Catholicism and Satan

[Cat_Herder]

I will put enmities between thee and the woman
Sure this very clearly refers to Eve? Especially as in the verse before, **the woman **is used in reference to Eve…

Eve is NOT at enmity with satan.

 

[promethius]

I know Psalm 118: 105 'Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths.’ and Matthew 18: 4-8 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child… But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me… but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.’

Perhaps you ought to think about that before you start boasting how the light of the Lord’s Word is in your own full possession, and accusing people of not possibly being Catholic. Good-day.

What exactly are you trying to say with this post, Tann? I’m a little at a loss for words as to why you would post something such as this and expect NOT to be considered a possible troll… perhaps you can clarify?

 

[Tannhauser]

Eve is NOT at enmity with satan.

The verses preceding and directly after refer also to the woman, and this woman is Eve.

Surely *her seed * is Eve’s seed?

Just my initial interpretation… please correct me if this is wrong… but I’d like a good reference of why it is. Why would God suddenly change His reference?

 

[BlankFace]

Really? I didn’t know this at all. Actually: 1 John 5: 7 ‘And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.’

Amazing verse, but apparently, and according to the New Internationa Version, this verse was found in no Greek manuscript before the 16th Century… what does that imply I wonder?? Is the original/ early Greek manuscript not going to be better to refer from??

2nd as regard Priests: I find it very difficult to speak to priests privately… especially if I am asking them questions that ‘question Catholic dogma’.

That’s intersting about that verse on the trinity, yet even hardcore calvanist/baptists/ pentacostals belive in the trinty. Maybe Were all wrong and the jehova’s got it right, but i doubt that. As I’ve said before this disupte over denominations and finding the “true faith” can be quite frustrating and futile, which is why I lean towards Catholicism.

As for the priests, if you find one that’s sensitive to your questions( and I’m sure there’s alot!) you should be fine. Priest are practically therapist to many of their parishiners, and I’m sure nothing would make them happier than discussing their faith with a protestant that has questions. You may have your reservations about the Catholic faith, but don’t be scared or shy to talk to a priest.

 

[Tannhauser]

What exactly are you trying to say with this post, Tann? I’m a little at a loss for words as to why you would post something such as this and expect NOT to be considered a possible troll… perhaps you can clarify?

You have deliberately misquoted me. If you take the wider context, it was in reference to 1ke, who was rather abrupt and rude, gave no help or advice, and actually insisted that I couldn’t possibly be a Catholic. I was demonstrating that I actually am a Catholic, and have an array of different materials to help me study my faith [that indeed I am not a troll]

Don’t misquote.

 

[Tannhauser]

That’s intersting about that verse on the trinity, yet even hardcore calvanist/baptists/ pentacostals belive in the trinty. Maybe Were all wrong and the jehova’s got it right, but i doubt that. As I’ve said before this disupte over denominations and finding the “true faith” can be quite frustrating and futile, which is why I lean towards Catholicism.

As for the priests, if you find one that’s sensitive to your questions( and I’m sure there’s alot!) you should be fine. Priest are practically therapist to many of their parishiners, and I’m sure nothing would make them happier than discussing their faith with a protestant that has questions. You may have your reservations about the Catholic faith, but don’t be scared or shy to talk to a priest.

Baptised/ Confirmed Catholic… the questions are to help me support and defend my faith in the Church. x

 

[Cat_Herder]

The verses preceding and directly after refer also to the woman, and this woman is Eve.

Surely *her seed * is Eve’s seed?

Remember that God had said He would also put enmity between the woman and the devil. For the woman to be Eve, Eve would have to have been alive at the time of Jesus Christ, which she wasn’t; and Eve would have also have had to receive some kind of special grace that would put her at enmity with the devil, which she didn’t.

 

[Tannhauser]

Remember that God had said He would also put enmity between the woman and the devil. For the woman to be Eve, Eve would have to have been alive at the time of Jesus Christ, which she wasn’t; and Eve would have also have had to receive some kind of special grace that would put her at enmity with the devil, which she didn’t.

Well, from an initial interpretation, Jesus doesn’t even seem to factor in to this. ‘and her seed’ might be understood as ‘the seed of Eve’s’ and thus God is saying: I will make it so that the seed of Eve [the rest of humanity] will not follow you, and will despise you.

She shall crush your head, then, might mean: Eve, through her seed, and thus the rest of humanity, will crush your head, because they will follow me and believe in me… and you will only lie in wait, trying to tempt them, but that won’t work ultimately…

???

 

[promethius]

You have deliberately misquoted me. If you take the wider context, it was in reference to 1ke, who was rather abrupt and rude, gave no help or advice, and actually insisted that I couldn’t possibly be a Catholic. I was demonstrating that I actually am a Catholic, and have an array of different materials to help me study my faith [that indeed I am not a troll]

Don’t misquote.

How did I misquote you? 1ke suggested the possibility that you might not be catholic, and you responded with a verse about scandalizing children. I quoted your ENTIRE post, so it’s not like I took anything out of context.

I’m just trying to figure out how that verse has anything to do with your discussion with 1ke…

 

[BlankFace]

Baptised/ Confirmed Catholic… the questions are to help me support and defend my faith in the Church. x

wait, are u saying your catholic? or are you saying you don’t feel comfortable discussing things with a baptised and confirmed catholic?

If your not Catholic you should know that Catholic’s don’t preach non-catholic’s will not be saved, they have hope for all christians although they encourage them to return to the catholic church.

Either way just find a nice parish around your neighborhood and email the priest with your concerns/ questions. You don’t have to be catholic to seek council from a priest, and those that say different are selfish.

 

[Tannhauser]

wait, are u saying your catholic? or are you saying you don’t feel comfortable discussing things with a baptised and confirmed catholic?

If your not Catholic you should know that Catholic’s don’t preach non-catholic’s will not be saved, they have hope for all christians although they encourage them to return to the catholic church.

Either way just find a nice parish around your neighborhood and email the priest with your concerns/ questions. You don’t have to be catholic to seek council from a priest, and those that say different are selfish.

Yah I’m baptised and confirmed. extra ecclesiam nulla salus: that does kind of suggest that non-catholics won’t be saved… although Vatican 2 admitted that ‘God’s grace operates outside of the Catholic Church’… although many strict ‘Traditional’ Catholics insists that non-Catholics are going to Hell (I think).

 

[Tannhauser]

How did I misquote you? 1ke suggested the possibility that you might not be catholic, and you responded with a verse about scandalizing children. I quoted your ENTIRE post, so it’s not like I took anything out of context.

I’m just trying to figure out how that verse has anything to do with your discussion with 1ke…

If telling me, a child of God [me], that I’m probably not Catholic, because I don’t know enough about my faith, is not scandalizing children of God - intentional or not - then I don’t know what is.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well, from an initial interpretation, Jesus doesn’t even seem to factor in to this.

That’s because you’ve left Him out. Only Jesus can crush satan’s head. Not incidentally, this occurred at a place called Calvary (which literally means “the skull.”)

The rest of the explanation tries to assert that humanity can save itself by its own faith or works, which is a heresy. Again, only Jesus Christ saves.

 

[Tannhauser]

That’s because you’ve left Him out. Only Jesus can crush satan’s head. Not incidentally, this occurred at a place called Calvary (which literally means “the skull.”)

The rest of the explanation tries to assert that humanity can save itself by its own faith or works, which is a heresy. Again, only Jesus Christ saves.

Good point! So ‘she shall crush your head’ means: by the child of Mary, [Christ], Mary will crush your head…

It does say though: ‘She shall crush your head’, does that mean ‘by virtue of her birth of Christ, she shall crush your head’ ?

What does the ‘lie in wait for her heel’ bit mean then?>

 

[BlankFace]

You know I have some issues with Mary as well, but when I think about it, I always come to the same thought.

When Jesus was a baby, Mary held him. She fed him, she guided him, she wiped his little azz. She new what her mission was, and she carried it out perfectly. We don’t know what happened with Jesus during those “lost years” between 12 and 30 or so, but I like to think Mary was there, protecting him and taking care of him.

I always get images in my head when I think of Mary, and not the tradtional ones such as her weeping at the cross w/ John. But of things not mentioned in the bible. Like when Jesus was a little over one year old and Mary encouraging him to get up after he fell when trying to walk the first time. Or her tending to a crying baby at night that was scared for whatever reason.

Sometimes I ask the question, would Jesus have been succesful in his mission if he had a more inferior mother? Most would say of course, it was God’s plan that his only son live and die for our sins, but than it must be part of his plan to pick the perfect mother to care for him when he was weak and vulnerable and therefore, this mother must be blessed.

Maybe I’m wrong and saying things I want to believe, but I always think of that one sentace when people argue about Mary, “When Jesus was a baby, she held him.”

I’ve enjoyed this discussion btw and want to thank you again for making this post.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I am not. All of the points listed refer to real facts about the Church (e.g. we do call the Pope ‘Holy Father’.) I am not saying: this is heretical; I am saying: why is this, and what’s the answer…

First and foremost, the Pope is a priest and priests take a vow of celibacy. Because of that vow of celibacy, priests beget children in the spiritual order. That’s why we call them “Father”.

This first quote is from Pope Pius XII 's Apostolic Exhortation **MENTI NOSTRAE **(1950). The whole article can be read here .

Celibacy

1. The priest has as the proper field of his activity everything that pertains to the supernatural life, since it is he who promotes the increase of this supernatural life and communicates it to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, it is necessary that he renounce “the things of the world,” in order to have care only for “the things of the Lord”.[30] And it is precisely because he should be free from preoccupation with worldly things to dedicate himself entirely to the divine service, that the Church has established the law of celibacy, thus making it ever more manifest to all peoples that the priest is a minister of God and the father of souls. By his law of celibacy, the priest, so far from losing the gift and duties of fatherhood, rather increases them immeasurably, for, although he does not beget progeny for this passing life of earth, he begets children for that life which is heavenly and eternal. "

Pope Paul VI also alludes to it in his encyclical SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS (1967) .

The Pope has more than one title. Another of his titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

…2. The Immaculate Conception is not explicitly stated in the Bible… ‘Hail, full of Grace’ doesn’t implicitly imply that Mary was ‘free from sin’. I am convinced that Mary was free from sin, but at the same time, I’d like to have that corroborated.

I think you need to look more into what *full of grace *means . If one is full of grace, and the implication here is filled to overflowing, then there is no room for sin.

Maybe you could try giving your faith a little room to breathe. When you speak with other Catholics, some of this stuff is embedded deep within our souls . I personally know I’m not as patient with people who think it’s fine to diss our Blessed Mother, simply because they’re dissing my Mother - not that I deserve Her or anything, but do I ever need Her. Maybe you could keep that in mind.

I’m fairly certain if 1ke hadn’t piped up, I may have done it myself. First, you deserve full marks for using a title that is an attention getter - Catholicism and Satan. But then all the anti Catholic sites provided had me wondering about the troll thing too. We would say the *calling priests Father *thing and the questioning the sinlessness of our Blessed Mother, are typical Protestant arguments. So put it all together and you have people wondering.

Some of the anti-Catholics make a living from Catholic bashing. Subsequently some of us are less than patient with them. Someone who promotes them at CAF is actually doing them a disservice because as Christians, we aren’t supposed to try and demolish everything another Christian believes…or…in their case, try and prove they are right by proving we’re wrong. That’s a perfect fit to the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

As Catholics, we aren’t required to understand every minute detail of the Immaculate Conception or be able to soak up an exegesis on the sinlessness of the Mother of God. We just need to try and give our assent of faith.

 

[RobbyS]

Sorry for triple-posting:

I looked at your link, and scrolled towards the middle to various quotes to various popes.

Context is everything, friend. Regarding the quote from Pope Boniface VIII, it actually says that “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Is there a real substantial difference as to what Jesus-is-savior.com says? Not really. But you know what they fail to mention? The political strife at the time!

Boniface VIII was in a VERY heated debate with French King Philip IV. And when I mean heated, I mean, essentially, Boniface excommunicated Philip IV after Philip denied exportation of money towards Rome…money that Rome desperately needed. Furthermore, clerics were being taxed and given no voice in civil laws and jurisdiction. Essentially, was the pope superior to the king, or visa versa? Boniface released Unam Sanctum declaring the former.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

EDIT: Also, take a look at the rest of that website…the owner thinks 9/11 was an inside job…This person is ignorant beyond all reason…
EDIT (again ): The owner of the website is doing the ol’ “upside down cross!!! ZOMG!!!111!!ONE!” routine. Please…

For what it is worth, I agree with you. I think.That is you are saying that the pope was really claiming that, as the vicar of Christ, the pope was the highest power on earth–that is, the superior of any king/emperor.

 

[Tannhauser]

First and foremost, the Pope is a priest and priests take a vow of celibacy. Because of that vow of celibacy, priests beget children in the spiritual order. That’s why we call them “Father”.

This first quote is from Pope Pius XII 's Apostolic Exhortation **MENTI NOSTRAE **(1950). The whole article can be read here .

Celibacy

1. The priest has as the proper field of his activity everything that pertains to the supernatural life, since it is he who promotes the increase of this supernatural life and communicates it to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, it is necessary that he renounce “the things of the world,” in order to have care only for “the things of the Lord”.[30] And it is precisely because he should be free from preoccupation with worldly things to dedicate himself entirely to the divine service, that the Church has established the law of celibacy, thus making it ever more manifest to all peoples that the priest is a minister of God and the father of souls. By his law of celibacy, the priest, so far from losing the gift and duties of fatherhood, rather increases them immeasurably, for, although he does not beget progeny for this passing life of earth, he begets children for that life which is heavenly and eternal. "

Pope Paul VI also alludes to it in his encyclical SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS (1967) .

The Pope has more than one title. Another of his titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

I think you need to look more into what *full of grace *means . If one is full of grace, and the implication here is filled to overflowing, then there is no room for sin.

Maybe you could try giving your faith a little room to breathe. When you speak with other Catholics, some of this stuff is embedded deep within our souls . I personally know I’m not as patient with people who think it’s fine to diss our Blessed Mother, simply because they’re dissing my Mother - not that I deserve Her or anything, but do I ever need Her. Maybe you could keep that in mind.

I’m fairly certain if 1ke hadn’t piped up, I may have done it myself. First, you deserve full marks for using a title that is an attention getter - Catholicism and Satan. But then all the anti Catholic sites provided had me wondering about the troll thing too. We would say the *calling priests Father *thing and the questioning the sinlessness of our Blessed Mother, are typical Protestant arguments. So put it all together and you have people wondering.

Some of the anti-Catholics make a living from Catholic bashing. Subsequently some of us are less than patient with them. Someone who promotes them at CAF is actually doing them a disservice because as Christians, we aren’t supposed to try and demolish everything another Christian believes…or…in their case, try and prove they are right by proving we’re wrong. That’s a perfect fit to the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

As Catholics, we aren’t required to understand every minute detail of the Immaculate Conception or be able to soak up an exegesis on the sinlessness of the Mother of God. We just need to try and give our assent of faith.

It’s not dissing - you need to appreciate that. Catholics must be able to question these things - yes, including the Immaculate Conception - without being speculated as non/anti-Catholic.

It’s lovely that you are so assured in the Catholic Church and her doctrines and dogmas, but for those of us learning these things, we’re going to be full of questions, and you all ought to have the grace, charity, and compassion, to give kind responses without insisting that we cannot possibly be Catholic because of it.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/23hofvljpg.gif