Mantras, Rosary May Help the Heart, Study Shows

Reuters Health via Yahoo ^ | Friday December 21 10:31 AM ET | Charnicia E. Huggins

[Brian Kopp DPM]

To those that insist, against all scriptural and historical proofs, that sola scriptura is anything but a new false gospel created 500 years ago, the Truth seems to be a minor detail.

The bible is not a catechism. It is not nor ever was intended to be the sole rule of faith. Jesus built a Church (He never wrote a book), gave it a hierarchy, gave it authority, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead it to all Truth, and the promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. To that Church He entrusted the bible, and the authority to teach it, and teach from it, the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity.

That Church is the Church of Rome (and to a certain degree the orthodox churches) for this Church is the ONLY one that draws its lineage directly back to the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself.

If Rome teaches error, then Jesus Christ LIED when He said, "I will be with you always," and "what you hold bound on earth will be held bound in Heaven," "the Holy Spirit will lead you to all Truth" and (most importantly) "The gates of Hell shall never prevail against you."

Of course, if Jesus lied, and did NOT protect HIS CHURCH from error, he is not God. Therefore all other Christian denominations are false religions too, if Rome teaches error, and you and I should be atheists.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

From Genesis:

I will put enmity between you and the woman [Mary], between her offspring [Jesus]and yours.

Main Entry: en·mi·ty
Pronunciation: 'en-m&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English enmite, from Middle French enemité, from Old French enemisté, from enemi enemy
Date: 13th century
: positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will
synonyms ENMITY, HOSTILITY, ANTIPATHY, ANTAGONISM, ANIMOSITY, RANCOR, ANIMUS mean deep-seated dislike or ill will. ENMITY suggests positive hatred which may be open or concealed <an unspoken enmity>. HOSTILITY suggests an enmity showing itself in attacks or aggression <hostility between the two nations>. ANTIPATHY and ANTAGONISM imply a natural or logical basis for one's hatred or dislike, ANTIPATHY suggesting repugnance, a desire to avoid or reject, and ANTAGONISM suggesting a clash of temperaments leading readily to hostility <a natural antipathy for self-seekers> <antagonism between the brothers>. ANIMOSITY suggests intense ill will and vindictiveness that threaten to kindle hostility <animosity that led to revenge>. RANCOR is especially applied to bitter brooding over a wrong <rancor filled every line of his letters>. ANIMUS adds to animosity the implication of strong prejudice <objections devoid of personal animus>.

If Mary had enmity with Satan, she was his enemy. She had noting to do with him. She had not evil. She had not sin. The Immaculate conception is scriptural, its right there in Genesis. Of course, if your own personal interpretation of scripture differs from that of 2000 years of constant teachings, under the authority granted by Christ to His Church, via the Holy Spirit, then I would reexamine your own personal interpretation of scripture.

[MarkWar]

>Oh come on now! Thoughts are just words in your head...

They are?! Well, so say you.

[shrugs] It's a free world. Believe whatever you like.

Scripture doesn't use the words "thinking" and "speaking" as though they were synonyms. Cain thought he had sacrifices all figured out, too. He got a surprise...

Mark W.

[anniegetyourgun]

#12 is the Word of God - if that constitutes bashing, your problem isn't with me.

[anniegetyourgun]

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "All we like sheep have gone astray." "There is none righteous - no not one."

Grace does not come from our own doing and is not inherent - it is a gift of God.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Stick to the Douay-Rheims for the most accurate English quotation of Scripture.

Matthew 6:7 "And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens(emphasis added). For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard."

Heathens are pagans. Catholics are not pagans.

[anniegetyourgun]

I never said they were.

[Matchett-PI]

"Luke 1:28 "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

"This would be impossible if Mary were touched by any sin, since every sin diminishes grace. No other human is referred to in this manner in Scripture."

The fact that Mary had to receive God's grace is conclusive that she had sin, like all of Adam's children. And of course she is unique in Scripture--she is the mother of the Messiah, the Incarnation of the LORD Himself. No other human is referred to in this manner in Scripture. But this does not equate to making the leap of attributing to her blasphemous titles, sinless states apart from the atonement of Jesus Christ, and pagan goddess worship (sadly Rome is falling deeper and deeper into the cesspool of heresy).

"And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God *my Savior*. "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed" (Luke 1:47, NASB, emphasis mine).

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3:23-28).

"But then ... to those who want to believe that a human being has God's authority to _add_ doctrine to Scripture ... that is just a minor detail."

"I assume you hold this opinion of Luther for adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28".

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3:28, NASB).

We don't need Luther to add anything--Scripture is quite clear that justification in the salvic sense is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ and His perfect atonement. The eternal Truth stands--the atonement of Jesus Christ is either sufficient (alone) or it is insufficient (plus works). Christians know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation--not the synergy of a finite god and his partial atonement with the contributions of corrupted men dead in their sins.

Grammatically, Romans 3:28 is quite clear and uncomplicated. Many (probably most) Romanists are completely ignorant of Scripture and the historic Christian faith as well, and have no clue whatsoever what the Reformers actually wrote and believed in a comprehensive context, but simply the bits and pieces tossed out to them by Robert Sungenis, et. al.

Rome denies the Gospel, and officially at the Council of Trent, repudiated it and placed its anathema upon the Gospel. In accordance with Scripture, God places His anathema upon anyone that would do such a thing. With all of her manifest corruptions, it was at Trent that Rome officially and boldly proclaimed itself as a non-christian religion. Deny the Gospel, you deny the historic Christian faith.

You con't... "...and his attempts to discard James, Esther and Revelation and the actions of others who choose to freely edit those parts of Sacred Scripture that did not fit their new doctrines and opinions."

It is Rome that rejects Scripture, and ironically, it is Rome that has invented new doctrines and opinions in order to keep their extra-Biblical, and indeed, blasphemous teachings.

Of the numerous examples, the "Assumption of Mary" is but one that comes to mind. This particular Roman Catholic dogma originated with Gnostic heretics, it became a Roman Catholic teaching in *Munificentissimus Deus* by pope Pius XII, in *1950*.

Can anyone cite the Scripture for this one please? More germane to the context of the present analysis, what is the *historical* context of this *new* cultic teaching of Romanism?

While the assumption of Mary was new in the sense of being a Roman Catholic dogma in 1950, it has its roots in the 5th and 6th centuries, *among heretics*, and so condemned officially as such by Pope.

The teaching originates with Gnostic and Collyridian traditions, and was condemned as heretical by Pope Gelasius and this condemnation was officially confirmed by Pope Hormisdas. You may hear some Romanists attempt to say that the Gelasius condemnation is not authentic, but the *New Catholic Encyclopedia* affirms his condemnation, as does Roman Catholic scholars Denzinger, Charles Hefele, and Jurgens.

Wherever and whenever Rome held supreme sway, ignorance of Scripture reigned (and reigns) supreme--and this ignorance typically extended into the secular realm, as well. When the evangelical Christian faith triumphed, literacy, justice, representative government, private property, freedom of the press, were the order of the day. The historic Protestant nations birthed the above--historic Romanist nations are the seat of oppression, heresy, and ignorance.

Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Theologically, Roman Catholicism is simply the heresy so soundly refuted and rejected by God the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul in the book of Galatians; the similarities between the two heresies are striking; please note that item number one is a vital and important *truth* of the Christian faith--the caveat is to beware the logical fallacy of composition and not conclude that because they hold to good doctrine in one area that the entire edifice is still not corrupted:

Galatian Judaizers:

1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God
2. Circumcision
3. Become a Jew
4. Sacrificial System
5. Priests
6. High Priests
7. Altars
8. Feast Days
9. Laver of Water
10. Dietary Regulations
11. Candles
12. Incense
13. Shew Bread
14. Keep the Ten Commandments
15. Tradition of the Elders

Modern Roman Catholicism:

1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God
2. Baptism
3. Become a Roman Catholic
4. Sacrificial System
5. Priests
6. High Priests
7. Altars
8. Feast Days
9. Font of Holy Water
10. Dietary Regulations (only recently changed--another "new doctrine" of the Romanist system)
11. Candles
12. Incense
13. The Eucharist Wafer
14. Keep the Ten Commandments
15. Traditions of the "Church Fathers" (which in many, many instances do not support Romanism but go against it).

[Matchett-PI]

"If Rome teaches error, then Jesus Christ LIED when He said, "I will be with you always," and "what you hold bound on earth will be held bound in Heaven," "the Holy Spirit will lead you to all Truth" and (most importantly) "The gates of Hell shall never prevail against you."

Jesus didn't lie. It's precisely because cynical opportunistic tyrants in "Rome" brought error into the church, that God Reformed his church back to what it was by restoring the Truth. "Rome" does not equate to the historic, universal (small "c" catholic) church, against which the "gates of hell" will not prevail.

The Reformation could more accurately be called, "The Restoration".

[Brian Kopp DPM]

brought error into the church

You position is untenable. You can't have it both ways. Either the Church is Christ's body, which He protects from error, or it is not. If the Church fell into error, Christ lied. If you believe Christ lied and Rome introduced error, then your entire Christian belief system is schizophrenic. You should be an agnostic or an atheist if you honestly believe Christ allowed His own Church, which He instituted and promised to protect, to fall into error. The Church is the Body of Christ, with Him as its Head. If the Body is sick (in error) the Head (Christ) is sick. If you ever succeed in convincing me the Body fell into sickness, you will make of me an atheist.

Its either Rome (or Orthodoxy) or nothing. You have the "nothing" to offer me. Therefore yours is not an option for an honest Christian.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

"Rome" does not equate to the historic, universal (small "c" catholic) church, against which the "gates of hell" will not prevail.

Your ignorance of the history of Christianity is appalling.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a Christian writing around 110 ad, less than 80 years after the death of Christ, was very clear:

CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

This PROVES the early Church, even during the life of the personal disciples of the apostles, was

1)Sacramenta

2)Hierarchical

3)given authority by Christ Jesus

4)CATHOLIC

As far as the early Catholic Church being equated with Rome, you are incorrect:

Primacy of the Apostolic See

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in GILES,1-2

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows: For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.' In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less accounts.' "
Dionysius of Corinth,To Pope Soter(A.D. 171),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,4:23,in NPNF2:1:200-202

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..."
Pope Victor & Easter(c.A.D. 195),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24,in NPNF2,I:241-243

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all."
Athanasius,Dionysius of Rome,13 (A.D. 352),in NPNF2,IV:180

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all , that so a just sentence might prceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us."
Athanasius,Pope Julius to the Eusebians,Defense Against the Arians, 35(A.D. 347),in NPNF2,IV:118

Athanasius attended and sanctioned the deliberations of the Council of Sardica and referred to the Council of Sardica as "the great Council" (Defense Against the Arians 1) or "the Holy Synod" (Letter to the People of Antioch 5)

"Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add, that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before."
Council of Sardica,Canon III (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:416-417

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this."
Council of Sardica,Canon IV (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:418

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment. The bishops answered: What has been said is approved."
Council of Sardica,Canon V (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:419

"What we have always believed, that we now know, for experience is proving and confirming for each of us what he has heard with his ears. It is true what the Apostle Paul, the most blessed teacher of the Gentiles, said of himself: 'Do ye seek a proof of him who speaks in me?' For, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke by through his soul and animated the instrument of his body. And thus you, dearly beloved brother, though distant in body, have been with us in unison of mind and will. The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."
Council of Sardica,To Pope Julius (A.D. 342),as cited by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis The See of Peter (New York:Columbia,1927),pp.527-528.

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one."
Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,55

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest."
Optatus of Mileve,The Schism of Donatists,7:3 (c.A.D. 367),in GCC,50

"Yet, at the very outset, error was so far set right by the bishops on whom the attempt was made at Ariminum to compel them to manipulate or innovate on the faith, that they confessed themselves seduced by opposite arguments, or owned that they had not perceived any contradiction to the opinion of the Fathers livered at Nicaea. No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval."
Pope Damasus[regn. A.D. 366-384],About Council at Arminum,Epistle 1 (A.D. 371),in Theodoret's Church History,in NPNF2,III:83

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15:1-2(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"
Ambrose,The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168

[Brian Kopp DPM]

God Reformed his church back to what it was by restoring the Truth

This was neither reformation nor restoration but deformation and revolt.

1500 years after Christ, someone came along who was overly scrupulous and could not bear the burden of his guilty conscience. This man was a priest, but could not control his sexual passions. He used some abuses in Christ's Church in a remote corner of Christendom as an excuse upon which to hang his revolt.

So he invented a new false gospel to assuage his guilt and foisted it on the world. Bible books that did not fit his new false gospel were simply removed on his own "authority."

Intrinsic to this new false gospel was a rejection of the authority Jesus Christ Himself gave His Church on earth. That authority willed by God, was replaced with a new "authority," private interpretation of scripture.

However, the genie was now out of the bottle.

First man rejected the authority of God to give authority to the very Church He created.

Then man questioned the authority of scripture itself, and whether God was truly Creator.

Then man questioned not only the authority of God but His very existence.

Now man declares, GOD ID DEAD.

And if GOD IS DEAD, the final, natural conclusion of rejection of God's authority started 500 years ago, then man can do anything he damn well pleases to anyone. Might makes right. There is no such thing as "wrong." There is no authority upon which to hang any code of morality.

All because a man 500 years ago placed his own new false gospel of the "Bible alone" and "private interpretation of scripture" above the authority Christ Himself established as the protection against the destriction of the Gospel message Christ entrusted to His Church.

In 1930 mainstream "Bible only" protestantism fell into apostacy regarding contraception. Christianity always taught contraception was intrinsically evil. (This was ALL Christians, for ALL time, not just Catholics. The point isn't even open for debate. I can quote hundreds of protestant reformers and subsequent protestant theologians and writers, up to this very day, to prove this was the continual teaching of Christianity.)

This apostacy on contraception is the very root cause of abortion. Abortion follows the contraceptive mentality as night follows day. Evenb the US Supreme Court said so in Casey Vs Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, because mainstream protestantism and "Bible Christianity" in general condones non-procreative contraceptive sex, they have no moral authority upon which to preach against non-procreative homosexual sex. Thus the homosexual agenda juggernaut is directly a result of the apostacy of "Bible Christianity" on the birth control issue.

And if you can kill the innocent baby in the womb, why not granny in the nursing home? Euthanasia too is becoming widespread, as a result of the acceptance of abortion, which came from apostacy on the birth control issue.

The widespead acceptance in American culture of the culture of death --abortion, contraception, homosexuuality, euthanasia-- lies squarely on the backs of those who apostacized on the life issues several decades ago.

***

Atheism, contraceptive mentality, acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, the Culture of Death...pity...these are the fruits of your so-called "restoration."

Yes, of course, the roots of all evil are in Orginal Sin.

But Christianity was making inroads against these evils till this revolt's natural consequences, over several ensuing centuries, reversed the trend.

Sorry if this offends other lurkers. I'm sick of the ignorance and blindness to the brutal reality of the consequences of this so-called reformation/restoration.

[Matchett-PI]

"I'm sick of the ignorance and blindness to the brutal reality of the consequences of this so-called reformation/restoration."

To reiterate, this is one of the main eternal truths that God, himself restored to prominence that mere men tried to obscure:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3:28, NASB).

The atonement of Jesus Christ is either sufficient (alone) or it is insufficient (works must be added).

If you choose to believe those who say Christ's sacrifice ALONE is not sufficient to save sinners, then you are believing a lie because such people are not teaching eternal, unchanging, Scriptural Truth.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

You wanna take pride in the fruits of your "restoration," go ahead. Contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, atheism, etc., that is your fruits. They are the fruits of him who was liar and deceiver from the start.

I judge a tree by its fruits, regardless of your sloganeering and out of context proof texting. I am proud to be Roman Catholic. For one who knows the bible, history, and the condition of the world today, especially the onslaught of the culture of Death, there is no other option (with the possible exception of Orthodoxy.)

And according to scripture, faith without works is DEAD. Period.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

God, himself restored to prominence

What proof do you have, other than this new false interpretation of scripture, that the reformation was of God? It was not. It was the destruction of the unity of Christianity, and the unity of moral theology, and the seed of the culture of death, blooming to its full grotesque brilliance within the last century. You are blind.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Can anyone cite the Scripture for this one please? More germane to the context of the present analysis, what is the *historical* context of this *new* cultic teaching of Romanism?

Nothing "*new*" about the doctrine. There was nothing new about the doctrine of the Trinity when the Catholic Church officially defined it in 325, nor when the Catholic Church determined the canon of the New Testament in 393 and 397. The Catholic Church simply codified a belief that always existed in the Church as expressed in the writings of the early Church. Cite to me where in Scripture the words "incarnate" and "Trinity" appear?

The fact that Mary had to receive God's grace is conclusive that she had sin, like all of Adam's children.

While we are freed from original sin at our baptism, the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception. Jesus is the Savior in both cases. Mary's salvation from sin was more perfect. You conveniently forget that both Adam and Eve never sinned before the fall, Jesus never sinned and babies have not sinned. St. Paul points out the universal aspect of sin extending to both Jews and Gentiles. There are exceptions that fall outside of St. Paul's condemnation and the Blessed Virgin Mary is one of them.

This particular Roman Catholic dogma originated with Gnostic heretics, it became a Roman Catholic teaching in *Munificentissimus Deus* by pope Pius XII, in *1950*.

The doctrine was published and formally defined in 1950 by Pope Pius XII but had it's defining genesis as an official doctrine in 1849. Enlighten yourself by reading St. Gregory of Tours "Eight Books of Miracles" and St. John Damascene "Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary". Also refer to the writings of St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Ephraim and St. Ambrose. Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, why is it so diffiuclt to comprehend that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God would not also be assumed into heaven? The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption belong to the deposit of faith and are implicitly taught through Old Testament typology and explicitly by the Church Fathers. Where does Scripture mention the death of Joseph or Mary?

We don't need Luther to add anything

Then why do you use an abridged Protestant Bible edited by Luther and the Reformers and not a Catholic Bible? Luther and the other Reformers had no valid authority to edit the Vulgate to their liking. Again you need to quote an accurate text: Romans 3:28 "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." Douay Rheims. Luther's editing also rejects Christ's instructions in Matthew 19:17 to keep the commandments.

It is Rome that rejects Scripture, and ironically, it is Rome that has invented new doctrines and opinions in order to keep their extra-Biblical, and indeed, blasphemous teachings.

A totally false and blasphemous statement on your part. Luther and the Reformers rejected the Septuagint opting instead for the Hebrew canon. The Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D. and Carthage, 397 A.D., approved the Alexandrian canon for the Old Testament, over 1100 years prior to Luther's editing. Luther contradicts his own actions in his "Commentary on St. John" Chapter 16: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." By choosing a Protestant Bible you follow the non-Christian Jews at Jamina. Were it not for the Catholic Church, Protestants wouldn't have a Bible. Luther and the Reformers rejected Scripture by thumbing their noses at Apocalypse 22:19: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book." Douay Rheims. Quite simply, your text and thus your argument is irrefutably flawed.

The fundamental failure of Sola Scriptura is that it goes against the Bible and in fact the doctrine is not found in Scripture but instead is plainly rejected by Scripture; refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Peter 1:25 and John 21:25. Indeed the Protestant doctrine is a fabrication and thus a heresy; Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum.

The Reformation could more accurately be called, "The Restoration".

The most accurate description would be "The Big Lie That Begot 25,000 Denominations".

[Matchett-PI]

"You wanna take pride in the fruits of your "restoration," go ahead"

Let's see if I'm understanding your logic correctly:

When God restored this Truth to prominence (that power and control-hungry men NEVER GIVE UP trying to obscure to this very day): "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law", bad fruit was the result, and that makes me proud?

Is that what you just wrote?

This requires a yes or no answer:

The atonement of Jesus Christ ..... was it sufficient (alone) or was it insufficient (works must be added) in order to save sinners?

Please don't evade answering that question. Just answer yes or no.

You wrote: "And according to scripture, faith without works is DEAD. Period.

Absolutely.

Good works are merely *an evidence* of the gift of salvation (saving faith) that God has already given to those he places in his body, the invisible, universal (catholic) church which is scattered over all the earth.

I say, "an" evidence, because good works are not *the* evidence. If it was *the* evidence then we could easily tell the difference between the tares and the wheat / or the sheep and the goats. The religious tares/goats are good fakers, and easily fool those who judge by "outward appearances".

A man's works only determine the *extent of his reward" in heaven .... they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with his salvation/justification. (See the parables in the Scriptures that reveal this eternal TRUTH).

[Cap'n Crunch]

Wow, you guys are great! 'SMOKIN' LOL.

Salute! Merry Christmas

[Matchett-PI]

"..Jesus built a Church ... To that Church He entrusted the bible, and the authority to teach it, and teach from it, the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity."

Yet your church tries to obscure this eternal, Scriptural Truth: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law".

Roman Catholicism Hinders the Gospel

"I don't fuss with many things Protestants complain about with Roman Catholics because I think there are only a couple of things that are really serious. One of these is the doctrine of salvation: What must one do to be saved? The issue of justification is critical.

There is such a fundamental difference between Protestant and Catholic views on this issue that it's impossible to reconcile them, and this is one reason why the recent efforts of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) have fallen short. The issue of justification started the Reformation; it can never be abandoned by Protestants. It's a critical point of division, a gulf that can never be bridged between the two groups.

The second serious difference is the issue of authority. It underlies everything else because any theological view--like the doctrine of justification--is undergirded by a prior commitment to a certain authority. It isn't enough for a Protestant to quote Scripture on an issue. The trump card that Rome holds--this is their claim--is that they have the authority to tell you what the Scriptures actually mean .

Go HERE to continue reading.

[Matchett-PI]

"It was the destruction of the unity of Christianity.."

There can be no real *unity* (in a biblical context) unless it is around the Truth.

Is this eternal Scriptural Truth?: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law".

The atonement of Jesus Christ ..... was it sufficient (alone) or was it insufficient (works must be added) in order to save sinners?