THIS book?
Posted on 06/18/2015 1:22:58 PM PDT by detective
Are you REALLY this easily fooled?
A 'sinless' person; who makes a SIN sacrifice is known as a HYPOCRIT.
You mean those 'verses' that Rome has tried to insert Mary into; retroactively?
I missed that.
Though I did read where seven Catholic churches were teaching ERROR.
THIS book?
Different turf?
Example??
Useless idiots.
See what happens when you do NOT know what the book (thanks Catholics!) says!
She ASKED nothing.
John 2 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
7 Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
Problem was I can’t do anything about the ability to understand.
Sigh...
That Roman teaching is embedded deeply!!
Luke 1:26-38 New International Version (NIV)
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
(will is NOT 'consenting')
(This ain't YES)
Mary told Jesus this because she expected that He would do something about it. The context makes this clear. But as so often happens in Jeopardy!, she failed to phrase her request for a favor in the form of a question. Certainly Jesus understood her remark as a request for a favor.
And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Do you accept the fact that she's not?
>>We have tombs and relics of all the apostles, and TWO tombs of Mary. But no relics of Mary. Why not?<<
Because she was so totally irrelevant after Pentecost that not one word is written about her either by the apostles or secular writers. Catholics try to make the woman in Revelation out to be Mary but that's not possible and the Old Testament even tells us it's Israel.
>>At the wedding feast at Cana, Mary intercedes with her Son on behalf of the hosts.<<
She stuck her nose it where it didn't belong and was told so by Jesus.
It's been over fourty years and 57 MILLION deaths and how many has Rome ‘saved’???”
Catholics in America have saved many lives.
I have friends who are sidewalk counselors. Between them the save thousands of lives a year.
Ultrasound programs which donate Ultrasound machines to pregnancy centers save thousands of lives a year.
Pregnancy centers which offer women counseling and alternatives to abortion save thousands of lives every year.
“Why do FR Catholics seem to want to JUDGE the man so severely about non-Catholic stuff?
Are they QUALIFIED to do so?”
I am not judging the man, I am judging the action. The action is evil. It supports a fraudulent agenda based on the position that human progress and innovation need to be punished. It is based on the position that people are the problem and that the population must be reduced.
It is also an agenda that supports confiscating trillions of dollars from the American people, ruining the American economy and leaving our once great country a backward, poverty stricken nation.
Read the
--H.J.Res.104--
H.J.Res.104
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one
Joint Resolution
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;
Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;
Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;
Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and
Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Ashkanazi is not a religion although it is definitely an ethnic origin of Jews. I can’t help who I’m descended from; in this case, on my mother’s side. I am a Catholic. I spoke only of Father Coughlin’s anti-communism not his statements about Jews. My mother always felt he got a raw deal; she was about as far from an anti-Semite as I’ve ever known. She flirted with conversion in the 1960s after wildly supporting the Israelis in 6th Day War. I think her ancestors were calling her. But she remained a steadfast Catholic. So please don’t give me the quotes from Coughlin which are mother’s milk to anti-Catholics. I know them well.
Please stop cherry-picking my comments in order to spread hatred. I’ve seen this kind of piling on before - it happened to RitaOK yesterday. The boys who play on these threads can take care of themselves without you running to their rescue.
Our (Noachides’) analytical insensitivity to canards about us is best excused during this time, but it’s up to y’all in the nations (all of the nations). Some of us have seen attempts at real hostilities from both sides (more than just talk).
“Our Noachides’ analytical insensitivity to canards.” Is Esperanto your first language?
Who then INSTANTLY did what she asked.
Wrong. Being non-infallible does not itself absolve you from the requirement of religious submission of mind and will, while it is absurd to assert that the pope wrote almost 44,000 words on issues that have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith at all.
Instead, the pope's teaching here is based upon Catholic teaching, which he cites as well as other popes. Francis first invokes Pope Saint John XXIII who fifty years ago wrote an Encyclical which addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will,” as a precedent for this Encyclical.
Next he invokes Pope Paul VI who in 1971 referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity:
Then Francis calls upon Saint John Paul II who In his first Encyclical warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption”.
And next he cites predecessor Benedict XVI as having likewise proposed “eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.”
Then he enlists Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as speaking in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage.”
Next Saint Francis of Assisi is appealed to as the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology,
Francis proceeds to invoke church teaching as foundational to his concerns.
The development of the Church’s social teaching represents such a synthesis with regard to social issues; this teaching is called to be enriched by taking up new challenges.
He next cites "THE WISDOM OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS" regarding about the relationship of human beings with the world, and as how the "originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual" (cf. Gen 3:17-19). And that "the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature...is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church."
He proceeds to invoke the story of Cain and Abel, and numerous other texts for support. And how "The work of the Church seeks not only to remind everyone of the duty to care for nature, but at the same time “she must above all protect mankind from self-destruction”"
And that "In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish." And how The Catechism clearly and forcefully criticizes a distorted anthropocentrism...
Francis further calls upon Saint John Paul II as teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”.
Moving on, under New biological technologies, he states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable limits..." and goes on to "recall the balanced position of Saint John Paul II."
Francis does on to invoke Benedict XVI as affirming "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”
And how the Church set before the world the ideal of a “civilization of love”. And imagines "the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love.."
Finally, 172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support., encyclical
Yet nothing in this encyclical has anything at all to do with the Catholic Faith, according to those who reject what the pope says according to their judgment of what Catholic Faith entails. Which is just what other RCs criticize.
The Earth has been cooling for 18 years and 6 months. Therefore, the Pope’s assertion that the Earth is warming is not merely an abuse of his office, it’s a hoax.
Which presumes your judgment is superior to the pope's, the Vicar of Christ, written in an encyclical to the church and the entire world. When RCs can presumes that and engage in public dissent, which is disallowed even for non-infallible teaching, then it is no wonder they are called Prots by other brethren. For to personally ascertain the veracity of public papal and magisterial teaching, which invokes past teaching, by how you see it based upon your understanding of past teaching, is not essentially different from doing so based upon what you see Scripture saying. I see history, even from Catholic scholars, as denying that the 1st and 2nd century church saw Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads over the church universal, and that there was no historical warrant for the Assumption from the early centuries, but to which RCs will reply like Manning, that history is what Rome says it is. Likewise so is historical RC teaching combined.
Nothing Pius X said about the teaching of the Pope or the bishops pertains to their opinions.
Actually, nothing Pius X said about the following the Pope or the bishops rendered papal encyclicals or conciliar teaching to being opinions, and what Pius X said about the following the Pope rendered what he publicly taught to being far more than mere opinions.
The Catholic Church is not the totalitarian, mind-controlling institution you like to pretend it is
Actually, i do not pretend it is at all in reality, as in fact i document that what it really believes is that even proabortion/sodomy/Islam pols are members in life and in death, and both and she is an amalgam of conservatives and liberals. For what you do and effect is the evidence of what you really believe.
But i am responding to papal teaching and the argument by RCs that rather than judging what are valid Truths by personal examination of the basis for it, which leads to divisions (which Rome sees), following the pope and magisterium in each generation is the answer to such, and can supply such texts as i did in support. Yet unless they reject traditionalist RCs as being essentially Prots, then they are traditionalists who criticize Prots for judging what are valid Truth by personal examination of the basis for it, but do likewise when faced with certain modern RC teaching.
. This Pope has jumped the shark, and Catholics are perfectly at liberty to say so.
If you can judge the pope then so can I, but prove that you can publicly dissent from non-infallible teaching such as papal encyclicals. And if you can be right over the pope based upon evidence of historical teaching, why cannot a Prot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.