R
reen12
Guest
Hello, adventistnomore
Thanks for your kind words,
God be with you,
reen12
Thanks for your kind words,
God be with you,
reen12
- Status
S
severinus
Guest
bones_IV:
I think your style of winning converts to the joy of Catholicism could use some refinement. In all charity, please leave apologetics to those with some knowledge of the proper definition of “heretical” and some familiarity with the conventions of English grammar and orthography.
Shalom.
OK, I’m better now.
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, puzzleannie,
quote:** puzzleannie**
the web, so that I can read the article.
All best thoughts,
reen12
quote:** puzzleannie**
Thanks for the info. I hope Catholic World Report is on
the web, so that I can read the article.
All best thoughts,
reen12
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, severinus,
I’m glad that you feel better now.
Besides, I wouldn’t be considered a heretic, I’d be
formally considered an apostate.
Sigh.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve sought refuge in
Judaism. It doesn’t prosyletize.
Every best wish,
reen12
I’m glad that you feel better now.
Besides, I wouldn’t be considered a heretic, I’d be
formally considered an apostate.
Sigh.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve sought refuge in
Judaism. It doesn’t prosyletize.
Every best wish,
reen12
B
bones_IV
Guest
Reen 12,
You can’t be noahide and defend the Catholic faith. They just don’t mix. I my opinion you are not a defender of the faith. Either you defend the Catholic faith or you don’t.
You can’t be noahide and defend the Catholic faith. They just don’t mix. I my opinion you are not a defender of the faith. Either you defend the Catholic faith or you don’t.
R
reen12
Guest
I don’t know when I’ve had a better time.
Ain’t “religion” fun?
Distressfully,
reen12
Ain’t “religion” fun?
Distressfully,
reen12
A
astralis
Guest
I started a wiki topic on Mary Ann Collins . If you’re able to provide any information as fairly as possible, that would be very helpfu
One question I’m personally asking is whether Mary Ann Collins is real or fictitious. If you have any data, please provide. Particularly, she admits that she did not take her vows. But, how did this information come out? Did she freely admit it? Does anyone know where she went to take her vows? Does anyone actually know her?
S
Superstar905
Guest
people, don’t you understand, all REEN12 is saying is that she will defend the Catholic Church where people misrepresent her teachings…she never said she subscribed to her teachings, or else she would be Catholic…why are you attacking her Bones? back off, who are you to judge 
B
bones_IV
Guest
To defend the teachings means to subscribe to them. Removed offensive portion of post. I do not apologize for making this statement and I won’t back off either.people, don’t you understand, all REEN12 is saying is that she will defend the Catholic Church where people misrepresent her teachings…she never said she subscribed to her teachings, or else she would be Catholic…why are you attacking her Bones? back off, who are you to judge
S
severinus
Guest
bones_IV:
First, part of ‘proclaiming’ the truth is presenting it in a way which attracts people to it. Otherwise, you are just screaming into the wind.
Second, there is nothing wrong with reen defending the authentic teachings of the Church against those who misrepresent those teachings. I may correct those who misrepresent the views of Marxists even though I am not a Marxist. There are plenty of people out there slandering Catholics and we should be happy that there are those who fight that slander, no matter what their beliefs.
I, for one, am glad to have reen and others like her around. They may not be pillars of the Church, but they are buttresses supporting it from the outside.
First, part of ‘proclaiming’ the truth is presenting it in a way which attracts people to it. Otherwise, you are just screaming into the wind.
Second, there is nothing wrong with reen defending the authentic teachings of the Church against those who misrepresent those teachings. I may correct those who misrepresent the views of Marxists even though I am not a Marxist. There are plenty of people out there slandering Catholics and we should be happy that there are those who fight that slander, no matter what their beliefs.
I, for one, am glad to have reen and others like her around. They may not be pillars of the Church, but they are buttresses supporting it from the outside.
R
reen12
Guest
Dear Severinus,
I like the “buttress” image.
I once told a poster, that if any pirates try to swamp the
barque of Peter, let me know, and I’ll jump back aboard,
to help repel boarders.
My head and heart take me to Judaism, but you always
love and defend your family.
[Long live Benedict XVI.]
Gratefully,
reen12
I like the “buttress” image.
I once told a poster, that if any pirates try to swamp the
barque of Peter, let me know, and I’ll jump back aboard,
to help repel boarders.
My head and heart take me to Judaism, but you always
love and defend your family.
[Long live Benedict XVI.]
Gratefully,
reen12
C
Catholic29
Guest
As far as I know she is a real person, here is her Bio from her website: catholicconcerns.com/Bio.html
A
astralis
Guest
Are you basing it on her bio? I admit I have no proof. But I’ve read through her bio and I can’t shake the feeling that it leaves out the essential information and reads like a Jack Chick tract.
I made a list detailing some of the issues:
I made a list detailing some of the issues:
- She claims to be a former nun but refuses to state where she attended
- No where in her articles does she locate herself - even Jack Chick locates himself in California and he has a paranoia against the Catholic Church. None of her writing indicates paranoia against the Catholic Church.
- Her articles, particularly her biography, reads like a Jack Chick comic (this is subjective, I realize).
- Her website information is private and there is no address.
- She invites e-mail correspondance and personally replies.
- Her e-mail correspondance sounds like an apostolate to distribute information against Catholics where she always invites the correspondant to distribute her information.
- She is a prolific writer particularly for her age and demographic. She could be an exception, of course - I’ve met a couple. Although she provides no dates, she states she became Catholic when in college when the Baltimore Catechism was in effect as well as Latin Mass. The must be pre-Vatican II. So, I’m going to presume she is in her 60s.
- No one that I know of has admitted knowing Mary Ann Collins nor admitted being in a convent with her.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
S
severinus
Guest
I think you might have hit the nail on the head. The clues are there: generic name, no locations, no details, the ridiculous stories. Now I feel like an idiot for thinking Collins was real.
One thing I noticed in her ‘bio’ was that she referred to the “Second Vatican Counsel.” This is not very likely for someone with her alleged background.
Nice work, astralis.
S
Superstar905
Guest
fair enough…however, to defend against misconceptions of what the Church teaches, does not mean to subscribe to them.
For example, a protestant hears someone say that The Catholic Church teaches to worship Mary, and that we place her above Christ, etc…and that protestant corrects the person by saying “hey, thats not right, this is what the Catholic Church really teaches…”. This does not mean that the Protestant actually agrees with the Church’s teaching, just she is correcting the misconception about it’s teachings.
Understand?
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
I saw William Webster’s name and that kind of settled the issue of her credibility for me. Although, I didn’t realize that Webster is an ex-Catholic.
I think this woman needs to read Steve Ray’s book and listen to his 3 hour talk on the papacy. She goes the predictable route of “petra” and “petros” and of course…drum roll…tries to say that James made the final “sentance” in the council in Acts, ignoring the fact that when Peter spoke everyone listened (when no one would listen to each other before that) and that James says that “Simon is right”…basically stating that he makes his “judgement” or “sentance” BECAUSE Peter was right about circumcision and Gentiles.
In Christ,
Rand
I saw William Webster’s name and that kind of settled the issue of her credibility for me. Although, I didn’t realize that Webster is an ex-Catholic.
I think this woman needs to read Steve Ray’s book and listen to his 3 hour talk on the papacy. She goes the predictable route of “petra” and “petros” and of course…drum roll…tries to say that James made the final “sentance” in the council in Acts, ignoring the fact that when Peter spoke everyone listened (when no one would listen to each other before that) and that James says that “Simon is right”…basically stating that he makes his “judgement” or “sentance” BECAUSE Peter was right about circumcision and Gentiles.
In Christ,
Rand
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Here is the e-mail that I just sent her…I don’t expect a reply, though I am hoping for one.
Peace be with you!
I read through your website on the Catholic Church, and, with all due respect and without the intent of sounding condescending, I can see why you are no longer a nun–you are horribly misinformed about what the Church actually teaches. I am aware that you don’t do debates, and the reason for that is strikingly obvious: those claims made on your site simply won’t stand up to the serious apologist.
Now while you don’t do debates, I would at least appreciate a reply back to this e-mail. Know that I am not attacking you; only the fictitious claims made on your website.
I have no intention of disproving every claim made on your website, as that would prove too long an e-mail; one which you would most likely not read. I will, however, offer some reasons why one of your most outragous claim is just that.
First I would like to address Chapter 6, ‘Undermining the Bible’. I absolutely must know in a reply e-mail where exactly you got this information from. You make the ascertion that the books of the Deuterocanonicals, which you predictably refer to as “Apocrypha” were added to the Bible at the Council of Trent. Now hold it right here for just a minute! I recall you mentioning the Councils of Carthage in an earlier chapter. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply did not read the canons from those councils, rather than accuse you of ignoring or overlooking one of them. What is that canon, you ask? The canon of Scripture, and this is readily available online; just google the canons of the Councils of Carthage. The Deuterocanonicals are found in the ORIGINAL CANON OF SCRIPTURE…it’s blindingly clear. Not to mention the fact that you can (and once again, this is readily available online) look in Jerome’s Vulgate and see those seven books as part of the canon of Scripture…nearly a thousand years BEFORE the Council of Trent.
I’m also going to, once again, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never read any of Martin Luther’s letters or books rather than accuse you of ignoring or overlooking things in there as well. (However, these benefits of the doubt are destroying your credibility either way–if you read these documents or not; for how can one take your claims seriously if you have not read them, and how can one take them seriously if you have and have ignored the parts that don’t support your arguments?) When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he removed the seven books of the Deuterocanonicals, the letter to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, and the book of Revelation. The latter three books have since been placed back in the Protestant Bibles. The Council of Trent was called as a RESPONSE to the Protestant Reformation–and keep in mind that at the time of his Bible translation, Luther was still a Catholic monk–so how could Martin Luther have removed seven books that were supposedly “added” in a council that did not take place for decades AFTER he removed those books???
Peace be with you!
I read through your website on the Catholic Church, and, with all due respect and without the intent of sounding condescending, I can see why you are no longer a nun–you are horribly misinformed about what the Church actually teaches. I am aware that you don’t do debates, and the reason for that is strikingly obvious: those claims made on your site simply won’t stand up to the serious apologist.
Now while you don’t do debates, I would at least appreciate a reply back to this e-mail. Know that I am not attacking you; only the fictitious claims made on your website.
I have no intention of disproving every claim made on your website, as that would prove too long an e-mail; one which you would most likely not read. I will, however, offer some reasons why one of your most outragous claim is just that.
First I would like to address Chapter 6, ‘Undermining the Bible’. I absolutely must know in a reply e-mail where exactly you got this information from. You make the ascertion that the books of the Deuterocanonicals, which you predictably refer to as “Apocrypha” were added to the Bible at the Council of Trent. Now hold it right here for just a minute! I recall you mentioning the Councils of Carthage in an earlier chapter. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply did not read the canons from those councils, rather than accuse you of ignoring or overlooking one of them. What is that canon, you ask? The canon of Scripture, and this is readily available online; just google the canons of the Councils of Carthage. The Deuterocanonicals are found in the ORIGINAL CANON OF SCRIPTURE…it’s blindingly clear. Not to mention the fact that you can (and once again, this is readily available online) look in Jerome’s Vulgate and see those seven books as part of the canon of Scripture…nearly a thousand years BEFORE the Council of Trent.
I’m also going to, once again, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never read any of Martin Luther’s letters or books rather than accuse you of ignoring or overlooking things in there as well. (However, these benefits of the doubt are destroying your credibility either way–if you read these documents or not; for how can one take your claims seriously if you have not read them, and how can one take them seriously if you have and have ignored the parts that don’t support your arguments?) When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he removed the seven books of the Deuterocanonicals, the letter to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, and the book of Revelation. The latter three books have since been placed back in the Protestant Bibles. The Council of Trent was called as a RESPONSE to the Protestant Reformation–and keep in mind that at the time of his Bible translation, Luther was still a Catholic monk–so how could Martin Luther have removed seven books that were supposedly “added” in a council that did not take place for decades AFTER he removed those books???
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
cont’d.
You also cite the Hebrew canon as your “proof” that the Deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the Jews. There’s only one problem with this: you’ve neglected to look at the date of that decision and to do your research into what books the Jews actually accepted. Keep in mind that Luther also tried to cite the Hebrew canon to justify his removal of these books (once again disproving the notion that they were added at Trent). However, the council that decided upon these books (and here is where your lack of research has dire consequences) was held in the year AD 70…nearly 40 years after the death of Our Lord. This same council EXPLICITLY DENIED THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF ALL THE GOSPELS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WELL AS THE DEUTEROCANONICALS; they denied the canonicity of the very books which make up our faith in Christ! Are you willing to accept their decision on that as well? Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of a post-Christ Jewish council are to be binding on Gentiles? Absurd! We know that any Jewish council held after the time of Christ is not binding on Christians, and yet you try to use the parts that suite your arguments and throw out the rest when it doesn’t.
One more note on your lack (and Luther’s, since he did the same thing) of research: the Jews in Ethiopia always accepted the Deuterocanonicals as part of Scripture (as well as most Jews in Palestine around the time of Jesus; these books can be found in the Septuagint), and still do today. And Orthodox Jews today have…guess what?..prayers for the dead. Ask an Orthodox Jew and they’ll tell you the same.
As I said, I’d appreciate a reply to this e-mail. I don’t expect a debate, just an explanation of why these poorly researched claims led to your exodus from the Church. I will keep you in my prayers, in hopes that you will open your eyes to the truth and stop letting the lies spread by people like William Webster to continue to cloud your vision. If you were wrong about the canon of Scripture, what else are you also wrong about?
In Christ Our Savior,
You also cite the Hebrew canon as your “proof” that the Deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the Jews. There’s only one problem with this: you’ve neglected to look at the date of that decision and to do your research into what books the Jews actually accepted. Keep in mind that Luther also tried to cite the Hebrew canon to justify his removal of these books (once again disproving the notion that they were added at Trent). However, the council that decided upon these books (and here is where your lack of research has dire consequences) was held in the year AD 70…nearly 40 years after the death of Our Lord. This same council EXPLICITLY DENIED THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF ALL THE GOSPELS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WELL AS THE DEUTEROCANONICALS; they denied the canonicity of the very books which make up our faith in Christ! Are you willing to accept their decision on that as well? Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of a post-Christ Jewish council are to be binding on Gentiles? Absurd! We know that any Jewish council held after the time of Christ is not binding on Christians, and yet you try to use the parts that suite your arguments and throw out the rest when it doesn’t.
One more note on your lack (and Luther’s, since he did the same thing) of research: the Jews in Ethiopia always accepted the Deuterocanonicals as part of Scripture (as well as most Jews in Palestine around the time of Jesus; these books can be found in the Septuagint), and still do today. And Orthodox Jews today have…guess what?..prayers for the dead. Ask an Orthodox Jew and they’ll tell you the same.
As I said, I’d appreciate a reply to this e-mail. I don’t expect a debate, just an explanation of why these poorly researched claims led to your exodus from the Church. I will keep you in my prayers, in hopes that you will open your eyes to the truth and stop letting the lies spread by people like William Webster to continue to cloud your vision. If you were wrong about the canon of Scripture, what else are you also wrong about?
In Christ Our Savior,
S
Strider
Guest
Settle down, pal. reen12 is a friend of mine. She’s doing what you should be doing; making sure that when people attack the Church, they are actually attaking what the Church believes. You know the Bishop Sheen quote, or you should.
Anyway, tone down the shouting and cool it. You’re way out of bounds, here.
Maureen,
I’m happy to see you on this thread. I thought I upset you with my PM
- Status