Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/18/2014 8:24:20 PM PST · 2,039 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    There is so much stuff written by catholics they cannot keep it straight.

    What things?

    And yet as evidenced here, they claim their teachings have never changed. Baloney!

    More accurately, as with “stipulatedunanimous consent of the fathers, she defines what change means. Thus the trad RC sects,

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 8:19:34 PM PST · 98 of 101
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; Alex Murphy; metmom; BlueDragon; redleghunter; CynicalBear
    There is indeed such a class of clergy since the office of presbyter still exists and is commonly known as "priest."

    No matter how much you want to repeat it, the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - mean "priest."

    Granted but the problem is not that priest is used for presbuteros but that it is used for hiereus.

    Indeed. Thus the rebuke of its use for presbuteros is valid.

    No, this introduces a new problem in that it disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter.

    No, as that is Rome's problem with the Holy Spirit, as it is He who unlike Rome, never uses the distinctive title given to OT and pagan hiereus for presbuteros, nor describes the latter as engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function, or as offering bread and wine as their primary one.

    Thus it is God which disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter. Best not to argue with the Holy Spirit's choice of words by making His distinctions of none effect by using the same word for OT and pagan priests as NT presbuteros. But such befits her autocratic arrogance.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 8:09:08 PM PST · 96 of 101
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    Established by whom? By the church established by Jesus Christ and governed by the apostles and their successors, the bishops. Do not try to avoid this truth by speaking in the passive voice.

    Did you actually read all of what i wrote? The church did not establish itself upon its own authority, while its Scriptural basis was due to men discerning writings as being of God long before a church of Rome would presume it was essential for this.

    And if most of what it in the Bible was established (if not universally) as being of God before Rome, then certainly the rest could follow.

    Meanwhile it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to issue an infallible/indisputable complete canon. Do not try to avoid this truth by speaking in the propagandist voice.

    Is your argument that if we agree with Rome about the NT canon then we should assent to her in all else?

    It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 5:07:42 PM PST · 78 of 101
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Have we got to the knockdown; dragout stuff yet?

    Extra innings.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 5:02:35 PM PST · 77 of 101
    daniel1212 to Petrosius
    You also err in thinking that the ministries of the church are based on Scripture. No, the offices of episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi were established prior to the completion of the New Testament and are not derived from it. This is a major misunderstanding of those who would advance sola scriptura. These offices were established by the authority of the church herself, an authority attested to by the Scriptures and which continues to exist.

    Wrong: The church did not begin based upon its own authority, which is a major misunderstanding of those who would advance sola ecclesia, but which common people following an itinerant Preacher and preachers who established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power.. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    While both men and writings of God are what they are regardless of the affirmation of men, yet they were established as being of God due to their heavenly qualities and affirmation.

    God first provided express Divine revelation in a very limited extent to a few souls, manifesting His leaders as being of God via supernatural attestation and virtue. Thus men heeded Moses (if inconsistently). But as written, it is abundantly evidenced that 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 conflative complimentary writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus in principal they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    Some of what was written was first expressed in oral tradition, and God today can provide private revelation (which most every SS preacher hopes for during the offering), but all is subject to testing by the assured word of God, the Scriptures, which tell is, "prove all things."

    Scripture alone is the supreme standard, and sufficient in its formal (limited) and material aspects, and upon the weight of scriptural substantiation the believer can have strong assurance.

    In contrast, RCs presume a novel assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to correctly determine what is of God, words and men, and it is upon the basis of this presumed assured veracity that the faithful RC has his assurance. Thus RCs are discouraged from objectively searching the Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of what is preached, For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 4:44:10 PM PST · 76 of 101
    daniel1212 to Petrosius; stonehouse01; WVKayaker; mrobisr; Mr Rogers
    Since priest = presbuteros there are indeed priests in the New Testament church.

    Since the distinctive word for OT sacerdotal clergy, “hiereus" - which NT presbuteros (senior/elder) never were titled - wrongly became "priest," there is indeed no class of clergy properly distinctively titled "priests.

    "Priest" could be used if it kept the distinction btwn presbuteros and hiereus, which sacerd and preost orignallyl did, but in English it does not. Taking hiereus which is distinctively used for a distinctive class of OT clergy and translating it into a word used for both hiereus and presbuteros is the problem. The KJV correctly uses "elder" for presbuteros as that is what it originally meant.

    One could take another word distinctively used for one office and translated it into a term which is then used for two offices but which the original languages used distinctive words for, and then claim they both had the same title. And which done due to imposed functional equivalence. But that would be something more fitting for a cult.

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 2:36:32 PM PST · 65 of 101
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    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) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do 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.

    What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

    Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), 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) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people. 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.”

    All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    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 [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

    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. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

    The Catholic titular use of hiereus/priest for presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" from old English "preost" etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    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 or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, due to imposed functional equivalence, 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.

    But instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "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 distinctively identifying Christian clergy with the same distinctive title used for the Jewish sacerdotal clergy (priests) rather than the term the Holy Spirit calls these pastors (presbyters/elders) is unscriptural and functionally unwarranted.

    Nor is the church shown making this Catholic eucharist an atonement for sin and the practice around which all else revolves as in Catholicism, and instead the only teaching in Acts and onward (which interprets the gospels) that manifestly describes the supper to any real extent is that of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, and in which the church is the body of Christ, which is to "show (declare, proclaim) the Lord's death" for the church by treating each other as members of that body which in unity with Him, in communally taking part in the "feast of charity," (cf. Jude. 1:12) unselfishly sharing bread and the blood of grapes (preferably) with each other, which Christ supremely showed in purchasing the church with His sinless shed blood. (cf. Acts 20:28)

  • For Advent: Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?

    12/18/2014 2:35:41 PM PST · 64 of 101
    daniel1212 to Salvation; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."

    Do you get an indulgence for this? As true to form, after having just once again clearly refuted a standard RC polemic, which no one countered, another RC proceeds to post an article of the same propaganda. Which results in it being refuted again for all the world to see. Which is good as the propaganda mill that is the source of this article would not allow it.

  • Reverend: giving women “right to abortion” is a “compassionate stand”

    12/18/2014 2:14:13 AM PST · 26 of 33
    daniel1212 to jonrick46; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    It seems as if this minister received her theological degree without reading one word from the Bible. A diploma mill comes to mind. For further reading on these phony diploma mills, go here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2794-name-it-and-frame-it-phony-doctorates-in-the-church

    Revealing article, Thanks.

  • Reverend: giving women “right to abortion” is a “compassionate stand”

    12/18/2014 2:14:11 AM PST · 25 of 33
    daniel1212 to jonrick46; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    It seems as if this minister received her theological degree without reading one word from the Bible. A diploma mill comes to mind. For further reading on these phony diploma mills, go here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2794-name-it-and-frame-it-phony-doctorates-in-the-church

    Revealing article, Thanks.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/18/2014 1:47:35 AM PST · 2,456 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to boatbums

    As if RCs do not have disagreements also, which even getting the magisterium involved does not settled.One example

    Congregatio de Auxiliis: Catholic theology holds on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man’s consent and that action takes place; on the other hand that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two -the infallible result and liberty- be harmonized?

    Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope’s decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See.

    That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century, although it was widely circumvented by the means of explicit commentaries of Thomas Aquinas. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis

    Maybe Catholic Answers will settle it.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/17/2014 8:20:36 PM PST · 2,449 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; metmom; boatbums
    Should ? I understood you just ordered me, as if it were a rule. I have checked the rules before so as not to break them in ignorance. Why could I not find this rule in the Code ? As God is our witness, I only post the KJV.

    I have noticed that it is RCs who typically give the RMs the most resistance when told to do something the RM judges is wrong or is reasonable, and this certainly is the latter at least. But like father, like son.

    It is true that the Bible did not always have chapter and verses*, but in ancient times there were no house numbers either, but both are great helps and it is very reasonable to supply them, which you have been recalcitrant is refusing request to do so even before the RM stepped in.

    If you want people to learn then you would give the address to what you are quoting, while to paste even public domain material without attribution is not a good practice to be encouraged.

    As God is our witness, I only post the KJV.

    But why would you post a translation Rome at one time forbid, and your bishops still do not approve of? Do you like it more than your approved NAB? Or is it the copyright issue? If doing so in condescension to Prots, then it is inconsistent to not provide the addresses.

    *Stephen Cardinal Langton (c. 1150 – 9 July 1228), an Archbishop of Canterbury, is credited with having divided the Bible into the standard modern arrangement of books and chapters used today.

    Frenchman Robert Estienne (1503-1559), also referred to as Robert Stephens, a Catholic who became a Protestant late in his life, is credited with being the first to print the Bible divided into standard numbered verses.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/17/2014 7:54:27 PM PST · 2,447 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    What? Doesn't the RM know Rome is a law unto herself? Kind of filters down.
  • US TO START TALKS WITH CUBA TO NORMALIZE FULL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

    12/17/2014 7:48:02 PM PST · 323 of 363
    daniel1212 to McGruff
    You want to buy my ride? Only 999,999,999 miles on this baby.

    Now that was a laugh!

    Where is the pic of the one they turned into a boat?

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/17/2014 3:24:48 PM PST · 71 of 74
    daniel1212 to Vigilanteman; redleghunter
    Church attendance is a far better predictor of voting behavior than the Catholic vs. Protestant meme. Cafeteria Catholics vote like mainline Protestants of the C&E variety. Regular mass attending Catholics vote like regular church attending Protestants.

    "Protestant" is too broadly defined to be very meaningful, and i have not saved much on weekly Prots, but evangelicals have the highest attendance rate, and even mass attending Catholics are less conservative than they.

    Church attendance [2002-2005]: Evangelicals at approx. 60 percent showed the highest percentage of those who reported they attended services weekly or almost weekly, with 30% going more than once a week. Catholics were at 45 percent (9% more than once a week), and Jews 15 percent. Gallup poll. between 2002 and 2005. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060418/weekly-attendance-highest-among-Evangelical-churches.htm

    A Catholic survey reported that 4 percent of US Catholics described themselves as “very” involved in parish or religious activities other than attending Mass, and 11% as “somewhat involved, and 64% as “not involved at all.” Among weekly (or more) attendees (approx 22% of adult Catholics), 13% were very” involved, 29% “somewhat involved and 25% not involved at all.” http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/devotionpractice.pdf

    Christian church attendance is between 1 ½ and 2 times higher in the South and the Midwest than it is in the West and the Northeast [the latter two have the highest percentage of Catholics]. http://www.theamericanchurch.org/facts/8.htm; http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/03/01/how-many-americans-attend-church-each

    Among those who converted to a Christian denomination, 42% of of those to Roman Catholicism, 43% of Episcopalian converts, 44% of those to Lutheranism, 48% of those to Methodism, 50% of those to the Presbyterian church, 60% of Baptist converts, 60% of Non-denominational converts, and 73% of of converts to Pentecostal churches reported they attend services weekly. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=482

    39 percent of Catholics affirmed not attending church is a sin, versus 23 percent of Protestants. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm

    A 2008 Catholic commissioned survey of adult Catholics reported 68% of Catholics affirmed you could be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, and 55% thought of themselves as good Catholics. 77% of Catholics agreed they were proud to be Catholic, (85% of weekly attendees) and 61% agreed that sacraments were essential to their faith (83% of weekly attendees). 2008 poll of 1,007 self-identified adult Catholics by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University; http://cara.georgetown.edu/beliefattitude.pdf

    43% of Catholics overall (and 36% of weekly attendees) affirmed they look to Catholic teachings and statements made the pope and bishops to form their conscience on what is morally acceptable . ^

    36% of weekly attendees affirmed their Catholic faith was the most important part of their life, 39% said it was “among the most important.” ^

    34% of weekly Mass attending Catholics are Democrats, and an additional 19% are not affiliated with a party but lean toward the Democrats (53% identifying or leaning as Democrats). 28% of weekly attenders are Republicans and an additional 17% lean toward being a Republican (43 percent identifying or leaning as Republicans). Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly are even more likely to be a Democrat rather than a Republican. http://cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr061808.pdf

    Exit polls in 2008 reported that weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, by just 50 percent to 49 percent.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/churchgoing_catholics_chose_mccain_over_obama/

    Weekly Protestant church attendees voted for McCain over Barack Obama 66 to 32 percent. ^

    Weekly Church attendees (28% of the electorate) voted 57%/39% Romney/Obama; more than weekly (14% of the electorate) voted 63%/36% and “never” attendees (17% of the electorate) were at 34%/62% Romney/Obama. - http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

    Evangelicals supported Mr. Romney 81% to 17% over Mr. Obama (a smaller percentage for the Republican candidate than in previous years). Born again Christians who are not evangelicals supported Romney 56% to 43% over the incumbent. Catholics supported Mr. Obama by 57% to 42% — the largest margin since Bill Clinton topped Bob Dole by 21 points in 1996. Protestant overall voted 57% to 42% in favor of Mr. Romney. ^

    A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2

    We know this because my wife and I live in an area which is slightly more Catholic and have served as poll watchers. Nuns in the local order are on our GOP friendly list.

    Personal stories from one area presented as a fact do not trumps national surveys.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/17/2014 3:12:14 PM PST · 1,508 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to CynicalBear
    A lie perpetrated by the Catholic Church as daniel1212 has shown many times on these threads.

    Actually, while it is etymologically "derived," it is the means by which is was derived, that of "presbuteros" in Greek ("senior/elder in Gk, and presbyter in Latin) being translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

    Thus while it is etymologically derived from presbuteros that does not mean that this was what presbuteros meant. 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. To use it as definition what presbuteros meant is to engage in an etymological fallacy

    The word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests - Jewish as well as pagan - 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."

    All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere at NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    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 [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

    And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "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 distinctively identifying Christian clergy with the same distinctive title used for the Jewish sacerdotal clergy (priests) rather than the term the Holy Spirit calls these pastors (presbyters/elders) is unscriptural and functionally unwarranted.

    But with some RCs it does not matter how many times a specious Catholic argument is refuted.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/17/2014 12:43:38 PM PST · 1,473 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    ookmarked! man, what a resource. thank you for your efforts on documenting this. That we've probably scratched the surface is the scary part.

    Which was the result of another RC posting of propaganda. They put them up so they can be shot down by the grace of God. Let me know the next one.

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/17/2014 12:40:20 PM PST · 64 of 74
    daniel1212 to mrobisr
    Come to a border State and sit outside a Cath and Prot church and tell me which one has what. These comments actually have me laughing they are so ridiculous.

    But once you believe the RC lie, you can make up reality as you go along.

  • Cold War comeback: U.S.-Russia locked in high-stakes submarine drone race

    12/17/2014 12:38:55 PM PST · 11 of 13
    daniel1212 to arthurus

    Perhaps, but i always wonder why the US military keeps announcing to the world their latest technological achievement. Is there no more wisdom in keeping such secret?

  • How the First Christians Changed the World (and What We Can Learn from Them)

    12/17/2014 9:02:36 AM PST · 141 of 154
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    I will tell you my observations being raised and educated Roman Catholic. No I do not see what you see at all. What I see here on FR RF are multitudes of Roman Catholic apologetics constantly refuted using Scriptures. Scriptures God gave to mankind as His revelation to us. Yet the same tired out arguments are repeated over and over in the hope that repeating it enough times such arguments will become true.

    As can be evidenced.

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/17/2014 8:59:55 AM PST · 57 of 74
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Well my good friend and neighbor is Mexican American, a retired Command SGM which outranks your VA buddy. He says different. His Protestant family members vote Republican and his Catholic family members vote DemonRat.

    The difference is that that in your case the evidence only support that it is RCs, white and Latino, who provide most of the liberal vote, while the Prots who do so usually belong to denominations who deny the primary distinctive of the Reformation, while those who hold most strongly to Scripture literally being the wholly inspired and accurate assured word of God are the most conservative.

    By 2007, the majority of the Latino electorate was Catholic (63%), and 70% of all Latino eligible voters who identified as Democrats were Catholics.- http://www.pewhispanic.org/2007/04/25/changing-faiths-latinos-and-the-transformation-of-american-religion/

    Latino Evangelicals are 50% more likely than those who are Catholics to identify with the Republican Party, and are significantly more conservative than Catholics on social issues, foreign policy issues and even in their attitudes toward the plight of the poor. http://pewforum.org/surveys/hispanic

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/17/2014 6:50:57 AM PST · 50 of 74
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    NO getting around all those hispanic converts to protestantism voting for democrats. Who in the world do you think they’re going to vote for? Santa Claus that’s who! Keep converting and keep electing democrats.

    Desperation of devotion to deception denied by the evidence. Your fellows RCs should ask you to turn in your keyboard.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/17/2014 5:53:36 AM PST · 2,338 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to metmom; boatbums
    I was thinking on this recently and it came to me that praying to created beings not only presupposes they have the ability to hear our prayers no matter where we/they are, how many others are praying the same prayers at the same time, but also the power to KNOW the thoughts and intents of our hearts.

    Been saying that for a long time. And when you have exactly zero prayers in Scripture addressed to anyone else in Heaven except the Lord, even out of the over 200 therein (including most of Psalms - though perhaps all are prayers - and presuming Ps. 119 consists of individual prayers, I have found a total of 205 prayers in the Bible Glory to God), to presume the Holy Spirit would neglect to leave this out is nigh unto blasphemy.

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/16/2014 7:24:07 PM PST · 26 of 74
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy; NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Majority of the Mexican freeloaders illegally come to American,protestants convert them, and they in turn vote for democrats who give them all the freebies. The devout hispanic Catholics that have lied in the US for generation after generation are Catholic and vote for republicans. My Mexican-American buddy I knew when I worked at the VA hospital, a retired Air Force master sergeant, relayed those facts to me.

    Are you going to tell us that you didn't give any thought to his words? What was his military speciality? Counter-Ops?

    "Facts" no less! If it impugns Prots, despite its broad definition, it must be true.

  • Mexican Catholics Lose Religion in the USA

    12/16/2014 7:09:59 PM PST · 25 of 74
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy; NKP_Vet; Gamecock; metmom
    Majority of the Mexican freeloaders illegally come to American,protestants convert them, and they in turn vote for democrats who give them all the freebies. The devout hispanic Catholics that have lied in the US for generation after generation are Catholic and vote for republicans. My Mexican-American buddy I knew when I worked at the VA hospital, a retired Air Force master sergeant, relayed those facts to me.

    Are you going to tell us that you didn't give any thought to his words? What was his military speciality? Counter-Ops?

    In-credible, hearsay testimony settles it, as besides the fitting typo, this assertion adds to his record of such absurd accusations that are contrary to actually what can be substantiated.

    Or course, he also imagines about 50% of the military are Catholic, and seemingly that blacks make up much of the evangelical church (vs. 6%).

    Here, the statistical data is that 68% of all Latinos in the U.S. identify as Catholics, and Latinos comprised 32 percent of all U.S. Catholics even in 2008. 18% of all Latinos say they have either converted from one religion to another or to no religion at all. - http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#DEMOGRAPHICS

    53% of Hispanics identify as Catholic (69% as children), 13% identify as evangelical Protestant (7% as children) and 12% as mainline Protestant. 12% claim no religious affiliation (5% as children) and 6% identify with a non-Christian religion.

    Hispanics who were born outside of the United States are more likely to identify as Catholic (64%) than Hispanics overall, and are less likely to identify as Protestant (9% mainline, 11% evangelical) or religiously unaffiliated (11%).

    50% of Hispanics identify with the Democratic Party compared to just 15% who identify with the Republican Party, while 24% say they are politically independent.

    Among Hispanic registered voters, 56% identify with the Democratic Party, compared to 19% who identify with the Republican Party and 19% who identify as independent.

    68% of Hispanic Catholics and 60% of mainline Protestants and 57% of religiously unaffiliated Hispanics and 50% of Evangelical Protestants report having a favorable view of the Democratic Party, divided (50% favorable, 44% unfavorable).

    Latino Catholics overwhelmingly supported Obama over McCain (72% to 26%). 68% of Hispanic voters report having voted for Barack Obama, while 29% report having voted for Mitt Romney.

    33% of Hispanics report they currently have a close friend or family member living in the United States illegally.

    80% of religiously unaffiliated Hispanics, and 62% of Hispanic Catholics, and 47% of Hispanic mainline Protestants support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, versus 21% of evangelical Protestants (79% oppose same-sex marriage).

    52% of Hispanic Catholics say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, along with 74% of Evangelical Protestants.

    30% of Hispanic Catholics say that having an abortion is morally wrong, compared to 7% who say it is morally acceptable. nearly 59% of evangelical Protestants say that having an abortion is morally wrong, compared to only 4% who say it is morally acceptable.

    45% of Hispanic Catholics and 51% of mainline Protestants say that sex between two adults of the same gender is morally wrong, compared to 16% of Catholics and 19% of mainline Protestants who say it is morally acceptable.10% of Hispanic Catholics and 4% of mainline Protestants believe the morality of same gender sexual activity depends on the situation, and 27% of Catholics and 23% of mainline Protestants say it is not a moral issue.

    72% of evangelical Protestants say that sex between two adults of the same gender is morally wrong, while 8% say it is morally acceptable. 6% say either that the morality of the behavior depends on the situation and 14% say that it is not a moral issue.

    51% of Hispanic Catholics and mainline Protestants say that it is possible to disagree with church teachings on homosexuality and remain a good Catholic or Christian, versus 70% of evangelical Hispanic Protestants who say it is not possible to disagree with church teachings on the issue of homosexuality and remain a good Christian.

    12% of Hispanic Catholics, and 22% of Hispanic mainline Protestants and 50% of Hispanic evangelicals report that religion is the most important thing in their lives.

    Catholics and mainline Protestants do not differ in the frequency of their religious attendance from Hispanics overall, while evangelical Protestants are significantly more likely to attend religious services regularly.

    5% of Hispanics report that they do not believe in God. Hispanic Catholics closely resemble Hispanics overall, with 59% believing God is a person and 32% believing God is an impersonal force. Mainline Protestants are significantly more likely than Catholics to believe God is a person (69%) and less likely to believe God is an impersonal force (25%). More than 8-in-10 (85%) evangelical Protestants believe God is a person with whom one can have a relationship. - http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013_HVS_FINAL.pdf

    45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry;

    And in California Latino Catholics are even more liberal than than white Catholics. 62% of California Catholics are Latino, and 57% of Latino Catholics say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in California, compared to 45% of white Catholics.- http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf

    Meaning according to hearsay testimony, the majority of the 15% of Hispanics who identify with the Republican Party and the 26% - 29% of conservative voters in the last Presidential elections come from the 68% of all Latinos in the U.S. who identify as Catholics. Yet it is Protestants who are the more conservative, and the most Republican, esp. evang. Prots, thus they are the ones who would provide most of the conservative vote.

    Meanwhile, it is very evident that the the Republican Party has acted according to its image, not interacting with the immigrants and the lower class, allowing them to believe the party of the demonic victim-entitlement mentality is best for them in the long run. But since the Republican today vote too much like liberals of yesteryear, it seems, then perhaps that fitting.

    We should do what we can as Christians have a unique share in this country, as shareholders, but i consider it as having gone off the edge. As with the NT church which has worse civil rulers, the focus must be on being distinct evangelical people, a holy nation within a nation, as being founded upon a solid Rock that will not roll, and anchor for our souls.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/16/2014 2:10:36 PM PST · 1,093 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; redleghunter
    Well I am glad to hear that. Many seem to feel or express that once they accept Jesus, they will always be saved..

    Some do, even though they do not manifest saving faith, while it is RCs who are the largest subscribers to "easy believism," as while they will not say that they know they have eternal life now, yet they hardly seem worried that will got to Hell, if they even believe in it, and instead they believe they are children of God via infant sprinkling, and have implicitly faith that their own merits and that of Rome will ultimately gain them entrance into glory thru purgatory.

    That is all under the rubric of an ambiguous belief in Divine mercy. To their eternal horror, as they never had a true day of conversion when they realized the new birth with its profound changes.

    Meanwhile, Reformers preached that while God justifies the UnGodly by faith being counted as righteousness, (Romans 4:5) such faith must be the kind that will effect practical holiness, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6:9)

    In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

    a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

    And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, [”A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way”, http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]

    Thus God warns believers against having an "evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God," drawing back to perdition, (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; cf. Gal. 5:1-4) whereas the true believers "believe to the saving of the soul." (Heb. 10:39)

    The historical Calvinistic position is that of this perseverance of the saints, the P in TULIP, which in contrast to the other OSAS position in which one is saved based upon faith in Christ to save them no matter how they lived, upholds the fact that saving faith is one is characterized by following the Lord in whom they trust.

    With the Puritans this could go an extreme opposite that of the antinomians. An account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period 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.’”

    Perseverance of the saints recognizes believers may fall away, but holds that God will bring them to repentance, and that the elect will finally persevere to die in faith.

    While man must make a decision to believe on the Lord Jesus to save the contrite damned+destitute sinner by His blood and righteousness, man can take no credit for this as in conversion God draws the soul, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) and convicts man of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, (Jn. 16:9) opens the heart, (Acts 16:14) and grants repentant faith. (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8,9)

    And while God states the we are of Christ's house, and partakers with Him "if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," "the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," (Hebrews 3:6) yet no man can take credit for this since any faithfulness is due to "God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

    But believers are to be blamed for drawing back from following Christ, via submitting to a false gospel as in Gal. 5:1-4, and or impenitent willful in as in Heb. 10:24ff. And some as myself cannot help but see these warnings to believers (as these are clearly addressed to souls as believers) against effectively denying the faith, as being that of forfeiting what faith appropriated. Yet God works and works to bring such to repentance. Thus almighty God chastens believers unto repentance "lest we be condemned with the rest of the world," (1Cor. 11:32)

    I still don't know why so many feel the need to attack Catholic traditions and teachings

    Because first of all, the Roman basis for determination of Truth, of what and who is of God versus not, is that under which the church began, that being Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but rests upon the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    Thus it is disallowed that one can be correct in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, and a RC is not to ascertain by evidential warrant the integrity of RC official teaching, but such are to be believed based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

    Second, repeating much that i said in a previous post, in contrast to all the description above of the gospel of grace, the gospel of Rome proceeds from the false premise that one is formally justified on the basis of his interior holiness, that at baptism one is made good enough to enter Heaven due to "infused charity," versus God justifying the UnGodly by faith being counted as righteousness, as Scripture teaches:

    But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)

    Rejecting this as meaning imputed versus actual righteousness as the basis for justification, and since the RC does not maintain that baptismal perfection in this life, then under this salvation system he must spend an indeterminate time suffering "purifying torments" in "purgatory" to (atone for sins and) once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

    Yet all believers are already accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and in Scripture all sanctifying work is done in this world with its trials and temptations, in which there is an sinful alternative to suffering.

    Moreover, all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11).

    Furthermore, the only manifest postmortem suffering for believers is that of suffering the loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, and the grievous shame of the Lord's disapproval, all due to the quality of the material he built the church with. But which does not occur until the Lord's return, and the elect are saved despite the loss of rewards, not because of them.

    These and many other things that are not in Scripture and of its church compel those who stand for Scriptural Truths to dissent from her.

    The Catholic Church honors and venerates The Blessed Mother as a special human without sin and servant and obedient to God.

    Meaning that not only is it not necessary or taught that Mary was sinless - and the Holy Spirit characteristically notes even far less notable exceptions to the norm in Scripture, but it goes way above that which is written in honoring and venerating her, to almost deifying her .

    ..ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written..(1 Corinthians 4:6)

    As indeed Catholics hold that it is impossible to honor her to excess, while holding that they observe a theoretical distinction btwn "hyperdulia" and worship. Vainly imagining that one kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer, would not be seen as an idolator, like as those who burned incense to the bronze serpent that they ad looked upon for healing. (Num. 21)

    Yet many here accuse the Catholic Church of raising her to the level of God and accuse us of false worship.

    Close enough in the first case and true in the second. A look at the evidence leaves no other conclusion.

    They are unwilling to accept the teaching of the Catholic Church

    Indeed, as such things are clearly not of Scripture, upon which foundation the gospel and the church had its doctrinal foundation.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/16/2014 6:24:02 AM PST · 978 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    You obviously don't look very closely at who posts the vast majority of Religion Forum threads. I wonder how you can miss all the intentionally provocative threads posted BY Roman Catholics disparaging the beliefs of "Protestants" and extolling their own superior and elitist religion that ARE almost dai

    That is obvious, but like liberals, all most RCs see are the refutations posted in response. But yet they seems compelled to post more, so let them. While grievous, by the grace of God it has served to expose the fallacious nature of Rome and RC apologetics. May we find more grace in His site to do so.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/16/2014 6:18:05 AM PST · 972 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to redleghunter

    An example of straying to the left or right is when Israel, after witnessing wonderous miracles and deliverance from God, decided Moses was dead as he entered the presence of God on Sinai. Not long after they crafted a golden idol. They thought they were honoring God as they thought Moses was dead.

    But the golden calf was not a salvific instrument as Mary was, but which RCs think of far "above what is written." (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)

    A better example is that of the bronze serpent in Num. 21, which the chastised Israelites were to look upon, it being a type of Christ, "that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

    However, true to form and the proclivity of man seen in the unScriptural "hyperdulia" of the Mary of Catholicism, they ended up burning incense to this salvific instrument, which is never to be done to any created being:

    He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

    Likewise did pagans do to the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture:

    But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:17)

    Likewise does Rome do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of her own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto Mary, among many other things .

    Incense represents and prayerful devotion, and nowhere does any believer ever pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. The fact that souls prayed to the Lord Jesus (1Cor. 1:2) testifies to His deity, and who is the only heavenly intercessor btwn God the Father and man. (1Tim. 2:5)

    Incense represents and prayerful devotion, and nowhere does any believer ever pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. The Lord's own instructions on how to pray teach us to address the Father, not "our Mother" but "our Father," to whom also the Spirit within us cries, "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) not "Mama, Mother."

    It was before God the Father that Paul said he knelt and prayed to, (Eph. 3:14) and not Mary the demigoddess.

    But Rome will do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of her own mouth, to her own damnation.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/15/2014 7:46:56 PM PST · 833 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to Grateful2God; RoosterRedux; ealgeone
    At the time of the Reformation, as today, what is known as the Apocrypha was still part of the Bible the Catholic Church uses. In it, the Second Book of Maccabees states: "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."

    But which does not teach purgatory, and contradicts Rome by teaching offerings for those who died due to moral sin have hope. In addition, as this book, among others, was disputable for RCs, Rome went about to make it indisputable by issuing the first infallible definition of the canon.

    If I could again impose on you, why did the Reformers choose to remove the Apocrypha from their Canon upon breaking with the Catholic Church? Again, not a rhetorical, but genuine question!

    See here if you will.

    While our sins are forgiven, the effects of our sins remain. Gossip, for instance, can be forgiven, but its effects can cause lasting pain and disgrace for its subject, even for their family. To a Catholic, facing the perfection of God, without these consequences being remitted, would be more than we could bear; thus the soul accepts the purgation of the consequences wrought by their sins, in Purgatory.

    This proceeds from the false premise that one is justified on the basis of his interior holiness, and thus at at baptism one is made good enough to enter Heaven due to "infused charity," versus God justifying the UnGodly by faith being counted as righteousness, as Scripture teaches.

    But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)

    , And since the RC (EOs reject Rome's purgatory) does not maintain or usually attain again to that perfection in this life, then under this salvation system then he must spend an indeterminate time suffering "purifying torments" in "purgatory."

    However, while true justifying faith must be the kind that effects practical holiness, "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9), and thus God chastens believers unto repentance lest they be condemned with the rest of the world," (1Cor. 11:32) - yet this is not to enable them to merit Heaven because they attained perfection holiness to enter it, but to bring them to walk in true faith, by which their hearts were purified, even before baptism. (Acts 11:7-9)

    God also chastens penitent holy souls to make them more holy - and which can include suffering the effects of our past sins - yet all believers are already accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and in Scripture all sanctifying work is done in this world with its trials and temptations, in which there is an sinful alternative to suffering.

    Moreover, all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11).

    Furthermore, the only manifest postmortem suffering for believers is that of suffering the loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, and the grievous shame of the Lord's disapproval, all due to the quality of the material he built the church with. But which does not occur until the Lord's return, and the elect are saved despite the loss of rewards, not because of them.

    See here on 1Cor. 3

    And i have debated the texts used in attempting to extrapolate support for purgatory, and they are either referring to the lost, or believers in this life, or 1cor. 3:8ff

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/15/2014 6:53:02 PM PST · 789 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    50. Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God.

    In-credible, but par for the heresy course of Rome. Once you begin sanctions fables of men as doctrine, including presenting men as assuredly infallible, and thus enabling such fables of amorphous oral tradition to be taught as true, then are the multitude of such inventions as this any surprise? Adds to the list .

    The apostles and NT church entirely neglected this esoteric tidbit, but as with the rest of Scripture, only taught and exampled prayer and praise addressed to Heaven to be to the Lord, with Christ being the only manifest Heavenly intercessor. To the glory of God, which this Mariolatry is not!

    On judgment day, the humble holy Mary of Scripture will be part of those who condemn these who promoted the Mary of Catholicism!

  • MSNBC Host: ‘Too Early To Tell’ If Man Asking For ISIS Flag Was Motivated By Islam [VIDEO]

    12/15/2014 12:50:45 PM PST · 58 of 63
    daniel1212 to Zakeet
    Despite the Sydney, Australia hostage-taker displaying a flag reading in Arabic, ”There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God,” despite his being a self-proclaimed sheikh and despite his demand that police give him an ISIS flag, MSNBC “The Rundown” host José Diaz-Balart wondered if Iranian-born Man Haron Monis is motivated by Islam at all.

    The liberal mind expresses the ethos of a demonic spirit which sees all who do not have benefits which are obtained via practice of Biblical principles, as being victims of those who do practice them.

    And which they are excused from practicing due to being victims of the latter, or that they acted out of any inexcusable motivation. Instead, as victims they are presented as having the right to the same benefits of those who climbed up the lawful way.

    Of course this victim-entitlement mentality is employed by liberal elite who have "climbed up some other way" to power by inculcating this, presenting themselves as saviors, like as in atheistic Communism, with the result being that only the saviors actually sit in "business class," with the cargo hold gradually consisting of all the rest.

    All of which is a result or the original "occupy movement" and "share the wealth" cry, that of the devil who selfishly wanted the position of God, and being cast down, (Is. 14) sought to bring Eve to see herself as a victim of God who would not "share the wealth" (His knowledge) with her, and thus to act unlawfully to obtain what was her right. (Gn. 3)

    And by which deception the devil seeks to set up his rival, alternative kingdom, with its perverse imitations (homosexual marriage being a primary one), using his seduced or simply deceived souls to gain power by use of this victim-entitlement deception, and thus to rule by proxy. (And which the once-Christian black culture has largely swallowed - much by white libs - to their own hurt.)

    Thus a vote for these deceivers is a vote for the devil and his kingdom, and for one's own enslavement.

    Meanwhile, as the devil hates those who love and worship the Lord, they are thus the enemy of these proxy pols, yet those who are saved by grace (which the victim-entitlement deception negates) and by faith overcome, will be rewarded in heavenly position, unlike the selfish devil who tried to climb up some other way.

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. (John 10:1)

    For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:13-15)

    To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)

  • Not just gay issues: Why hundreds of congregations made final break with mainline denominations

    12/15/2014 11:25:26 AM PST · 15 of 16
    daniel1212 to Gamecock
    More interested in social justice. Lot of that going around.

    Yet as is the spiritual that sees its outworking in the temporal realm, so it is evangelicals that manifest the most personal commitment in giving and volunteer work, though i expect that is decreasing as we see the prophesied apostasy of the church being realized.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/15/2014 8:39:58 AM PST · 2,111 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    It is never simply that we have valid reasons for rejecting what was forced on us at birth or that we have come to saving faith in Jesus Christ that we didn't know as Roman Catholics.

    Of course, since it is falsely presupposed that one needs the assuredly infallible magisterium to correctly know what is of God.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/15/2014 8:37:37 AM PST · 419 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to DuncanWaring
    Perhaps I misinterpreted your original assertion.

    As is easy to do with RC statements on her Eucharist.

    Catholics definitely believe that the communion hosts become the Body of Christ - as He Himself said “This is My Body”. They do, however, still maintain the appearance of bread, as does the communion wine maintain its appearance of wine, though it’s been converted into His Blood, as it was at the Last Supper. I thought you were claiming it was actually converted into meat; if that was not your claim, I retract and apologize for my accusation.

    It certainly was not my intent to deny that in transubstantiation the "actual flesh" means via supernatural mode. That the substance of the bread and wine is changed during the Eucharistic consecration into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains, with the "accidents" of the bread and wine replacing the accidents of Christ’s body: his tissues, bones, and cells. Thus "While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence." http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html

    But as the above explanation states, "So, yes, the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ." And thus while my statement ca be misinterpreted, as can that Caths believe Mary is the mother of God (inferring ontological procreation of deity), nonetheless it is a valid statement of what Catholics believe. "Under the appearance of bead and wine" could be added.

    Of course, this is certainly not what Scripture teaches, as only the figurative view is consistent with the rest of Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, as explained in this post more.

    in which men are said to be "bread" for Israel, and literal water is said to be the blood of men," and the word of God is "eaten," and by which man lives," and doing God's will is Christ's "meat," etc. And in which spiritual life is never obtained by physically eating anything, but by believing the word of God, which is how Christ lived by the Father, (Jn.6:57) and which is what nourishes souls. (1Tim. 4:6; Col. 3:16) <

    And thus prayer and preaching is the primary function of pastors, (Acts 6:3,4; 1Tim. 4:1,2) versus men distinctively titled "priests" (from “hiereus”) offering the body and blood of Christ as an atonement for sin and given to souls to consume in order to obtain spiritual life.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 8:20:23 PM PST · 244 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to Alex Murphy

    It must mean “currently teaches.”

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 8:08:51 PM PST · 235 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to RoosterRedux
    I know you try to speak for the Lord...but can you be a little more succinct. He certainly was!

    Yes, it is a bit much, though much smaller than a recent RC post, yet sometimes it is needed to prevent as much space taken up with denials.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 8:04:24 PM PST · 232 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    I’m amazed you could read daniel1212’s long, detailed post and not respond to a single fact, argument or thought, but went right to an ad hominem attack.

    Could be a stiff neck.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 8:03:19 PM PST · 231 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to LurkingSince'98
    I didn’t know you prots were as stiff necked a people as the Israelites.

    Oh you mean in contrast to all the faithful who prayed to angels or departed saints in Heaven? Got any?

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

    12/14/2014 8:01:35 PM PST · 93 of 93
    daniel1212 to aimhigh
    So now polls are more important than scripture. Figures.

    Not so, but they can tell us such things as what place Scripture has in a church, and its effects on its members. Which among RCs overall is relatively little.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 7:44:50 PM PST · 222 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to DuncanWaring
    as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, ..

    That is not what Catholics believe. If you believe that, you're a willful believer in a lie you've been told. If you don't believe that, you're a liar yourself.

    Really? Besides your false dilemma, then i have a lot of Catholic company. For if you believe that Catholics do not believe that, then you are either ignorant or a willful believer in a lie you've been told. Unless you are objecting to a technical distinction btwn. "actual" and "real," and thank you for bringing this to my attention. Do you deny the consecrated elements actually are his body? That Christ's Body and Blood, soul and divinity is present in each molecule of the consecrated bread or in each drop of the consecrated wine? Would you find "believe Christ gave His real flesh and blood for the disciples to actual partake of," acceptable?

    But in fact many of your own tell us it is His "actual" flesh and blood.

    Even from Catholic Answers:

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, the teaching that bread and wine are converted into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, is difficult...In 1263, a German priest known as Peter of Prague was struggling with the doctrine of transubstantiation. While he was saying Mass in Bolseno, Italy, blood began to stream out of the host and onto the corporal at the moment of consecration. - Ronald J. Rychlak is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the MDLA Professor of Law as the University of Mississippi School of Law.

    staycatholic.com: The Church has always taught that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is difficult for some to accept. However, belief in the Real Presence rests upon the words of Christ Himself. -http://www.staycatholic.com/the_eucharist.htm

    ewtn.com: Take His actual flesh into your mouth and into your digestive system, eat the flesh of a guy who lived 2000 years ago? You do that?The Church doesn't really believe it's the actual body and blood of Christ, does it? It's just a symbolic thing, right? A meal, right?...Well, guess again. The Church does believe the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ. -https://www.ewtn.com/library/YOUTH/REALBODY.TXT

    catholic-church.org: At the moment of Consecration, during the Mass, the "gifts" of bread and wine are transformed (transubstantiated) into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, at the Altar. This means that they are not only spiritually transformed, but rather are actually (substantially) transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The elements retain the appearance of bread and wine, but are indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is what is meant by Real Presence: the actual, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. - http://www.catholic-church.org/kuwait/eucharistic_adoration.htm

    Father Anthony Marques, catholicvirginian.org: Recently, a parishioner asked me: “Father, is the Eucharist the actual Body of Christ?”..I explained to her that the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ...While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence... So, yes, the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ. http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html

    http://cathoolic.com: Why do Catholics believe their Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ? Why don’t they believe as Protestants do that Christ is only present symbolically, or spiritually, in the consecrated bread and wine? Catholics believe that their Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist, is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what Christ said It was: “This is my body . . . This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28; see also Luke 22:19-20 and Mark 14:22-24); because that is what Christ said they must receive in order to have eternal life: - http://cathoolic.com/catholic-answers/holy-communion-actual-flesh-blood-jesus/“

    http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com: Is Holy Communion Real or Symbolic? ..Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and wine elements in communion, really and truly, become the actual body (flesh) and blood of Jesus Christ once they are consecrated by an authentic priest in the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist (or "Holy Mass"). - http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-holy-communion-real-or-symbolic.html

    It is food actual and real – not merely symbolic. Hence what we eat at the Table of the Eucharist is actual food, the Flesh of Jesus. http://www.aquinas.lk/articles_details.php?wg_id=154

    ancientfaith.com/ (though Antiochian Orthodox) For there is no question, you see, that from the days of the first believers until the 16th century, the Body of Christ in its entirety, before the Great Schism and afterward, held to the truth that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus. - http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/john_663_and_the_eucharist

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

    12/14/2014 5:53:06 PM PST · 86 of 93
    daniel1212 to aimhigh
    Interesting that a CATHOLIC woman is teaching here, contrary to 1 Timothy 2. Apparently she isn't willing to return to 13th century womanhood herself.


    47) Q10A

    Do you support or oppose women in the following roles in the Church? Altar server

    1) Support 90.7

    2) Oppose 8.0


    48) Q10B

    Do you support or oppose women in the following roles in the Church? Reader at Mass (Lector)

    1) Support 95.1

    2) Oppose 3.7


    49) Q10C

    women...Eucharistic minister

    1) Support 89.0

    2) Oppose 10.0


    50) Q10D..

    women..Director of Religious Education

    1) Support 94.7

    2) Oppose 4.0


    51) Q10E

    women...Youth minister

    1) Support 91.8

    2) Oppose 6.7


    52) Q10F

    women...Deacon

    1) Support 75.2

    2) Oppose 23.0


    53) Q10G

    women...Parish administrator.

    1) Support 92.4

    2) Oppose 6.4


    54) Q10H

    women...Priest1)

    Support 59.8

    2) Oppose 38.1

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 5:11:44 PM PST · 166 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    For the record:

    • Thinking of souls above what is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)

    It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority). And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).

    As making that distinction itself is presumptuous, the Scriptures do not sanction religiously bowing down to any statue in supplication, nor supplies even one single prayer to anyone in Heaven but the Lord (crying "Abba, Father," Gal. 4:6; not "Mama, Mother"), nor in instructions on who to pray to ("our Father who art in Heaven," not "our Mother").

    Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

    For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

    • as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

    • as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

    • as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

    • as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

    • as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

    • as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

    • as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

    • as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

    • as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

    • as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

    • as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

    • as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

    • as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

    • as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

    • as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

    • as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

    • and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

    • And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

    Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

    In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

    The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God

    Catholic ascriptions to Mary (More can be seen at this link (The up mark ^ points to the last referenced source.).

    We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)

    Pope Pius XII asserts in an address on the Queenship of Mary, “after your assumption into heaven, he crowned you Queen of the Universe....In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognise that they are all brothers. Receive, O most sweet mother, our humble supplication above all obtained for us, that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people.’ Catholic Culture, Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954

    The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm

    When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

    Mary can be declared by the Church to be not only the “helpmate” of that Second Divine Person — Co-Redemptrix in Salvation, Mediatrix in grace — but actually “like unto Him.”...when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His.... Her position as "the first of all creatures, the most acceptable child of God, the nearest and dearest to him," (Cardinal Newman); As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father; · The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.... He has no children but by her, and communicates no graces but by her...and through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts. A Marian Synthesis; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm

    Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within".... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues." — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc

    According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173

    In "Glories of Mary" by Liguori, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVI (1839) in the bull of his canonization, he teaches,

    He who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost . . . O immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection, and therefore we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. - . . Thou (Mary) art my only hope. . . . Lady in heaven, we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach “ (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).

    Richard of St. Laurence encourages sinners to have recourse to this great name, "because it alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils;" and "there is no disorder, however malignant, that does not immediately yield to the power of the name of Mary." — St. Alphonsus de Liguori http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/AL.html

    The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. — Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Pope Leo XIII, 1894

    But by her compassion for her Divine Son she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin. It was not only during the Passion that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins, for all their lives that heartrending vision was before them in every detail, and never for a moment forgotten. The Reign of Mary, Vol. 40; Issue 48

    "We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone. — Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro, Nihil Obstat John C. Hogan, Diocesan Censor; Imprimatur (1) - Richard Cardinal Cushing Daughters of St.Paul, 1964).

    "After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother." p. 83^

    ..to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:"To what shall I compare thee, or to whom shall I liken thee, O daughter of Jerusalem." (Lam. 2:13) [another verse taken out of context, as it refers to the affliction of Jewish mothers in general due to the judgment upon Jerusalem.] http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-098.html

    ...all graces of the Precious Blood come through Mary. — http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/virgin-eucharist.htm

    "O Christian who comest full of faith to receive the Bread of life, eat It worthily, and remember that It was fashioned out of Mary's pure blood." Mary can quite rightfully beckon to us and speak to us in the words of the inspired prophet, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5).

    "The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose." Manteau-Bonamy, Immaculate Conception, 91; F.X. Durrwell, The Holy Spirit of God (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 183-185.

    ..."Limitless is the difference between God's servants and His Mother...Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels...from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer's Kingdom;... she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother's prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused....Theologians and preachers...must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth." [an in-credible injunction if Scripture is to be held as the Truth, as going beyond the Truth us exactly what Pope Pius XII is doing. But Scripture is not the supreme authority for Rome, but is made into a servant for her purposes, and Truth to Rome can be whatever she autocratically declares.] — Ad Caeli Reginam, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam_en.html

    ..."she is Mother of her Creator...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified." "...she mediates between God and men." " "Run through all creation in your thought and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God." (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    12/14/2014 5:11:25 PM PST · 165 of 2,071
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    4352 proskynéō (from 4314 /prós, "towards" and kyneo, "to kiss") – properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; t

    While on rare occasions men of God received the obeisance of bowing down by brethren, yet never in the NT, nowhere does any believer bow in praise and and pray to such in Heaven, as if they could we heavenly intercessors btwn God and man, which only Christ is stated to be, (1Tim 2:5; Heb. 11:25) and could hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer

    As said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/14/2014 4:48:28 PM PST · 1,897 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Apparently I ask too many questions that require straight forward answers. Instead, I'm just supposed to believe whatever everyone tells me without question. If I question, they become angry with me and cast their darts to extinguish those questions.

    Actually, you ask too many irrelevant questions that do not straight forward deal with straight forward statements, as if your questions extinguish those statements.

    Faced with the straight forward statements (not even to you) that a wafer-worshiping, demigoddess praying, infallible caesario-papacy, salvation by merit preaching, etc, organization claimed to be the same as the NT church, you seem to imagine i was claiming a particular evangelical church, mine, made that unique claim. In which case that would be the issue.

    But this is:

    It should be obvious that the church (as the body of Christ) of today stands in contrast to the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, and which saw its unity under manifest apostles of God. Yet the deformation of the NT church was progressive, and which finally reached the point which required the Reformation, which itself was and is not the “work of one day or two.” (Ezra 10:13)

    This reform was and is far from perfect and complete, and still has things to unlearn from Catholicism, yet it enabled the greatest modern increase in the kingdom of God of souls through manifest regeneration.

    While much can be said about the state of the evangelical church today (and my need for much more Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church as manifested in Scripture,

    1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

    3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

    5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

    6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

    7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

    8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

    9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

    14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

    16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

    17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/14/2014 3:26:47 PM PST · 1,847 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I was surprised by the vehemence of your comments against the Catholics. You are not by chance a baptized Catholic are you ?

    Asks the inquisitor. I gave my testimony here more than once, sorry you missed it! Either deal with that i said or call the local Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Maybe they can get more info than you.

    Is it like Calvary Chapel ? Is it charismatic ? I take it that you have considered the claims of Fundamental Baptists and found them wanting, as also the claims of the Reformed Theology assemblies and Pentecostals.

    Just what is your problem? They all are evangelical, in which souls are saved, unlike Rome overall, while this is all irrelevant, and is simply a diversion in avoiding dealing with the log in the eye of your own church.

    I take it the pastor and assembly are not antiCatholic. Are they Evangelical but eschew the label Fundamentalist ?

    You sure seem anxious to know? Are you looking for a friendly evangelical church? But your judgment is faulty, as whoever out of love for the Truth does not support Rome, and opposes heresies of Rome qualifies for the antiCatholic label according to the trad. RC sect, who also excommunicate the majority those whom Rome calls and treats as members. Maybe you fit in one to these two camps, or subsets.

    Do you know why you do this on the first day of the week and not the seventh day of the week ?

    Oh yes inquisitor. For you see that is the only specific day that the NT church is shown esp. setting apart, which happened before a wafer-worshiping, demigoddess praying, infallible caesario-papacy, salvation by merit preaching, etc, organization claimed to be the same church.

    More info on this group will require use of the Rack or similar device. There may be an indulgence in it for you, in addition to one RCs seem to think they obtain by engaging in diversions which avoid what Rome is exposed as being.

    Perhaps you need this as evidence in case you are ever named as a suspected heretic if Rome ever is able to resurrect the medieval Inquisitions.

  • Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

    12/14/2014 1:45:20 PM PST · 1,818 of 2,541
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Did you assemble in Messiah's name today ? Which denomination was it ? Is this post inspired by the same spirit as that of your assembly ?

    The is the second post like this and i wonder what they reason for it is? It seems driven by the same inability of RCs to conceive that souls must have a church which does their thinking for them, as they otherwise cannot correctly discern what is of God and what is not, and thus by attacking their church then they can invalidate the believer.

    But that will not work here. I gladly go weekly to a nondenominational evangelical assembly of believers, with a good pastor. And while they are not as informed about Rome as i am, the Spirit of Truth which calls for earnestly contending for the faith is there. And i sanctify the Lord's day, not even shopping or doing secular work.

    Now either deal with the content of Rome being a wafer-worshiping, demigoddess praying, infallible caesario-papacy, salvation by merit preaching, etc, organization, which i soberly stated as factually the actual case, or admit you can only use diversions by acting as a inquisitor.

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

    12/14/2014 1:20:19 PM PST · 82 of 93
    daniel1212 to narses

    See above.

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

    12/14/2014 1:19:05 PM PST · 81 of 93
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    Hey, didn't you tell JR: Your site, your choice. You want to tolerate whackjobs who claim Catholics rape women and murder children, go ahead. It is your sandbox. For me, I will find someplace without the whackjobs. Vale. That was two months ago and you choose THIS way to reenter Free Republic?

    Indeed he/she did . It seems the posting compulsion certain RCs seem to have means more poor anti-Protestant polemics must be posted when the other ones are exposed.

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

  • The Protestant Reformation and Women

    12/14/2014 1:09:23 PM PST · 79 of 93
    daniel1212 to Jason Neo

    Any bit of html code means the rest will need it.

    Please use paragraphs and the preview feature - and give attribution to copied works. Provide the link for this one.