A Testimony to God's Grace [ex-nun's true story]

I joined the Roman Catholic Church because I was looking for God. I entered the convent because I wanted to be close to God and to serve Him with radical devotion. But it wasn't until after I left Catholicism that I found the kind of relationship with God that I had been looking for all along. You can read about it in my poems.

My pastor and my father have both advised me not to give out personal information. This biography is an attempt to share my heart and my life within the framework of their advice.

I started out as a "liberal" intellectual who was prejudiced against Christianity. I had been taught to believe that Christians were gullible people who were either stupid or uneducated. I was basically an agnostic who didn't know or care whether God existed. For me, the idea of God was irrelevant. I looked to science, psychology, and politics to save mankind from its problems.

During my senior year in high school, I fell in love with a young man who was a devout Catholic. That was my first encounter with someone who strongly believed in God. I may have met Christians before that, but they didn't make their Christian beliefs known to me.

This young man prayed. He loved God. He was a man of principle and integrity. His life was guided by his religious beliefs. He had hope. He had a kind of compassion and respect for people that I had not seen before. There was something different about him. I didn't know what it was, but whatever it was, I wanted it. I figured that it had something to do with his religion, so I started taking instruction in Catholicism. The young man moved away and I didn't see him again, but I continued studying Catholicism.

During my first year of college I majored in biology. I also studied French and Latin. I went to a local priest every week for instruction. Under his direction, I studied many books including the "Baltimore Catechism" and biographies of well known modern Catholics. This was in the days of the Latin Mass, before there was a formal catechumen program. When I returned home for the summer, I found another priest to continue my instruction.

I was unable to return to college the following year. I found another priest to instruct me. For several years I continued to study with that priest, while working to earn money for college. The priest gave me more books to study including a series of booklets on Scripture. (There was a booklet for each book of the Bible. On each page, the top half of the page contained Scripture and the bottom half contained a Catholic commentary about those portions of Scripture.)

My job was close to a Catholic Church, and I went to Mass during lunch hour. I prayed for God to give me faith. I was praying even though I wasn't sure that God existed. My very first prayer was, "God, if You're out there, show me." I didn't take communion because I wasn't a Catholic. I only said as much of the Apostles Creed as I actually believed. It was a long time before I could even say the opening phrase, "I believe in God".

After several years I was baptized a Roman Catholic. Soon afterwards, my brother also became a Catholic. His instruction was through group classes. I attended those classes with him. I was hungry to learn anything that I could about God.

I went to a Catholic college and majored in Religious Education. My classes on Scripture taught a lot of modern "higher criticism," and some of my Religious Education teachers taught things that seemed to be contrary to the official teachings of the Catholic Church. I found a conservative priest and I checked teachings out with him to see if they were the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Because I no longer trusted the teachings of the Religious Education department, I changed majors.

When I entered the convent, I was careful to choose a conservative one which followed the official teachings of the Catholic Church. My training for religious life included studying the documents of the Second Vatican Counsel, other books relating to Catholic doctrine, and biographies of well known saints.

I spent over two years as a postulant and a novice. This was a time of testing for the leaders of the convent, and for me, to decide whether or not I should make vows. My mother superior had some questions about my calling, and she and the leadership decided that I should not remain in the convent. I left the convent on good terms and have occasionally been in contact with the sisters since then.

Our mother superior was very careful about which priests she allowed to say Mass at our convent. We had priests who were loyal to God and to the Catholic Church. They believed the Bible. They were faithful men.

When I left the convent and went to live with my parents, I couldn't find priests like that. The local priests seemed to have little faith and little loyalty, either to God or to the Catholic Church. I remember one Mass where the homily (a short sermon) was so distressing that I left in tears. I stayed outside, weeping. But then I went back in, in order to take communion. I tried every Catholic church in town, but I couldn't find a good priest.

I vividly remember a priest who spoke about Luke 7:38-50. This was the time when Jesus ate in the home of a Pharisee and a woman came and wept and washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and dried them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment. The Pharisee was critical. Jesus told him that he had not washed Jesus' feet, but the woman did. He had not greeted Jesus with a kiss, but the woman kissed his feet. The Catholic priest said that this event must not have really happened, because it would be rude for a guest to say something like that to his host, and Jesus would never have been rude. This illustrates an attitude towards Scripture which I encountered with a number of priests. It was very distressing.

Meanwhile, my parents had become Christians. They had joined a little Methodist church where the pastor believed the Bible and loved the people. Because the local Catholic churches were distressing, I started doing the splits. I went to early morning Mass (out of duty) and then I attended the Methodist church. When my parents joined another Scripturally based Protestant church, I followed them there, while still attending early morning Mass on Sundays. I did the splits for years.

I made myself go to Mass out of duty. But I went to my parents' church eagerly. I learned exciting things about the Bible there. I sang songs that stirred my soul. I took classes that made me more and more hungry for Scripture. I got to know people who were enthusiastic about God. I learned that Biblical principles really work, and that they make a significant practical difference in real life situations.

As I learned more about the Bible, I began to realize that some Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture. This was disturbing, but I kind of pushed those contradictions to the back of my mind and didn't deal with them. They made me uneasy, but I wasn't emotionally able to handle the idea that there might be something wrong with the Catholic Church.

My brother was a devout Catholic. He assisted the priests at Mass for many years. He lived several hours' drive away from us. We had a tradition that on Easter and Christmas, he would come visit and we would go to Midnight Mass together.

One Christmas, at Midnight Mass, the priest taught that the Christmas story as presented in the Bible is basically a pious fairy tale to make people feel good, but it has nothing to do with reality. My brother got so angry that he wanted to jump up and shout, "Are we here to celebrate it or to debate it?"

The next day, we went to church with our parents. The pastor there told us that Daniel had been in charge of the "wise men" of Babylon (magi). Therefore, they knew about Baalam's prophecy that the King of the Jews would be heralded by a star. Their religion included watching the stars for signs. So when they saw the special star, they realized that it signaled the coming of this special King of the Jews. Also, one of their functions was to decide who the valid king was if there was a controversy about it. So when they came to confirm that Jesus was truly the King of the Jews, they were fulfilling their official function.

Needless to say, the contrast was striking. And troubling. I did a lot of praying after that. By the following Easter, I had left the Catholic Church and joined my parents' church.

I didn't know what to tell my brother and his wife, because they were coming to visit at Easter, and I did not want to go to Midnight Mass with them. We had a long, awkward telephone conversation. Then I finally told them. They started laughing. They had also left the Catholic Church, and were in the process of visiting different churches, trying to find a church home.

There was a prayer that had a major impact on my life, but I don't remember the exact words. When I prayed it, I was crying and I didn't know why. And afterwards, things were different, but it's hard to put into words. The prayer was something like this:

"Jesus, I want to know You. Please reveal Yourself to me and make the Bible come alive for me. I want to be clean and start over again. Please forgive my sins. Wash them away and set me free. I want to live right. Please change my heart. Help me love what You love, and turn away from things that displease You. You know what's best for me. I want to do things Your way. Please be the Lord of my life. Teach me to love the way You love. Help me be faithful to You. Thank You for loving me and for hearing this prayer. Thank You for being my Lord and my Savior."

Since then I have been struggling with issues related to Catholicism. The papers that I have written have emerged from that struggle.

In addition to being a former nun, I am also a widow. My husband and I were very close, and his death introduced me to a level of emotional pain that I didn't know was possible. The articles which I have written about finding God's comfort during times of adversity were born out of my own experience.

My testimony is not unusual. A number of former Catholics have written me sharing how they found a living, personal relationship with God when they became born-again, Bible-believing, Protestants.

Some ex-Catholics read my testimony and wrote to me, wanting to be sure that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior. (He is.) An ex-nun befriended me. Two former priests gave me wise counsel. Other ex-Catholic friends have shared their hearts, their wisdom, and valuable information. I am deeply grateful for these people. May the Lord bless them for their kindness.

Your Word brings life to save my soul. Your Truth brings light to make me whole.

I was in religious life for a little over two years. I was a novice but I never made vows. A novice is someone who has entered a religious order and has been given a habit. He or she undergoes training and "religious formation" in preparation for taking vows. (There are novice monks as well as novice nuns.)

Some people have asked me why I call myself a former nun when I never made vows. According to "The Catholic Encyclopedia," if a monk or a nun has been accepted by a religious order (which I was) and has been given a religious habit (which I wore), then he or she is a monk or a nun in the broad sense of the term. [Note 1] So I refer to myself as a former nun.

Some people have asked me what I believe. In describing my beliefs, I am going to avoid technical terms. I am also going to avoid the issues about which different Protestant churches disagree, such as church government, form of worship, details about the Second Coming of Christ, and the relationship between predestination and free will.

I believe many things which are not in this summary. If I tried to go into them all, this would become too long and cumbersome. I am only going to mention some key areas. If I fail to mention something which you consider to be a foundational Christian doctrine, that does not necessarily mean that I don't believe it. It just means that I didn't mention it.

I believe in the three "solas" of the Protestant Reformation. We are saved by faith alone (not faith plus works). We are saved by faith in Jesus alone (not Jesus plus something else). Our rule of faith is the Bible alone (not the Bible plus tradition or other writings).

Saving faith is demonstrated by loving and obeying God, and by doing good works. These are the results of salvation, not the cause of it.

Christianity works for all Christians under all circumstances. There are some countries where Christians are severely persecuted. In these countries, Bibles are scarce, and Christians are not able to meet publicly. Some Christians have been put in prison for their faith, without Bibles, and often without being able to see fellow Christians. If Christians do not have Bibles to guide them and encourage them, then God has other ways of guiding them and strengthening them. God is not limited by our circumstances.

It is valuable to have Bibles and pastors and teachers and church meetings. If they are available, then we should benefit from them as much as possible. But if those things are not available, then God is powerful enough to enable us to live godly lives without them. Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13) and teach us "all things" (John 14:26). God is able to keep us from falling. (Jude 1:24)

I believe in the authority and the accuracy of the Bible. I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. Jesus said that the Father showed Him what to say. (John 12:49) Surely our God is capable of doing the same thing for the men who wrote the books of the Bible.

Through the Bible, God shows us His nature and His character. He shows us what we should believe and how we should live. We need to test everything against Scripture. We also need to ask God to help us understand Scripture, to reveal Himself to us through the Bible, and to help us live according to His Word.

Ordinary people can understand the Bible. We don't have to rely on experts or church officials. The basic principles are simple enough for a child to understand. But the Bible is so rich that a brilliant scholar can spend a lifetime studying it and still not understand everything in it.

I believe that every Christian can have a personal relationship with God. We all have direct access to Him. We don't have to rely on professionals, church officials, and other special people.

I believe in the Atonement. Jesus died to save us from our sins. I believe in the Resurrection. Jesus literally rose from the dead and He now has a glorified body. He is in Heaven with the Father, and He is interceding for us. I believe in the Second Coming. Jesus will come back again.

I believe that at the end of all things, we will all stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 5:22; Romans 14:10) Talking about judgment is not popular these days, but it's in the Bible. When Judgment Day comes, we will want to be numbered with the Redeemed, the Saved, those whose sins have been forgiven. Even then, our works will be tested by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)

I believe in the Trinity. There is only one God. But there is the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. I believe in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. Jesus was miraculously conceived by God. Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born.

I don't understand how this works. But even the Apostle Paul had things that he didn't understand. Paul often spoke about mysteries that are beyond our understanding.

Even in the physical world, there are many things which we can't understand. According to the laws of aerodynamics, hummingbirds and bumble bees should not be able to fly. But they do. Scientists are studying them in hopes of gaining new understanding about aerodynamics, and developing new forms of aircraft. There is an animal called a platypus which is warm blooded, lays eggs, and nurses its babies. It looks and acts like a cross between a mammal and a lizard. Everything is made of atoms. Atoms have a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and there are electrons that go around the nucleus. The protons are positive. Neutrons are magnetically neutral. And electrons are negative. Have you ever tried to take two magnets and hold the positive sides of them together? They push each other away. Yet here we have these protons all together in the nucleus of the atom. What holds them together? Scientists don't know.

The Atonement is another mystery. I believe that Jesus did it. The Bible gives me some understanding of why we desperately needed to have Him do it for us. But I cannot understand how He could love us enough to do it. How could Jesus love us so much that He was willing to be tortured to death for us? Especially when He knew that most people would not respond to Him and would not appropriate the salvation that He paid such a high price for. How could God the Father love us so much that he endured the agony of watching his beloved Son be crucified? God's love is beyond my comprehension.

I believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way that we can be saved. In the Garden of Gesthemane, Jesus prayed to the Father, begging His Father to spare Him from having to drink the cup of suffering. (Matthew 26:39; 26:42) If there was some other way to save us, don't you think that the Father would have told Jesus? Don't you think that Jesus and the Father both intensely wanted to find some other way to save us? But there was no other way. Jesus had to go through the indescribable agony of mocking, shame, abandonment, physical torture, and death in order to save us. And He was willing to do it for us.

If there was some other way, then why did Jesus suffer for us? If good works, or being nice, or sacraments, or devotion to Mary, or good intentions, or wearing the brown scapular, or non-Christian religions, or anything else would do the job, then Jesus didn't need to suffer for us. Nobody in their right mind would go through that kind of suffering if it wasn't absolutely necessary. And no loving father would allow their son to go through it if it could be avoided. There is no other way. That's why Jesus died for us.

I have a Biblical world view. I believe in a literal heaven and hell. I believe that the devil is real. I believe that angels and demons are real. And I believe that God intervenes in the lives of individuals and of nations in response to prayer. I believe that the healings and miracles and supernatural events of the Bible are real. They really happened. God did it then, and if He wants to, He can do it now. (If you want to see an example, read "God's Smuggler" by Brother Andrew. God supernaturally protected Brother Andrew when he was smuggling Bibles into Communist countries. I have also read and heard accounts of God supernaturally protecting modern Christians who were being persecuted.)

I live in America. Many people here no longer believe in a Biblical world view. It is interesting that two things are happening at the same time. Many modern Christians are abandoning their belief in the supernatural things which are described in the Bible. At the same time, belief in occult supernatural things is growing rapidly and is becoming more and more mainstream. Books, movies, and TV shows are full of it. Some colleges have courses in goddess worship, witchcraft, spell casting, and other occult things. The American military has Wiccan "chaplains".

But God can use all things, even the occult. I know a man who saw the movie "The Exorcist". He also read the book. It persuaded him that the devil is real. He decided that if the devil is real, then God must also be real. So he started reading the Bible to find out about God. This man eventually became a strong Christian.

If I were to contact her (them?) I'm afraid I don't know quite what to say. uh, or ask.

That's where I was. And how to validate? It would take more than a call although that might provide something with luck.

I was just putting the information out there. Maybe someone else will think of a way.

It did seem odd to me that the name was on the registry, since the person claimed it's a pseudonym.

As to the topic, two things raise red flags for me: First is the content, it's just too pat and too much and too similar to the same old same old. Second is the anonymity. He/she gives no good reason for and I can't see any good reason for it; and, as we see, it damages credibility. The only reason it makes sense to me is for subterfuge.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

I can see the sense you are making here,
or should I say I'll acknowledge you may indeed be on to something in;

First is the content, it's just too pat and too much and too similar to the same old same old.

But then, much of human life and experience is the same old, same old, too. So I dunno...

"Second is the anonymity. He/she gives no good reason..."

I myself was satisfied with the stated reason when first running across it, though I do see how it may create suspicion.

Unfortunately, not everyone, even among Catholics, is as a reasonable and [seemingly to me] calm person as you are. We mistake at times, other's innate goodness, particularly if there be goodness within ourselves, and depend on such to lead to decent behavior.

Not from you, but from what I've experienced in my own personal life, and here recently have both witnessed and received here at FR, one can easily enough see the animosity that a story such as hers could bring out of SOME people.

Now most, wouldn't do anything worse than cluck their tongues. The best among them, might even pray for her. The worst? Who knows? It could get ugly in a hurry.

Hehheh...I did send an email to the address at the linked page. The page went up in 2003? or at least that was the date I'm remembering seeing. Not having a phone number to call, I left my own number. Really, I did.

But I'll not be holding my breath, while waiting for a reply. I might seem a bit "poisonous", for being involved in argument.

Even if the email address is still valid --- since I told them I came from here, what I had done in searching out supporting references that can be seen to enable the "nun" claim, albeit "only in the widest" use or meaning --- and a few had given me some grief (one poster in particular), one could see that such a person may decide that they don't want anything to do with contacting anonymous people on the internet who are openly discussing, or even arguing religious issues.

Would you, if there were such inflammatory issues involved? I might, but then again, I've always been pretty bold in standing for those things I've experienced directly by the Spirit of the Lord. Even if it irritates some people...Perhaps I should practice a bit more closely the "wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves" approach.

They may well have decided to state only what they have, and leave it at that. Besides, real or not, it gives folks more leeway to simply reject it out of hand. For all I know, this person may be real, and it's the Lord whom constrains her from revealing much, even if it be only through the council she has claimed to receive concerning it?

I left my real name, hoping that might help. But like I said, if you have any ideas which seem good, or think may work, feel free to contact me. If you have that phone number handy, freepmail it to me, if you would? I have a cellular phone contract that gives me free long distance, only going against my time allotment, which I never seem to use up anyway.

Ok. But it was only one poster who was a headache. Give the others here some credit, would you?

I find that many (most all here on this thread) are fair enough, if one begins with simple "reasonableness", if there is such a thing...

Anyway, I hear you. What I found puzzling was how that one TROLL, quit posting, as soon as I "gave up", telling him also that he could have the last word. Some sort of phyricc victory for himself? --- or was it just his demonic influences, which were working overtime trying to provoke a negative reaction out of me, even to the very last?

Guys like that don't know it, but they risk tempting the Lord also, when they think it's only me they are tempting.

Now that works both ways, of course. If I were to indulge too much in similar behavior, then woops. Not good...The Lord doesn't like it.

I believe Jesus would admonish you all for your bickering.

There are differences between Catholics and Protestants but they have way more things in common than not.

Mark 9

38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

That being said this author seems to have an unhealthy obsession with attacking the Catholic Church.

I believe the testimony is false with intentions Christ does not approve of.

If you are happy being protestant why have a web site like this author.

When I see this bickering all I see is the judgement of one man(or Woman) by another. This is contrary to Christs teachings.

“”it simple lists the RCC catechism and then gives the Scripture that refutes and contradicts the RCC teaching.””

No! It misuses Scripture without ever understanding what is written in the Catechism,thus proves total ignorance for the purpose of pride in their “do it my way” ministry

Perhaps you should what is written in the Catechism?
Here is some of it....

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6O.HTM

Respect For the Human Person

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. the person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.”37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”38

1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. the teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.”

Dear Sister, A Christian is someone who hates sin and evil with a passion and loves goodness to the point in which he/she humbles themselves for the good of others to be willing to drink death like water.

This ,my Dear Sister is what taking up the cross means.

I am in no way trying to divert attention here. I am just stating that, legally in the Church she cannot be considered a nun. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Encylopedias are helpful in explaining ideas, but the Catholic Encylopedia is not the law of the Catholic Church.

I don't understand this "widest possible view" argument either - like I said, under the widest possible use of the term Italian, I could be considered one. That does not mean I am a citizen of Italy - the legal definition of "Italian." Just because people use words (nun, Italian, etc.) carelessly does not make their use of them correct.

As regards to the laws of man/God disagreement, you are right. I rushed to conclusions about your point - I read your words in the context of the thread, and with all the "traditions of men" sneers thrown about on this forum I may have misinterpreted your words. I apologize for that. My only point was to refute a point (which I agree you did not directly assert) that I read as "the Church is full of loopholes, etc. because it is a construction of men - God's Law is simple and clear." Now, whether or not you do agree with that point I have no idea - it was my own interpretation of your words, and I obviously was mistaken. Sorry.

Thank you for the kind and thoughtful reply.

Yes, God's laws are simply and clear. And again, the Encyclo. isn't "law" per se, but helpful as guidelines(?) in defining, explaining, or illuminating ideas or precepts? We might find some rough agreement on this?

Yet too, isn't the Encyclo. looked upon or used as a sort of codification? To help define things, who, what, how, even the "why", in such ways that conform to the traditions?

You say that;

legally in the Church she cannot be considered

a nun.

To which laws or set of codification are you referring to?

By the definitions and descriptions outlined in the Catholic Encyclopedia, there are indeed what appear to be *exclusionary* facets to the more commonly applied, but also more narrow definitions, of when and how one should be considered a nun, or monk too, for that matter.

We see here;
Under Novice;II. JURIDICAL CONDITION

can be found;

novice

regular

in the widest sense of the word

from this page; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12722c.htm entitled

Regulars

we find at the beginning or near top of the page, this opening line which I admittedly left out of my initial post outlining the plausibility of her claim [to have been formerly considered, to have been a nun];

regulars

bearing in mind that "monks" and nuns most generally or widely are regulated similarly.
With the widest usages speaking of classification of monks, applying broadly also to the female version, which are nuns.
Particular exceptions, and the more precise definitions in other reference materials, said to apply to particular named religious orders and under other more precise conditions, not withstanding.
We find near at the bottom of the that defining reference page;

novices

regulars

wider meaning of the word

Novices
become by way of the grace of
"the widest sense of the word"
regulars which is also a term used at times for
monks=nuns

In light of the above, it appears there may well enough be room to properly identify her, during the time in which she was more narrowly defined as a novice, to be considered also, concurrently, under the widest sense, to be a nun.

As she (Mary Ann?) set forth in attempt of explanation in her "Note" found at the linked source page;

NOTE

1. "Novice" in the 1913 edition of "The Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XI. This article is available on-line. The term "novice" refers to both monks and nuns who go through a period of training and preparation. In Section II, "Juridical Condition, "the article states that a novice in a religious order is a "regular" in the widest sense of the word. (A "regular" is a technical term for a monk or a nun.)

I can see the logic train she seems to have followed, or used as explanation...I hope the color coding I've added helps more than detracts.

I know that for myself, when I see a gaggle of sisters in cloistered locale, to my untrained eye, all wearing a habit would look like "nuns", to me. Not that my own puny sight identifications would really matter all that much, but still it would loosely conform to this 'widest sense' mentioned.

Regardless, disputes over classification, where and how they may apply, are of course best and more properly & orderly, decided by a presiding Bishop.

For the sake of discussion here, I offered what I have, in an effort to look in towards the possibility, of this Mary Ann, not being a "liar", as a few here have so vehemently proclaimed.

It does seem plain enough to me, that this rush to hurl the accusation "liar", has been a bit hasty, to say the least.

"Humbling ourselves" is what the cross means?

Oh, my. And here I thought the cross was about Christ humbling Himself for us.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:5-13

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.