinction made in the Greek by never titling "presbuteros" "hiereus."

    I would view the desire to impose "elder" as the proper translation of presbuteros as an dishonest attempt to deny the continuation of the office of presbuteros in today's Catholic priest.

    But presbuteros actually means senior/elder, and it is God which made the distinction in terms. Jewish elders (zâqên, from old) as a body existed before the Levitical priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and while Levitical priests (kôhên) can also be elders, simply being an elder did not make one a Levitical priest, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

    The fact that the Holy Spirt never used the hiereus for presbuteros means that He is the one denying the continuation of the office of presbuteros as meaning hiereus, as a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, and presbuteros are never shown or described as engaging in a unique sacrificial function, or even offering the Eucharist as their primary function.

    In fact, they are never shown doing so or manifestly instructed to do so in any of the duties listed that are interpretive of the gospels, but breaking break is described as something all are to do, showing/declaring the Lord's death by sharing food with each other in that communal meal, recognizing each other as members of the body of Christ which the Lord purchased with His own sinless shed blood.

    As shown in this post on 1Cor. 11:19-34, the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the church.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/21/2014 6:50:46 PM PST · 83 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; Faith Presses On; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; Godzilla; roamer_1
    We are speaking of the English word "priest" not the Greek hiereus. I never said that hiereus was used to describe presbuteros. Old English actually had two words preost, which was used only for presbuteros, and sacerd, which was used for hiereus. Preost survived into Modern English as "priest". Sacerd did not survive and its lack was made up by giving "priest" an additional meaning for it.

    Thank you very much for the clarification. Now i understand where you are coming from. Please forgive undue offense.

    Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros -

    Yet it remains that using the distinctive term which came to be used for hiereus to title presbyteros is wrong. Rather than making hiereus/sacerdos (offerer of sacrifices," from sacer "holy") equate to presbyteros/preost (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does), the distinction should have been maintained, as in the KJV.

    So my complaint is not only that "priest" is an inaccurate translation of hiereus/sacerdos , but that it was used as the title for presbuteros instead of elder/overseer.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/21/2014 6:13:55 PM PST · 82 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    But a hiereus is not a presbuteros so your complaint should be that "priest" is an inaccurate translation of hiereus.

    Wrong, as presbuteros are not given the title of the hiereus of Jupiter. There is no validity for using any distinctive title for hiereus and making it the same for presbuteros. If you do not like "priest" then find another one, but do not make that the title for presbuteros, as the Spirit never uses hiereus for presbuteros. That effectively is RCs complaint. .

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/21/2014 5:56:06 PM PST · 81 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    her imposed meaning of presbuteros being a separate class of clergy whose primary function was that of offering sacrifices as priests (Latin sacerdos) is behind the English using priest for presbuteros.

    Again, you have it backwards. It was the function of the presbuteros in offering the sacrifice of the Mass that is behind the English using "priest" for hiereus.

    Rome erroneous began regarding presbuteros primarily as priests, based upon imposed functional equivalence, and the same title followed, contrary to the choice of distinctive terms the Holy used, and how He describes and reveals NT pastors.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/20/2014 8:11:29 PM PST · 72 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    It is not an assumption but an historical fact that the word "priest" was originally used to describe the office of presbuteros and has been in constant use as such since before the 12th century.

    That is a blatant fallacy as concerns Scripture, which is what we are dealing with as the standard. The distinctive word for "priest," “hiereus,” was never originally used to describe one who sat in office of presbuteros in the NT church.

    Which ought to tell you something, and a distinction that the Spirit made that ought to be respected!

    Only Jewish and pagan ministers are titled hiereus, as well as all the believers, as there is not distinctive sacrificial function for the office of presbuteros.

    I am relying on its original and continual meaning.

    No you are not, as if the original meaning of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) meant hiereus, then the Spirit would have it at least once as a title for them.

    Instead, you are depending upon a later belief that developed, that of the Lord's supper as a sacrificial atonement, the offering of which became the primary function of pastors.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/20/2014 7:38:33 PM PST · 68 of 92
    daniel1212 to BlueDragon
    please forgive me for jumping in here, for my own interjection at this juncture may render portion of either of your own possible further comments or rebuttal partially repetitious.

    No, thanks for stating the obvious.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/20/2014 7:38:25 PM PST · 67 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon
    You have it backwards. The word "priest" came into existence in English as the equivalent to presbuteros not hiereus. It was the lack of an English equivalent to hiereus that caused "priest" to be used also for hiereus.

    Which was because presbuteros became to be titled "priests" before there even was an English translational.

    I will admit that this was helped by the identification of the sacrificial role of the presbuteros with that of the hiereus.

    But NT pastors are not manifest as having a uniquely sacrificial function.

    But what you should then be complaining about is the use of "priest" for non-Christian sacrificial ministers rather than its use for presbuteros which was its original use.

    Not so as the Holy Spirit even calls pagan sacrificial ministers "hiereus:"

    Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. (Act 14:13)

    We should never complain about what the Spirit chooses for words, nor change the distinction He can make by them. And hiereus was NEVER used for presbuteros in the NT!

    And as all believers engage in offering sacrifice, even their own bodies. (Rm. 12:1) then it is the Holy Spirit who calls them hierateuma = priesthood, which is the only one in the NT church, versus a separate sacerdotal class.

    The Catholic understanding of the office of priest was not determined by the usage in English.

    Exactly, but her imposed meaning of presbuteros being a separate class of clergy whose primary function was that of offering sacrifices as priests (Latin sacerdos) is behind the English using priest for presbuteros.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/19/2014 2:44:45 PM PST · 54 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; Godzilla; roamer_1
    You misunderstood the meaning of my post. You correctly point out the difference between presbuteros and heireus. This distinction is kept in Latin with presbyter and sacerdos. English, however, has failed to maintain two separate words. The English word "priest" can refer to either the sacrificial office of hiereus or the New Testament office of presbuteros. This is why in these discussions I like to stay with the Greek terms.

    Then stay with the Greek, rather than defining presbuteros by what is morphed into! In reality, RCs do not want to stay with the Greek, but want to define it by what it came to denote due to imposed equivalence, not what it originally meant, which made distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros. .

    . But there was in the New Testament the offices of epsicopos, presbuteros and deaconos. This second office continues today and in English is call "priest", a word which is indeed derived from the original Greek term for the office.

    It indeed was derived, via Latin, yet even a Catholic forum will tell you that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” -;wap2z

    Instead presbuteros became priest under the premise that the primary function of NT pastors was that of engaging in the "sacrifice" of the mass, an imposed functional equivalence that the Holy Spirit did not make by ever titling presbuteros/epsicopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) hiereus,

    And having presumed to help the Holy Spirit (again), RCs defend it by or and in a un etymological fallacy "that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.."

    Dues is speaking here of the use of the term heireus/sacerdos not the English term "priest" thus it does not apply to the use of the word in English for the office of presbuteros.

    Of course it applies, as the presumed primary sacrificial function denotes priests is behind a distinctive class of clergy being titled that. Yet for NT pastors it is prayer and preaching the word, (Acts 6:3) which they are abundantly shown doing and instructed to do, and never even shown officiating a the Lord's supper in bread making and dispensing. All the believers were to told to to share food, showing the Lord's death by that communal meal, as described here .

    . As for his claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century he is just wrong: ]

    He did not even say claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century, but that "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity," and " When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension."By the third century bishops were considered priests."

    Thus he says by the 200 AD+ period, and as , even praise is a sacrifice ,Dues may be referring to a more widespread understanding of the Eucharist as an atonement for sin, offered by priests, as per Hebrews 5:1 regarding OT priestly duty, , "that he [the HP] may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.' (Hebrews 5:1) In any case, that the Lord's supper is an sacrifice for sin, versus declaring it, is not what it is manifest to be in the NT., which is the unchanging standard regardless of the varied and changeable misunderstandings of pious men.


    Came across this but have not read it all , and though you might want to:

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/19/2014 1:03:29 AM PST · 47 of 92
    daniel1212 to MamaB
    Thanks. You teach me every day.

    We all have much to learn.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/19/2014 1:00:31 AM PST · 46 of 92
    daniel1212 to redleghunter; Gamecock; CynicalBear; metmom; boatbums; MamaB; Elsie
    So we can conclude the Vatican book store must have missed a few shipments of the Latin Vulgate.


    Hi, guys — Does a priest study the whole Bible in seminary?

    Dear Santina,

    Thank you for your question. You hit on one of my pet peeves.

    Unfortunately, priests don't study the whole Bible in seminary. In fact, they come no where near studying enough Scripture. They do study several years of theology and philosophy. The Theology classes will have some Scripture, as will the courses on the Church Fathers. They are lucky if, over their 4 or 5 years in seminary, they get about five courses on Scripture. To make matters worse, those courses are usually not about what the text actually means, rather they are courses based on the Historical Critical Method of exegesis. In other words, they waste too much time trying to figure out who wrote a certain book or reconstructing history from the text.

    It's a very sad state of affairs. The Historical Critical Method is a useful tool, but studying the method, does not replace studying the Bible. Unfortunately, most of priests are biblically illiterate for all intents and purposes. This, of course, explains the doctrinally insipid and uninspiring slop they serve every Sundays from the pulpit.

    To put it more bluntly, the average Catholic priest in America today would look for Zephania on the spice rack before he realized it wasn't an ingredient for tomato sauce, but the ninth of twelve minor prophets, who probably wrote in the 7th century B.C.

  • Sources of the Protestant Devolution

    11/18/2014 9:30:06 PM PST · 450 of 450
    daniel1212 to Syncro; Salvation
    Your response: What protestant martyrs in the years 68-100?

    Rather, the question is, What RC martyrs in the years 68-100?

    Go find any in Scripture who manifestly believed the things here that are not seen, then read scholars who testify against past RC historical propaganda.

    Bless God for light.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/18/2014 8:58:12 PM PST · 45 of 92
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Gamecock
    Does this individual go to Heaven or Hell? Catholic teaching says one has lost salvation if committing these sins without confession and forgiveness of the priest.

    What Rome officially says versus what she effectually conveys - which evidences what she really believes - are two different things.

    By treating even proabortion, prosodomite, promuslim pols and supporters as members in life and in death, she shows what she really believes in part, (Ja. 2:18) and the laity, who look to for the meaning of what is preached by how the preachers translate it into action, get the message. As "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led,, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS) so it seems most follow their overall interpretation.

    Trad. RCs end up being somewhat akin to Protest-ants in dissenting from this, as they engage in interpreting teachings (in their case printed church teaching, often ancient) different than Rome most manifestly does in modern tradition, and thus are a sect.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/18/2014 8:46:22 PM PST · 42 of 92
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
    In the Church as Jesus founded it, were the leaders called priests, and were they either required or forbidden to marry?

    The first question is clearly no. Go search “hiereus” or “archiereus” and see if it is ever used for NT pastors, or if they engage in a uniquely sacerdotal function in changing bread. It's not there, only Catholic extrapolation and argumentation. See one response here .

    and were they either required or forbidden to marry?

    Of course, not, as instead, being married was the norm, (1Tim. 3:1-7) with celibacy having its commendation but as being gift. (1Cor. 7:7) Even all the apostles were married but two traveling missionaries.

    To require clerical celibacy of almost all (and if the wife of converted clergy dies they cannot marry again) presumes almost all have that gift, which is contrary to Scripture and is asking for trouble.

    But Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, not matter how much RCs attempt to wrest support from it for her traditions of men, nor is the weight of its warrant the basis for the veracity of her teachings, but which rest upon the presumed veracity of Rome.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/18/2014 8:13:41 PM PST · 39 of 92
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; Faith Presses On; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, thus the Church possesses the authority to regulate its internal life.

    But how much would you agree with Dollinger's critical summation:

    “The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast...No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations, by MacDougall, pp. 119 120)

    For this to be operative there must be a recognized and visible leadership in the Church with the authority to do so. This only exists in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. You cannot point to any Protestant church since their first leaders were removed as heretics.

    But which premise of an supreme perpetual infallible magisterium must be based upon certain presuppositions. It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination, transmission, preservation and assurance of Truth (including which writings and men being of God).

    And to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And thus that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus of course, those whom it rejects as heretics have no authority.

    Maybe your reasoning is different, but this mainly what i see.

  • From Jesuit to Jesus

    11/18/2014 8:01:31 PM PST · 38 of 92
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
    The Apostles themselves would establish the offices of presbuteroi (from which the English term “priest” is derived)


    Does presbyter or elder mean priest?

    In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

    Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos, the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. It is also understood that even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”

    The Catholic titular use of hiereus/priest for presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence.

    Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its original or historical meaning.

    However, the idea of the NT being a distintive class titled "priests" was a later development.

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

    "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (

    And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." (

    In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

    No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

    Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

    To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (

    Thus despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life.

    However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground as an ofering unto the Lord, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17)

    And in contrast to Catholicism in which the Lord's Supper is the "source and summit" of the Chirstian faith, in which "our redemption is accomplished," nowhere is literally eating anything physical the means of this, nor is any NT pastor shown even dispensing bread as part of their ordained function.

    Nor is the church shown making this Catholic eucharist an atonement for sin and the practice around which all else revolves, and instead the only teaching in Acts and onward (which interprets the gospels) that manifestly describes the Lord's supper to any real extent is that of 1 Cor. 11:20-34, and in which the church is the body of Christ, which is to show (declare, proclaim) the Lord's death by how they take part in the communal "feast of charity," (cf. Jude. 1:12) showing their unity with Him and each other with unselfish love, which Christ supremely showed in purchasing the church with His sinless shed blood. (cf. Acts 20:28)

    Thus the nature of the elements was not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, and the sin of some was not effectualy recognizing others as part of that body for whom Christ died. (See here).

    And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, the primary work of NT pastors is to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)

    And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)

    Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by it is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 9:13:47 PM PST · 90 of 145
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    Their lack of ability to express themselves in proper theological terms should not be taken for a lack of the love of God that is in their hearts.

    I am not referring to the speechless, but the typical RC apathy or antagonism (if you are a Prot.) to talk about Christ working in one's life, and conversion, what you see in the Bible, etc.

    . I would suggest that you read some of the lives and writings of the saints to learn how deep the faith of Catholics can be

    Which is often the other side of apathy. Cultic devotion to a church, Mary and even advocating torture of former RCs, etc.

    It is a shame that there are some Protestants who, unable to dispute the truth of the Catholic faith, resort to personal attacks and belittling the commitment of their fellow Christians.

    And where can you show that i was or am unable to dispute the truth of the Catholic faith? Go search. It is RCs who have resorted to personal attacks of me when the spurious nature of their polemic was exposed, by God's grace. It is a shame you must resort to this here.

  • "Have you been saved?”

    11/17/2014 9:03:03 PM PST · 75 of 199
    daniel1212 to redleghunter; NYer; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Justification must be freely accepted by the human person (free will) Justification presupposes man’s free act of will to accept and cooperate with this grace...CCC 2002 – 2004]

    Except that even then it is not, but a morally incognizant infant (typically), or even a comatose person, becomes formally justified by his own holiness via sprinkling of water, possible even by a Prot.

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 7:53:10 PM PST · 52 of 145
    daniel1212 to Biggirl; CynicalBear
    Using scripture by one Christian to bash other Christians which include Catholics.

    And you think RCs do not bash Prots with (wrested) Scripture?

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 7:50:55 PM PST · 49 of 145
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    +1 I used to be exactly like them.

    Which changes when they are truly born again, while the deadness of Rome should be a deterrent, which it partly seems to be,

    Overall, one-in-ten American adults (10.1%) have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised something other than Catholic...

    Among former Catholics who are now Protestant, 71% say they left Catholicism because their spiritual needs were not being met, making this the most commonly cited reason for leaving the Catholic Church among this group...lack of spiritual fulfillment is a particularly common impetus for leaving Catholicism among those who are now members of evangelical Protestant churches (78%) but is cited less often by former Catholics who have become members of mainline Protestant churches (57%).-

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 6:49:15 PM PST · 45 of 145
    daniel1212 to Gamecock
    Just out of curiosity did you find the article too long?

    Actually, for now. It could be done in an edited version.

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 6:33:38 PM PST · 44 of 145
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    All faithful Catholics do. They do it by following the teachings handed down to the Apostles by Jesus Christ and preserved in the church he established. You are welcomed to entrust yourself to Jesus Christ at any time by becoming Catholic rather than follow the traditions of men as a Protestant.

    Wrong, though i wish it was not so. After being raised devout RC, and spending over 60 years in a heavenly RC area, and becoming born again while being a weekly RC, and remaining therein for 6 years as an active participant, and having talked to many hundreds of them about Christ, I must say very few RCs become born again, as i did at age 25,and realized its profound changes in heart and life, praise the Lord (not as if I am all what i should be in heart and deed, and do not know chastisement).

    RC Professor and author Peter Kreeft stated,

    Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

    And as a poster on Catholic Answers sums up his faith, if not that of all RCs,

    I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... —

    Another writes,.

    My 13 year old son's friend (a baptist and Great kid) attends a church with incredible youth involvement and activities designed to keep the young people "ALIVE WITH THE FAITH" and IT WORKS!!!! Tons of pressure on my son because our parish is "flatlined" when it comes to youth. As a side note to this, I allowed him to attend one evening program at his friends church and when he came home, he was excited about what he read in the bible and what it meant in his life (he NEVER once had to bring a bible with him to religious ed. nor did they ever read from scripture) (

    For instead of having a Biblical "day of salvation," when they cognitively come to Christ as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and personally trust Him to save them on His blood and merit, RCs imagine being sprinkled an infant makes them a Christian, making them good enough ("infused charity") to enter Heaven. And thus (because they do not maintain that state) their salvation process ends with becoming good enough once again (and atoning for sin). Thus they have some confidence in ones own merit and that of the church for salvation, along with some kind of hope in an ambiguous idea of Divine mercy.

    I had basically and prayerfully switched from going to my local RC church for an evangelical one because of lack of fellowship. Due to what happened to me I tried often to talk to people about the Lord and things of the Bible i was learning (i was naive, but not very bold), but rare was a person that was even interested, and most did not want to. I went to RC charismatic meetings which were better, but the hierarchy handicapped them.

    And the sermons were quite dull, though i tried others churches (a charismatic priest was better), but it was evangelical radio that fed my very hungry soul, and preached of Biblical conversions that changed me. And then i would meet evangelicals with whom, as now, seeing that i am a Christian thru what i did (maybe a gospel tract) or did, we have a spontaneous instant basic bond, an opening and kinship of hearts, due to a shared conversion and relationship with the Lord. Who, and His life, is the basis for our fellowship of the Spirit. They may be Baptist, Calvary Chapel, or Pentecostal, but that is peripheral. Christ saved them and He is their direct focus.

    With some this is deeper, and there are some who are just religious, and others are fringe, and some are a real trial(!), but i can go to anywhere that there are born again Christians and experience this unique kinship, due them having been drawn and convicted of God, and obeying the gospel of salvation, or repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, versus mere assent in a ritual.

    And such are often found working together in many Christian ministries, and as stats show , these are far more unified in conservative basic values and core beliefs than Catholics. Certainly, as with RCs, there are things we can differ on quite quickly, though RCs are less likely to make these a topic, but the focus is on Christ, not a church, as they were manifestly born again by an encounter with Him, and who is their security.

    But in stark contrast, a church is what RCs preach and promote and defend as if it is their salvation and security, and indeed, that is basically what they tell us. Their church that is, and some even hold an unbeliever is not rejecting Christ by rejecting a Protestant preaching such a message as Acts 10:36-43!

    But as evangelicals have historically contended for core Truth we both concur with due to their Scriptural warrant, so they also contend against cults, and traditions of men, both of which many RCs have become like and hold to. Sadly.

  • From Bondage to Freedom (From Rome to Christianity)

    11/17/2014 4:42:44 PM PST · 43 of 145
    daniel1212 to metmom; Salvation
    Too long to read???????? From someone whose home page is FILLED with links to Catholic sites? Who posts daily mass readings which are longer by far than this thread’s article? For real????????? ..


  • How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? [vanity]

    11/16/2014 8:31:36 PM PST · 549 of 634
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    I love that when threads like this are opened with the blatant intention to bash "Protestants" - and, supposedly, ALL non-Catholic Christians are - and exalt the Roman Catholic church, it gets turned into a rebuttal filled with the truth of God's word and the clear message of the Gospel of the grace of God who gives to us eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. I guess we CAN say "thanks Catholics". ☺

    Thank God, again.

  • Catholics Turning to Protestant Churches in Latin America to Find Relationship With God: Pew Survey

    11/16/2014 8:30:53 PM PST · 107 of 107
    daniel1212 to impimp
    Don’t parrot ignorant tortured logic claiming that James appeared to be pope. Is the number of biblical references to Peter (and Jesus’ commissioning of him) 20 times that of references to James?

    No, James was not pope, as we know:) based on how many times one is mentioned and how much he is used then Paul was pope ! But seriously...

  • US scientists may have resolved 'Darwin's dilemma'

    11/16/2014 1:20:35 PM PST · 109 of 270
    daniel1212 to aimhigh; Godzilla; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon
    One, by scientists at Yale and the Georgia Institute of Technology, suggests that oxygen levels may have been . . The air may only have been . . . . oxygen burst may have come from . . . Yea, that's science . . .

    It called the art of extrapolation, from dust to an incredbily complex universe, and all by chance and circumstances, while intelligent design is rejected as science.