Well, you can, but in Revelation John is pretty specific about what will happen to you if you do. 
Posted on 07/23/2007 3:36:15 PM PDT by annalex
Sunday, July 22, 2007
As a young Catholic I was unaware of the amount of irrational hatred that was directed toward the Catholic Church and Catholics themselves. Growing up in Los Angeles I was not subject to the Fundamentalist “tracts” being placed on my family car while we were at Mass as I would have been had I lived in the “Bible Belt”. My exposure to people of other faiths was frequent and always positive. The majority of my friends growing were Jewish as were the girls whom I had the honor of dating. My babysitter growing up was Mormon, as was my Paternal Grandfather. My Paternal Grandmother is a Methodist and my Father was an atheist for most of his life. My Maternal Grandfather was a Presbyterian from a family that produced many deacons. However, my Maternal Grandmother was an Irish Catholic and thus my Mother was a Catholic and therefore we were raised Catholic. None of this was seen as a conflict. None of the above people in my family ever acted as though anything was “wrong” with my siblings and I being raised Catholic.
In my college years I essentially fell away from the faith. I still called myself a “Catholic” but had no particular belief in any of the dogmas that makes one a Catholic. I just knew that I was of Irish ancestry and thus was “Catholic”. My beliefs were for the most part agnostic. I thought that true believers were absurd (I included both theist and atheist true believers as absurd).
While in college I heard all about how the Catholic Church was responsible for the Dark Ages, the destruction of the Native Peoples of the Americas, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, pimples on teenagers, Milli-Vanilli and just about everything else that negatively effected anyone anywhere at anytime everywhere. I learned how peaceful and wonderful Muslim societies were and how Christians lived very well under Islamic rule. And how the Crusades were an evil move by a corrupt Pope to throw off that wonderful balance and have a huge land grab for greedy Churchman and Nobles. I heard how nothing good happened in the Christian world and no good men were produced in the Christian world until Marin Luther and later "the Enlightenment". I look back now and marvel at how I remained a Catholic even if it was in name only. All my history professors with their fancy PhDs thought Catholicism was a force for evil in the Western World who was I to disagree? Of course I just went along and got good grades and degrees not really challenging the idiocy that I was being taught.
There I was just a young guy going through life not contemplating the great issues of life and certainly not contemplating being a Catholic when I had the misfortune to meet a Rabbi that was a friend of my wife’s family. During our discussion, the rabbi told me about things that Christians “buy into” like the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was God. I was told that I could never understand Jews and their suffering at the hands of Catholics. I was told that I “would never know what it is to be a Jew or how it feels to have your children forced to sing Christmas carols (oh the horror! the horror!)”. I would never know what it is like to look at someone like me and see the Inquisition and the Crusades. Now, anyone who is not a self absorbed bigot would know that talking to a person who is half Irish and Catholic knows a little something of prejudice and persecution. My ancestors could not own land in their own country. They had to pay taxes to a foreign English master and support his foreign Church that was a parasite on their own land. They had real persecution. If they could have gotten off with simply singing Church of Ireland songs rather than pay taxes to and be persecuted by the British, I'm sure they would have gladly accepted. But why look past ones on victim-hood in order to see truth, when victim-hood is so much more of a commodity in our modern society.
At that point I made a commitment to understand my faith. I would never let someone attack the beliefs of my ancestors as this rabbi did without making a strong defense. My ancestors were willing to be persecuted (the real kind of persecution not the Christmas Carol kind) rather than abandon their faith. The least I could do is understand what they found so important as to endure what they did. Thus starting my journey toward becoming a passionate believer. The irony of a anti-Catholic bigoted rabbi bringing me closer to the truth of Christ is absolutely wonderful.
I started reading books by the usual authors that are sold at Borders and Barnes & Noble like George Weigel. While informative they were, upon reflection, very superficial. However, I happened upon a book called “Catholicism verses Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. I thought it was simply going to be an analysis of Catholic beliefs versus Fundamentalist beliefs. What I had purchased was a wonderful combination of satire and apologetics. It has become the definitive apologetics book produced in the last 30 years. The title of the book itself mocks Jimmy Swaggarts silly book “Catholicism and Christianity”. Throughout the book I was baptized by fire into the world of anti-Catholicism. I learned about such Fundamentalist writers and “thinkers” as Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack Chick and others. Keating dismantled their arguments so thoroughly that one wonders how these people are not all routinely dismissed even by honest Fundamentalists. Sadly, low rent bigots like Hislop, Boettner and Dave Hunt are still widely read in Fundamentalist circles. Swaggart has fallen out of favor as we all know. Keating opened up a new door to me. I now was ready for the next step and started buying every book by Chesterton and Belloc I could find as they are the greatest apologists for the Catholic faith in the last 100 years.
The Holy Spirit has a funny way of working. I became friends with a wonderful guy who happens to be a Fundamentalist Christian. As we would talk he would mention some of the things that Keating talked about in his book. I was informed that Peter never went to Rome and that the Church was founded by Constantine the Great, and that Easter is really “Ishtar” and other scholarly insights that occupy the minds of Fundamentalist writers. I was told all about Catholicism and how it is really just paganism re-written. To his and most Fundamentalists credit, they literally do not know they are repeating lies. These books are sold at Protestant Book Stores and Churches. Also, he informed me of these things out of love as he believed my soul was in peril. So he could not process the refutations that I would make to him and just go on to the next attack. Most Catholics know about this tactic that Fundamentalists use. They will tell us what we believe and how stupid we are for believing it. 99% of the time they are wrong. The problem is that they have been told by Dave Hunt (his bio is from "rapture ready") or James White that the Calumnies that they are stating are Gospel truth.
After a while I began to pick up more and more apologetics material to refute my friends claims. I also decided that I would no longer play defense with him. I would attack his belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). When I would press him and ask about where those teachings are found in the Bible he would have no answer. This lead to his anger that I was asking too much to show me where the Bible taught either one of those Protestant Traditions (Traditions of men, not of God I might add). I would also repeat what he would say to me but re-phrase it to see if he really was willing to stand by it. For instance, he once told me that he was passionately anti-Catholic. I responded “Really? So if I were Jewish would it be okay for you to tell me that you are passionately anti-Jew?” He was taken aback and responded “Of course not!” I then responded “I guess some hatred is acceptable while others is not”. His response….silence. And then move on to the next attack. That is generally the tactic of the anti-Catholic. Never acknowledge that they are wrong, just move on to the next attack until they find something that the Catholic cannot answer. Usually it ends with some obscure Pope from the 7th century that no one knows about.
Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. It blinds people and they become obsessed with the destruction of something that they cannot destroy. People have been trying for 2000 years. Churchmen like Roger Mahoney have done their best. But the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. So this leads to desperation. Which then leads to all kinds of ridiculous theories and outright lies about what Catholics believe and do. It does not stop with Fundamentalist Christians though. Before we think “well that’s just those weird bible-thumpers” let’s examine some things that people just “know”.
People "just know" that the Catholic Church did nothing in the Americas but persecute the indigenous people and massacre them. We "just know" that Priests never stood up to the Spaniards. Of course this is untrue. It is true that there were Catholic Priests who conducted themselves terribly during colonial times. However, it was Catholic Priests who sought to make life better for the indigenous people. Jesuits armed Indians against the Spanish in Paraguay, Francisco de Vittoria pleaded with the Spanish King in defense of the Indians. Most people in the Americas have never heard of Bartoleme de las Casas. Las Casas, a Spanish Dominican Priest has been called the Father of anti-imperialism and anti-racism. There is also Antonio Montesino who was the first person, in 1511, to denounce publicly in America the enslavement and oppression of the Indians as sinful and disgraceful to the Spanish nation. There of course were villains in the Spanish system but so were there in the American and English systems that were dominated by Protestants. We don’t hear about the brutality of Protestant lands in the US. We hear about those backward Spanish Catholics (who built the first Universities in the Americas) but not about the theocratic police state established in Geneva by John Calvin or the massacres carried out by Anabaptists in Munster.
In some cases anti-Catholicism is not only profitable it can allow for common bullies to slander and desecrate the memory of men finer than themselves without repercussions. Take the case of Daniel Goldhagen. He has made a career out of slandering the Catholic Church. Commenting on Mr. Goldhagens slanderous book A Moral Reckoning, Rabbi David Dalin, described Goldhagens work as "failing to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship.” He went on to say “That the book has found its readership out in the fever swamps of anti-Catholicism isn't surprising. But that a mainstream publisher like Knopf would print the thing is an intellectual and publishing scandal." This statement is absolutely correct. Let us be honest though, Goldhagen simply represents the double-standard that exists in our society. He is a left wing Jew who attacks the only group that it is acceptable to attack in modern American society, the evil Catholics. If a right wing Catholic were to make his living by attacking Judaism and slandering a prominent rabbi while blaming Judaism for the Marxist massacres under the NKVD he would be an out of work “conspiracy kook” and a anti-Semite. He would certainly not be published in the New Republic. Goldhagen has made the absurd statement that Christianity is anti-Semitic at its core. Imagine if one were to say that Judaism is anti-Gentile to its core. They would be isolated as an anti-Semite. The message is clear. A Jewish bigot like Goldhagen gets published by Knopf and the New Republic while his mirror image would be isolated and vilified.
I would like to wrap up with some other observations. All Catholics are told endless stories about Catholics persecuting people. Generally it starts with a Catholic King who orders the persecution of a group and despite the Bishops or Pope condemning it, "the Catholics" are to blame. An example of his would be during the Crusades when Crusaders massacred Jews along the Rhine. That was “the Catholics” despite the local Bishops hiding and protecting Jews. When a Protestant barbarian like Oliver Cromwell slaughters Catholics at Drogheda and sells the women and children into sex slavery or sacks Wexford that’s not “the Protestants”. That’s just Cromwell.
Much is made about Hitler being a baptized Catholic by ignoramuses like Dave Hunt. Other bigots like Goldhagen argue that Nazism was an extension of Catholic bigotry through the ages. Yet these people do not mention that Karl Marx was a Jew and that the ranks of the NKVD, some of the greatest murderers of all time, were filled with Jews. By using Goldhagens logic should we not attack Judaism and Jews? If we Catholics are and our faith are responsible for a former Catholic who later went so far as to persecute the Church, should not Jews be held responsible for Karl Marx and Genrikh Yagoda and the fact that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish. The answer is of course not. Your Jewish neighbor has likely not heard of the NKVD, Yagoda let alone support what he and they did.
As I wrap up my thoughts on this I should say thank you to all of the people that I mention above. Especially the Rabbi who started my journey. Had he not been a self absorbed bigot, he would not have angered me and I would not have explored my own faith. I would have continued in my ignorance and would not have understood the faith that built Western Civilization and sustained my ancestors. I would not have understood the faith that Christ taught to the Apostles, that was passed on to their successors, our Bishops. I would not truly know the joy of being a Catholic. His ignorant statements brought about my reversion back to the true faith and my wife’s conversion to it. For that, I will literally be eternally indebted to him.
Well, you can, but in Revelation John is pretty specific about what will happen to you if you do.
No, I do not accept parts of Catholic doctrine anymore than you accept parts of Protestant doctrine. That does not mean we are not both believers.
it's a big transformation, and I take it to be why Paul talks about dying with Christ, and having Christ live in us. When God looks at me I hope He will see Christ, because Christ lives in me and His spirit has re-made me.
Now I can't remember what got us going here. I suspect it was something like my wanting on the one hand to deny that I, of myself, can ever be worthy of anything other than a lake of fire, but my confidence that God wants to work for me, then in me and through me so that I can be a beacon of His reflected light - a moon or asteroid or something to His sun.
okay, I'm almost used up for tonight.
Deifying Mary. Those words, CorRedemptrix, Mediatrix do not imply she is God, by any means. Perhaps you should read what the Church says about them. You said that a council has deified her, and that’s what I asked you to substantiate.
“I am not a Protestant. Nevertheless, It’s very easy to preach Catholic departure from the scriptures and the simple path to God that Jesus taught. It’s written in the Catholic doctrine. The current issue is called “Mariology” and it is not hidden.”(WT)
True that many things taught are not written in scripture. That is the point that Christ made when He said, “Hear the Church.” He did not say, “Read My book,” because He formed a Church to give the whole truth, and scripture also says not all things He said or taught are there. Now, I suppose we’re flogging a dead horse here, since it’s been pretty much the same for 400 years, but the matter of importance is that for 1500 years, the Church existed doing the teaching He wished. Veneration of Mary is one thing (as among many as complained about or doubted, I guess is closer to say, by protestants.
“I don’t hate the Catholic church. I have contempt for its ecumenical council creating manmade policies that depart from the simple word of the Lord and teach a false doctrine.”(WT)
Which council? Or all councils? How do you determine they are false, man made policies? I suppose, when you say, “...simple word of the Lord...” that is a point to be considered, since we know from that same source, not all He taught is there, and it was never meant to be all the teaching required.
“There appear to be several relatively recent nonCatholic translations of the original text. They seem to agree wit the Kings James version.”(WT)
There are no original texts. If there were, there would be little question by anybody about what it says. The best (as far as I know of) is the Latin Vulgate, organized by St Jerome, after the Catholic Church decided the canon. It is assumed/guessed/postulated that he had original sources, but far as I know, nobody really knows that either.That is the Catholic Bible
“But, nevertheless, you are saying that, since there is a Catholic guided translation, one must be Catholic to be saved, and all Catholic doctrines must ipso facto, presumed valid and necessary for salvation?”(WT)
No. What I’m saying is that no bible existed (notwithstanding OT scripture), and that indeed, no bible is necessary to realize the truth from oral sources from the Church Christ founded. That’s why it’s not a man made institution, but a Divinely instituted organic, living, breathing organization, made by God to save souls. That’s why it cannot be destroyed, and is now the oldest organization on earth. True, it is run by men, and sometimes bad men, and even they cannot destroy it. All dogma is truth, and it cannot be contrary to the Bible, since they are just 2 sources of truth, and Truth cannot be in conflict with itself. What you call apparent conflicts are due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. That does not mean that everything that is true is contained in the Bible, even though all that’s in the Bible is true.
“Certain Catholic doctrines are not found in and are inconsistent with the very Bible translation it published.”(WT)
You have to be more specific. I’m not sure what you mean by doctrines. There are many things in Catholic theology which we may believe, and some things we must believe to be Catholic.
“I am opposed to Catholic doctrines because I read the Bible and don’t find them there. If reading the Bible conditions me, then I am conditioned.”(WT)
That could well be true. We know from the bible itself that not all truth is there. It was never meant to explain all truth, as I said above.
“I am not a Protestant. My “religion” is what Jesus said to do and not to do, according to the written word.”(WT)
That is perhaps, the nub of the problem. Why, “according to the written word”? He said to listen to the Church, did He not? When He instituted His Church, there was no written word, and would be not written word for 400 years before anybody could know what to read, with a confirmation of truth, and to confirm what was the true written word, the Church He founded would have to confirm that.
“When Jesus speaks of a “church” it is actinicly clear that He speaks of the aggregate of all those who choose follow Him. The interpretation the church gives to the Matthew passage that presumes to bestow some royal lineage down through Peter is flatly inconsistent with what Christ said elsewhere.”(WT)
I suppose you think it is inconsistent, but not with folks for 1500 years before anybody doubted it. Besides, the faith God instituted always had a distinct leader to settle any differences of opinion. The high priests of the jews sat on the chair of Moses. The pope sits on the chair of Peter. If God wishes us to know the truth, as He said He did, we must by necessity have a final arbiter of theological questions, or we’d have 30,000 “churches” with differing opinions of almost all questions, and nobody would know the Truth. That just doesn’t sound to me like a loving God who wants His creatures know the Truth. Besides, what you are saying is that instead of a pope elected in the Church God founded, you are your own pope. So I suppose, we are arguing about which pope is the true pope, no?
“America reputed the divine right of kings and all that malarkey long ago. It must be likewise invalid when applied to a faith, especially when applied to a faith, else the founding fathers were flat wrong to create a representative republic and should have replicated a monarchy.”(WT)
I can’t answer that. I don’t know if the founding fathers were perfectly correct, or not. You are making a comparison of a group of men as opposed to Christ and His chosen apostles. I guess you are saying the Faith should be a democracy? Vote for truth? Not being smart. I just am not sure what you mean. In any case, no man made government has ever lasted 2000 years, nor make the claim that it will be here til the end of the world. Even Hitler wanted his to last 1000 years. -Glenn
In their daily preaching. It’s clear from historical writings from the fathers of the Church from the 1st century.
“How about: His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. John 2-5
Uh. . .what?”(WT)
The question from you was why do it, when it seems like “going straight to Christ” is the right way. The above is the last quote from Mary in the NT. It’s indication that when venerating the Mother of God, she will always lead one to her Son. History is peppered with Church haters who happened to venerate Mary and were led back to Christ and His Church.
“Makes great sense. What’s your problem with it, other than it describes the church as a con, I mean.
Please don’t give me a link. If you have an argument to make, make it yourself.”(WT)
I made the argument before, but you’ve just demonstrated the same. Assume the opponent is wrong and then explain why he makes such mental errors, instead of trying to determine IF it is an error. The link was a much better explanation of the process. In other words, the Church is so wrong, anybody who believes that stuff must be mentally incompetent or brainwashed, or at the very least, so simple as to be easily fooled.
That happens to be another protestant ploy; that Catholics are not allowed to think, and are kinda numb from the shoulders up. -Glenn
It doesn’t say grow wing, but will be given wings.
“14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.”
I don’t know what that means. Far as I know, could be a helicopter or a piper cub. Whatever. But, yes, I believe it. Don’t you?-Glenn
Yes, indeed:
18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 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. “
Perhaps I can ask why the protestant bibles are missing several books from the Old and several from the New Testamant? Also, as you say, you can’t just pick and choose what are symbols and what aren’t. I might point out in the quote above, John says, “For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book:...” He said “hear.” He knew, being an apostle, that the Church was founded to teach, not give a book to base all your faith upon. You seem to be saying we can’t pick and choose depending upon our denomination. Are you trying to say it must be an individual making the choice of what it means without a denomination? Does that make you your own denomination?
Once again, I’m not being a smart alec. I just am not sure what you are getting at.-Glenn
“I figure Simon was the genesis of Maryitis. He was a smart one. Or the magisterium followed in the spirit of his con.”
Simon the magus or Simon the apostle? Whichever Simon it was, did he know that he worshipped Mary and was sincere in passsing this Mary worship on (even though the future Mary worshippers would be ignorant of this goddess worship) or did he not really worship Mary but just tricked those who came after into worshipping Mary but not knowing they were worshipping Mary?
Freegards
If it was indeed Cephas that first participated in the error of Mariology, then how in the world can we trust anything else he did or wrote?
If he is untrustworthy, then Jesus erred in making him an Apostle. If Jesus erred once, he probably erred again. Now the entire group of disciples is suspect; the writers of the Bible are suspect and so is the Bible.
Therefore Jesus is untrustworthy and isn’t anything more than a religious zealot that gathered a bunch of followers. I guess that we’d all better convert to Judaism while there’s still time.
“If it was indeed Cephas that first participated in the error of Mariology, then how in the world can we trust anything else he did or wrote?
If he is untrustworthy, then Jesus erred in making him an Apostle. If Jesus erred once, he probably erred again. Now the entire group of disciples is suspect; the writers of the Bible are suspect and so is the Bible.”
Yeah, good ol’ Pete had his problems but I don’t reckon he would slip goddess worship into the early Church. Altough Mary must have been an overwhelming spiritual presence, and I could possably see how a pagan who never new about Christ might mistake her for some sorta divine being, ol’ Pete knew Christ, literally, and of course would have squashed any hidden Mary worship message.
“Therefore Jesus is untrustworthy and isn’t anything more than a religious zealot that gathered a bunch of followers. I guess that we’d all better convert to Judaism while there’s still time.”
Heay, Iay ain’tay eavin’lay ifay Iay an’tcay aketay ymay Arymay orshipway ithway emay!!
Freegards
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren ...[election of Mathias episode]
(Acts 1)
1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
(Acts 2)
You really believe there will be an actual dragon casting water out of his mouth? The woman will grow actual wings?
Now, like you said, the speech in Apocalypse 12 is symbolic. The question is symbolic of what? I believe that Satan persecuted the Church and slanders, that is spews vomit, Our Lady the Theotokos and her Church, and that she is assumed into Heaven, that is "grows wings".
Very good, sir.
If the woman were given wings, in this context, what else could it mean?
And the presence of Mary at such an important event as Pentecost, with her mentioned specifically, well, Scripture doesn’t often meander into the useless or the inane. With her mentioned so very often throughout the Gospels, how can one filled with the Holy Spirit NOT arrive at the conclusion that Mary is worthy of so much honor. Not worship, of course, but great honor.
Note also that as the spouse of the Holy Ghost, Mary did not need to be present at the Pentecost in order to receive the Holy Ghost. She was there simply to be with her children.
I think that I shall so note.
I never thought of that before. Thank you. I shall think on that during tomorrow’s Rosary during my drive to work.
Here is another man praying the Rosary on the drive to work.
I do also. I assume it had something to do with the picture in the St Joseph’s Catechism, when I was young, which showed the dad driving and praying the Rosary.-Glenn
I tried before to discover the praying proclivities of Protestants / non-Catholics, but was underwhelmed in responses.
We Catholic are reviled for praying the Rosary (Novenas, Chaplet of Divine Mercy etc etc), but I really don’t understand where and when the devout Protestants actually do pray, especially when the Scriptures say they should. We are reviled for kneeling and genuflecting, but do they ever bend a knee, in spite of all the Scriptures that say they should.
We keep Holy the Lord’s Day at least by attending church; my devout Protestant friends attend their services with much less frequency than we.
I refer back to the title of this thread once again.
True, there are many things not found in scripture, but we must question what men say that were not close to the time and events. Especially when those things conflict with what is said in scripture, and that said in scripture is entirely sufficient to salvation.
Which council?
The group of men that make Catholic policy, doctrine and settle dogma. I understand it's called magisterium. As a Catholic, you knew that , didn't you?
There are no original texts.
What did King James use?
No. What I’m saying is that no bible existed (notwithstanding OT scripture), and that indeed, no bible is necessary to realize the truth from oral sources from the Church Christ founded.
Very interesting. Since men can say whatever they please, we have a credibility problem.
All dogma is truth, and it cannot be contrary to the Bible, since they are just 2 sources of truth, and Truth cannot be in conflict with itself. What you call apparent conflicts are due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. That does not mean that everything that is true is contained in the Bible, even though all that’s in the Bible is true.
However, Mary is nowhere found in the teaching of Christian principles by the disciples and Paul, nor is there mention of her past the Gospels. There is no misinterpretation and misunderstanding; there is nothing to misunderstand or misinterpret. All passages about Mary are clear and unambiguous, and to interpret otherwise is to require a preconception.
You have to be more specific.
Worshiping Mary, described by kneeling before statutes thereof, praying to and calling "mediatorix" and "coredemptrix". And, praying to any human being living or dead for any reason whatsoever instead of exclusively to God.
We know from the bible itself that not all truth is there.
I disagree. Everything one needs to know to seek the kingdom of God and approach the Throne is found in the four Gospels only.
That is perhaps, the nub of the problem. Why, “according to the written word”? He said to listen to the Church, did He not?
No problem, the way to god is simple and clearly laid out int he Gospels. Jesus said to seek the kingdom of God and all else would be added to you and that the kingdom of God is within. Leaves no room for any church whatsoever other than those of believers desiring to worship together. Especially not a church that cons it followers in order to suborn them.
The pope sits on the chair of Peter.
And the kingdom of God's exists within each human being. Jesus said to seek it, in belief and faith. The pope is a con artist, nothing more, if he departs from this simple teaching one scintilla. So are any Protestant church organizations.
I don’t know if the founding fathers were perfectly correct, or not. You are making a comparison of a group of men as opposed to Christ and His chosen apostles. I guess you are saying the Faith should be a democracy?
In leaving a heir determined monarchy dependent on "royal blood"? Absolutely. the "royal blood" has simply been replaced by "royal spirit".
I'm saying that the Spirit of God, within and available to each and every human soul without outside intervention, does not respond to any attempt of man to pass It one like some aristocracy, and place a human head over it so as to determine who passes and who does not.
To assign a human gatekeeper, my friend, is patent blasphemy. You have been, and continue to be, conned. I don't believe God blesses fools.
Point it out. Give me specific passages that somehow credibly validate May is placed on the same spiritual level with Jesus and shares in His work.
It’s indication that when venerating the Mother of God, she will always lead one to her Son.
This requires conditioned preconcreption to reach.
In other words, the Church is so wrong, anybody who believes that stuff must be mentally incompetent or brainwashed, or at the very least, so simple as to be easily fooled.
Why, no, it has always been simple to con people using their desire to save their asses. Simon did it and the Catholic church does it.
Again, I am not a Protestant. I have the same problem with some Protestant churches that I have with the Catholic church, i.e. arrogance.
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.