Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Prieldedi]

Apart from the fact that the word “obey” in this context might as well be translated as “agree”, “assure”, “believe”, “have confidence”, “be confident”, “trust and yield” and others there is another thing:
The problem is that many (like me) do not regard the pope as their “leader”. We are to obey the law of the land, but that does not include unconditional obedience to an authority as the pope.
Our true ruler however is Jesus Christ and Him we will obey unconditionally, led and comforted by the Holy Spirit through the grace of our Father who is in heaven.

Romans 12:2
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I know the Pope is not your leader, today… but you are en ex-Catholic so he was one time your leader. It seems that you didn’t “agree”, “believe”, “have confidence”, “trust and yield” the Pope, but you were suppose to do it when you were a Catholic.

The Pope is not going to ask any Catholic to obey “unconditionally” to any thing that comes to his mind. Would you believe that your President is going to do something like that? Neither will the Pope, it’s not like that. But in matters of FAITH and MORALS he has Authority, just as your President or Congress have authority and they expect your obedience in certain matters.

Catholics do not deny that, as you say, “our true ruler however is Jesus Christ and Him we will obey unconditionally, led and comforted by the Holy Spirit through the grace of our Father who is in heaven.” But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to obey our Church leaders. Most Protestants I know accept the authority their pastors have over them. These pastors are like “little” Popes.

You cannot deny the confusion that Protestants have in their hands, whether they admit it or not, when so many individuals are interpreting what Jesus Christ meant in one passage, or when Pastors tell you: “last night the Holy Spirit told me…”, who are you to believe, and why? There are thousands (if not millions) of Christians around the world, mostly Protestants, who beside their pastors, are also claiming to have received “word from God or the Holy Spirit”… how can one be sure? I’ve never heard a Pope, Bishop or Priest say “the Holy Spirit told me…”

We’ve seen all the abuses committed by individual Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, claiming that God spoke through them. Contrary to popular belief, there hasn’t been a Pope that has ordered anyone to commit those abuses, even less to commit crimes like the ones committed by some of our “civilized” 20th or 21st Century leaders.

The Pope is an Spiritual Leader. You didn’t like the Catholic teachings, you left, you had that freedom. No one forced you to stay. I’m sure the Pope didn’t send a special envoy to talk to you. On the other hand, no one is forcing me to be Catholic either. Ours is a personal decision.

It’s kind of like the army. Imagine if soldiers would have the freedom to interpret the orders of their superiors, or to say that they need no General to tell them what to do, that they know better how to defeat the enemy. I’m sure you will agree with the leaders of the army that that can’t be allowed. Then, why is it allowed that you can become your own leader when your eternal salvation is at stake? Are you sure you can defeat an invisible enemy that will use every trick to defeat you, even make you believe that you need no General in this war? You true Leader, Jesus, ask you to be “of one flock”, not of 39,000+ flocks. He asked Peter three times to “feed, look and feed my sheep”. The moment your enemy has you thinking that you need no General he’s won half the war.

Paul says it in Ephesians 6:12 “Our battle is not against human forces but against the rulers and authorities and their dark powers that govern this world. We are struggling against the spirits and supernatural forces of evil.”

If Paul knew that we already have Jesus on our side, why the warning? At least they had Paul and the Apostles then… who do you have now? We have the Pope and the Church, and I feel safer with him as our leader to help us defeat that enemy than with any Pastor.

God bless you

 

[Bill_Pick]

I know the Pope is not your leader, today… but you are en ex-Catholic so he was one time your leader. It seems that you didn’t “agree”, “believe”, “have confidence”, “trust and yield” the Pope, but you were suppose to do it when you were a Catholic.

The Pope is not going to ask any Catholic to obey “unconditionally” to any thing that comes to his mind. Would you believe that your President is going to do something like that? Neither will the Pope, it’s not like that. But in matters of FAITH and MORALS he has Authority, just as your President or Congress have authority and they expect your obedience in certain matters.

Catholics do not deny that, as you say, “our true ruler however is Jesus Christ and Him we will obey unconditionally, led and comforted by the Holy Spirit through the grace of our Father who is in heaven.” But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to obey our Church leaders. Most Protestants I know accept the authority their pastors have over them. These pastors are like “little” Popes.

You cannot deny the confusion that Protestants have in their hands, whether they admit it or not, when so many individuals are interpreting what Jesus Christ meant in one passage, or when Pastors tell you: “last night the Holy Spirit told me…”, who are you to believe, and why? There are thousands (if not millions) of Christians around the world, mostly Protestants, who beside their pastors, are also claiming to have received “word from God or the Holy Spirit”… how can one be sure? I’ve never heard a Pope, Bishop or Priest say “the Holy Spirit told me…”

We’ve seen all the abuses committed by individual Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, claiming that God spoke through them. Contrary to popular belief, there hasn’t been a Pope that has ordered anyone to commit those abuses, even less to commit crimes like the ones committed by some of our “civilized” 20th or 21st Century leaders.

The Pope is an Spiritual Leader. You didn’t like the Catholic teachings, you left, you had that freedom. No one forced you to stay. I’m sure the Pope didn’t send a special envoy to talk to you. On the other hand, no one is forcing me to be Catholic either. Ours is a personal decision.

It’s kind of like the army. Imagine if soldiers would have the freedom to interpret the orders of their superiors, or to say that they need no General to tell them what to do, that they know better how to defeat the enemy. I’m sure you will agree with the leaders of the army that that can’t be allowed. Then, why is it allowed that you can become your own leader when your eternal salvation is at stake? Are you sure you can defeat an invisible enemy that will use every trick to defeat you, even make you believe that you need no General in this war? You true Leader, Jesus, ask you to be “of one flock”, not of 39,000+ flocks. He asked Peter three times to “feed, look and feed my sheep”. The moment your enemy has you thinking that you need no General he’s won half the war.

Paul says it in Ephesians 6:12 “Our battle is not against human forces but against the rulers and authorities and their dark powers that govern this world. We are struggling against the spirits and supernatural forces of evil.”

If Paul knew that we already have Jesus on our side, why the warning? At least they had Paul and the Apostles then… who do you have now? We have the Pope and the Church, and I feel safer with him as our leader to help us defeat that enemy than with any Pastor.

God bless you

I,m Cathloic and I believe Mary did hot have any brother or sister,so I live My life as a Cristtian and I die do you think I will be going to hell because of Mary and what I believe of Her,its just a big deal because the protestants have the need to make Cathloics look bad,thats it Case closed,You can not argue with ignorance ,

 

[Prieldedi]

Thank you You should believe what you are taught, if that is what your church teaches, I am familier with your teachings that is why I find it hard to understand what, and why you believe what you do. Have you ever done research for the sake of learning on your own, rather than just except, not trying to be disrespectful but Blind faith. Suppose your church is wrong in your authority line, That Peter wasn’t what you thought he was, that there is a broken line of authority. Suppose all that you believed was true, wasn’t. Like the world is flat, People believed that, and would preach it and die for their belief. then one day they were proven wrong. That is where I stand. What if.

Are we to stop believing in everything? Why would I believe that there was a Christopher Columbus, or a George Washington, a Napoleon? No one alive today ever saw them, why believe in them? But we believe they were real.

To answer your question, I have made my research. I’ve talked to many people with many different views on this issue. I’ve read books by Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists. I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I’m not a Christian”. I know Nietzsche who said “God is dead”. Back in 1974 I listened to Billy Graham on one of his crusades at Shea Stadium for a week, can’t remember if it was 3, 4 or 5 days, but it was several nights in a row. I’ve listened to Oral Roberts, Billy Swaggart (before his problems) and other less known evangelical pastors. Yes, I have done my personal research. I’ve had my share of doubts too. I grew up in the 1960’s with all the liberalization movements of the times, and I supported some of them. I was away from the Church for years. I’ve looked at every possible explanation that will answer the questions: “Is there a God?” Is there “one True Church?” Is there truth in any of the churches/religions of the world? Which is the true faith: Judaism, Islamism, Christianity, other?

What I have found is that for God’s matters there is only one Church, and She can’t err. She can’t be proven wrong. Individuals in this Church do err in world matters, not in Heavenly matters. This Church has the Holy Spirit guiding Her.

To say it is easy, but just think that this Church started 60-70 years after Julio Caesars’ death. She’s been around for 2000 years. Our Church has lasted close to 1000 years more than what the Roman Empire lasted. They had soldiers and an army that was almost indestructible. Our Church has no army, but here is the Church, not the Roman Empire.

It has had enemies that wanted Her to be wiped out of the face of the earth. Enemies that spent their entire lives trying to destroy Her, whether by force or by other means. From the outside or the inside. Yet, here She is.

When I compare what She says and teaches with what Her detractors say and teach, I’ve found that the Truth is with Her. Because the Truth is a person, Jesus. And Jesus promised Her “I will be with you till the end of the world.”

So, just as I believe my history teacher that there was a Christopher Columbus, a George Washington and a Napoleon, I believe my Church teachers when they teach about Her.

God bless you

 

[Bill_Pick]

Are we to stop believing in everything? Why would I believe that there was a Christopher Columbus, or a George Washington, a Napoleon? No one alive today ever saw them, why believe in them? But we believe they were real.

To answer your question, I have made my research. I’ve talked to many people with many different views on this issue. I’ve read books by Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists. I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I’m not a Christian”. I know Nietzsche who said “God is dead”. Back in 1974 I listened to Billy Graham on one of his crusades at Shea Stadium for a week, can’t remember if it was 3, 4 or 5 days, but it was several nights in a row. I’ve listened to Oral Roberts, Billy Swaggart (before his problems) and other less known evangelical pastors. Yes, I have done my personal research. I’ve had my share of doubts too. I grew up in the 1960’s with all the liberalization movements of the times, and I supported some of them. I was away from the Church for years. I’ve looked at every possible explanation that will answer the questions: “Is there a God?” Is there “one True Church?” Is there truth in any of the churches/religions of the world? Which is the true faith: Judaism, Islamism, Christianity, other?

What I have found is that for God’s matters there is only one Church, and She can’t err. She can’t be proven wrong. Individuals in this Church do err in world matters, not in Heavenly matters. This Church has the Holy Spirit guiding Her.

To say it is easy, but just think that this Church started 60-70 years after Julio Caesars’ death. She’s been around for 2000 years. Our Church has lasted close to 1000 years more than what the Roman Empire lasted. They had soldiers and an army that was almost indestructible. Our Church has no army, but here is the Church, not the Roman Empire.

It has had enemies that wanted Her to be wiped out of the face of the earth. Enemies that spent their entire lives trying to destroy Her, whether by force or by other means. From the outside or the inside. Yet, here She is.

When I compare what She says and teaches with what Her detractors say and teach, I’ve found that the Truth is with Her. Because the Truth is a person, Jesus. And Jesus promised Her “I will be with you till the end of the world.”

So, just as I believe my history teacher that there was a Christopher Columbus, a George Washington and a Napoleon, I believe my Church teachers when they teach about Her.

God bless you

AMEN Great post

 

[Bill_Pick]

AMEN Great post

LET NO ONE PRESUME TO HOPE FOR THE MERCY OF GOD, WHO DARES TO SLIGHT OR OFFEND GOD’S MOTHER."
St. Louis de Montfort…

 

[Prieldedi]

rearcia, I gave this to them(genealogy) back a long time ago and they will not believe they think its some thing they can hold over cathloics heards. If we had brother and Sister of Jesus where would they be buried some place in the world and that place be crying out loud

Great point.

In fact, every Apostle’s remains, except Judas, are accounted for today. They are in several Catholic churches in Europe, the Middle East and India.

However, there are no known remains of the “brothers and sisters” of the Lord. As you say, there would’ve been pilgrimage sites that for centuries would have attracted Christians to visit the brethren of the Lord’s remains, just as Christians have pilgrimages to Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain where the remains of St. James are, St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome where the remains of St.Peter are, or any other Catholic church that holds the remains of the other Apostles. (Santiago is James in spanish.)

Mary Magdalene’s remains are in France. St. Thomas remains are in India. St. Paul’s are also in Rome. St. James was killed in Jerusalem, and his remains were taken to Spain for burial.

I visited the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain in 2000. There, under the Altar, are his remains in a wooden box covered with silver. You can go down a few steps on one side of the Altar to the chamber where this box lays. It was a once in a lifetime experience… to know that the bones inside that box are from a man that walked and talked with Jesus! Amazing!

God bless you

 

[Thomas_D_1]

Our side can prove it. We have the Church Fathers’ writings.

They lived closer in time to Jesus, Mary, Peter, John, Paul, Luke, than those who deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. When did these first deniers live? 1500, 1600, 1700 years after the Church Fathers. Who would you believe, and why?

Can your side produce a document from the early centuries that corroborates your position? Anything that proves that the early Christians did not believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? What’s the earliest document your side has on this subject?

If you really want to know the truth in this matter you have to put aside, at least for a moment, your “Bible alone” man-made doctrine. Believe us, with that doctrine you wont find the whole truth.

About Saint Joseph, contrary to your statement, I’ll give you this from Bob Stanley:

“Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman. After all what could possibly follow the honor and graces given her by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is her spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.”

Put together that with this from Matthew 1:19 “Then Joseph, her husband, made plans to divorce her in all secrecy. He was an upright man, and in no way did he want to discredit her.”

Not wanting to discredit Her, being obedient to God as you mentioned, knowing that the Son of God was born from Mary… these are reasons enough to believe that he was a man not like the rest of us. Just as Mary was special, so was Joseph.

God bless you

The document that we all have is the Bible. Why do people deny what is clearly written. Mary had other children!!! Whereas there is no comment in the Bible that says that Mary didnt have any other children. Jesus is the son of God

 

[rbarcia]

I know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone… who knew someone who lived back then.

We have Apostolic Succession. Just a you have your father, who had his father, who had his father… If in the course of centuries you can’t go farther than say, 10 generations in your family, we in the Catholic Family can go back to Adam. It’s not needed for me to personally know someone who lived back then. I’m not 2000 years old, but my Church is.

Ezekiel 44:2, “Yahweh said to me, “This gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it, since Yahweh the God of Israel has been through it. And so it must be kept shut”.”

This is a prophesy about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Who was in Mary’s womb and was born from Mary? GOD! “The God of Israel has been through Her. And so it must be kept shut.”

God bless you

So, based on this, the Psalm I quoted, a prophecy on Israel, mother means Israel? And the verse in Ez, which you quoted, which is a whole chapter(s) on a temple and Israel being shut out of it is really talking about Mary?

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. A clear prophecy on Christ, I have to change the meaning of simple words below.

Psalm 69:8

8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother’s children;

And with Ez 44, I have to change Israel to Mary.

Just crazy,

 

[rbarcia]

rearcia, I gave this to them(genealogy) back a long time ago and they will not believe they think its some thing they can hold over cathloics heards. If we had brother and Sister of Jesus where would they be buried some place in the world and that place be crying out loud

It did not take 1700 years to question perpetual virginity. The ECF church writings that you hold of equal value of scripture that try to defend a teaching implies that they were countering the opposite claim. For example, Jerome’s writing is clearly written in a defensive tone.

Tertullian and Jovinian are examples of those who questioned it.
Tertullian (155-220), while holding that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, denied that her virginity was preserved in his birth, thus emphasizing the reality of her son’s body,[22] and the unorthodox monk Jovinian (who died in about 405), who denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating, also denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was condemned by synods at Rome and Milan.[23] These views were shared by his contemporary Helvidius, but were not repeated in the following centuries.
*

After Jerome translated the Bible to latin, and the subsequent years of Dark Ages where the roman catholic church did not allow the common man to read the Bible lead to years of people not having scriptures where they could read it for themselves.

 

[Prieldedi]

The document that we all have is the Bible. Why do people deny what is clearly written. Mary had other children!!! Whereas there is no comment in the Bible that says that Mary didnt have any other children. Jesus is the son of God

You are right, Jesus is the Son of God. But please, show us the passage of the Bible that says that Mary, the Mother of God, had more children.

In the few instances in which Mary’s name appears together with the brothers of Jesus, why are they not identified in reference to Mary? Why not “Mary and her children”, or “Mary, and the children of Mary”? And why is it that only Jesus is identified as the “SON of Mary”?

If the “brothers” had no role in Christianity other than to be mentioned in those few passages, what was the reason of the evangelist to mention them separate from Mary, in reference only to Jesus, and not in reference to Her? The reason is because they are not Her children. They are never… NEVER mentioned in reference to Her! They are never identified as “the children of Mary”. In fact, if they had been mentioned in reference to Mary, they would’ve been identified as “Mary’s brothers and sisters”. You see, there was no word for NEPHEW or NIECE in the Hebrew and Aramaic of those times. BROTHER and SISTER were the words the evangelist would have used if they were identified in reference to Mary.

The Bible is inspired by God, but the reader is not. This is what many Christians don’t want to understand. I say the same thing you say: Why do people deny what is clearly written? And it’s clear that they are never mention as “children of Mary.” For the Orthodox Church (they also read the Bible!) the brethren of the Lord are children of Joseph from a previous marriage, they believe that Joseph was an old man, a widower. For the Catholic Church (our Church also reads the Bible, it’s been doing it for 2000 years!) they are cousins, relatives.

The Bible you hold in your hands today is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. It was preserved by the Catholic Church, it’s a Catholic Book. She knows better, it’s HER book!

The original words were spoken in Hebrew/Aramaic, translated to Greek, translated to Latin, translated to MODERN ENGLISH. Besides what’s lost in the translation, the original meaning of the words has at times been lost too. As an example: the English word “GAY” has a different meaning in 2009 than what it had in 1909. That’s just 100 years ago. The original words of the Bible were spoken 100x20 years ago! Another example, something that goes over the head of most “bible readers” of today: FIRST MENTION. Today it has no importance, go back 2000 years and it was of the utmost importance. Mary is mentioned ahead of Jesus in the passage of the wedding at Cana… why? Remember, the Evangelist wrote INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit! The maid mentioned ahead of the Master! These are the things that a 21st Century first time reader of the Bible doesn’t know, but he believes that he is “inspired” and will know everything immediately. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me quote Rick Salbato (original here):

*The question is not “Who should read the Bible?” but “How should we read the Bible?” Should we rely on our own prideful intelligence, or on two thousand years of knowledge from thousands and thousands of saints, thousands and thousands of monks, and thousands and thousands of revelations that poured into the Magisterium of the Church, the Teaching Authority of Christ?

It amazed me how Hans Kung could know for certain that the Church is wrong in only one lifetime of study. It amazed me how I could think that I could outsmart the Church in only one lifetime of study. Millions of lifetimes, millions of prayers over thousands of years, have poured into what we call the Doctrine of the Faith. Can it be wrong?

Starting with the assumption that the Church is not wrong, I went on to prove it right on every point of doctrine. There are many points, however, that have not been closed. These things are still open to debate. The Bible is filled with mysteries. It even teaches that these mysteries were not to be known at the time, but would be revealed later.

I have discovered that these mysteries have been unveiled over the years to the saints through private revelation and divine inspiration. Errors that I thought existed in the Scriptures were explained to me, not by theology, but by God, Himself.

Now, when I read the Holy Words of God, I read them with a Bible Dictionary, a Bible Concordance, the Code of Canon Law, the Documents of Vatican II, the “Roman Catechism”, the “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Augustine’s “City of God”, Thomasonian Philosophy, “City of God” by Mary Agreda, the “Life of Christ” by Anne Catherine Emmerich, “Readings in Church History” by Colman Barry, and “Imitation of Christ” by Kempis.

It is from these books that I have come to understand that the Bible does not have one single error in it. The Bible does not err. Our understanding of it errs. *

God bless you

 

[Prieldedi]

So, based on this, the Psalm I quoted, a prophecy on Israel, mother means Israel? And the verse in Ez, which you quoted, which is a whole chapter(s) on a temple and Israel being shut out of it is really talking about Mary?

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. A clear prophecy on Christ, I have to change the meaning of simple words below.

Psalm 69:8

8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother’s children;

And with Ez 44, I have to change Israel to Mary.

Just crazy,

Speaking about “whole chapters”…

What do you have to say about Chapter 6 of John, the one that mentions “EAT MY BODY” and “DRINK MY BLOOD”, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES?

If it’s crazy to change the meaning of Israel, wouldn’t you be crazy too if you claim that “eat” and “drink” don’t really mean “eat” and “drink”? Because that’s what you believe, don’t you?

Maybe this will be of help:

Matthew 22:29, «Jesus answered, “You are totally wrong because you understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”»

This is GOD is telling us that there are men that don’t understand the Scriptures nor His power. It’s been that way always. It continues today. Don’t be one of them.

God bless you

 

[Bill_Pick]

The document that we all have is the Bible. Why do people deny what is clearly written. Mary had other children!!! Whereas there is no comment in the Bible that says that Mary didnt have any other children. Jesus is the son of God

Because that not what the Church is teaching. Does the Bible tell us the names of Mary mother or Father NO but as a cathloic we know the names. John 21:25 not all Jesus did is in the Bible

 

[Prieldedi]

It did not take 1700 years to question perpetual virginity. The ECF church writings that you hold of equal value of scripture that try to defend a teaching implies that they were countering the opposite claim. For example, Jerome’s writing is clearly written in a defensive tone.

Tertullian and Jovinian are examples of those who questioned it.

Tertullian (155-220), while holding that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, denied that her virginity was preserved in his birth, thus emphasizing the reality of her son’s body,[22] and the unorthodox monk Jovinian (who died in about 405), who denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating, also denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was condemned by synods at Rome and Milan.[23] These views were shared by his contemporary Helvidius, but were not repeated in the following centuries.

After Jerome translated the Bible to latin, and the subsequent years of Dark Ages where the roman catholic church did not allow the common man to read the Bible lead to years of people not having scriptures where they could read it for themselves.

In bunches, yes. Before that you have just a few individuals, like the ones you mention.

Any idea why “the common man” had no access to the Bible in the “Middle [not dark] Ages”? This is the Truth, not propaganda…

**«**Luther did not put The Bible into the hands of common people as if he were the first. Statements like these are trying to imply … that the Catholic Church kept from the people The Bible and its sacred truths … it is a fact of history that in many libraries in the Middle Ages The Bible and the concordances with all their commentaries, ancient and modern, were the first on display. For confirmation of this, see Frederick B. Artz, “The Mind Of The Middle Ages: An Historical Survey A.D.200-1500:” 3rd ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980 [1953], pp.375, 490. This author is not pro-Roman Catholic; he isn’t even a Christian, but he recognizes and records these facts.

The fact is that the Catholic Church had allowed and authorized vernacular versions of The Bible since the beginning. During the Middle Ages, for example, Bible translations were approved in Slavic (9th Century), Arabic (10th), Bohemian (11th), German, Polish, Old Norse (12th), Italian, Norwegian, and Hungarian (13th), Czech, Swedish, Catalan (14th), Spanish, Danish, French, Dutch, and Welsh (15th) for Catholics to use, ALL of which were before the invention of the printing press in 1450 by Johann Guttenburg.

The very first large volume book printed was the Latin Vulgate Bible by Guttenburg at Mainz in 1452… Before the year 1500 ninety-two editions of this Latin Bible were printed by various presses in Europe; and during the 16th century 438 more.

Not only did Luther NOT put the “Bible into the common language of the people” for the first time, but his German translation wasn’t even the first German one! There were NINE different German editions of The Bible before Luther was born! and there were 27 in German before his translation came out (1520). The first printed German Bible came out in 1466; and before 1520, a translation of The Bible into High German had fourteen editions and one in Low German had four editions.

It was not at all practical to write out in large quantities copies of the Bible for numerous reasons. First, it took about an entire year [others say SEVERAL YEARS, some say up to 20 years] to write-out a complete Bible (done almost exclusively by monks before the printing press). Second, it took 200 lamb skins to make just ONE copy, and this was very, very costly. Think about it: two hundred lamb skins meant the slaughter of two hundred lambs (obviously). Skins were needed and used for other reasons, particularly survival. Now to write out Bibles in large quantities all around Europe was simply impractical precisely because it was too costly in multiple ways. It was also futile to write out copies of the Bible in high quantities in the vernacular for a number of reasons:

1. As a result of the steady development (and thus changing) of common/vernacular tongues, there was no stability. For example between 400 and 1200 the language of southwest England (Wales) went from Celtic to Cornish to Breton to Cymric to ancient Welsh, to modern Welsh. That’s six different languages, and these went from no alphabet, to one which letters changed every few hundred years. Considering the facts mentioned above about what it took to write out a Bible –and its cost- one can see the futility of writing out a whole Bible for some languages. Another example is the English language itself: it went from Anglo-Breton (100-600), to Anglo-Saxon (Old English -600 to 1100) with its different lower Germanic dialects, to Anglo-Norman (Middle English-1100 to 1500) which had Kentish, Northumbrian, and Mercian dialects that had different spellings -as well as sounds and meanings, to Elizabethan English (16th-17th cent.), to Early Modern English (late 17th-19th), to Modern English… A vernacular copy would be … obsolete in short time.
2. Many didn’t even have a written alphabet until Catholic missionaries performed the task for grammars and catechisms during the early Middle Ages (ca. 500-1000).
3. Believe it or not, contrary to the rhetoric that is put forth in many Protestant circles, there was no desire by the common people themselves for vernacular versions for a number of reasons:

I) Again, those who could read, read Latin; those who wanted to read (which wasn’t very many) learned Latin.

II) Since Latin has no nuances or dialects (other than ecclesiastical Latin and classical Latin) it was a secure language which didn’t evolve and change -which is perfect for understanding God’s unchanging and immutable Word! -By the way, this is why in our Lord Jesus’ time they still read the Scripture in ancient Hebrew -even though it was already a dead language by this time and only the pharisees and scribes could speak and read it! Hence, the principle situation was the very same.

III) As another non-Catholic historian recognized, up until the spread of printing press (late 15th century), the best way to communicate with people and the best way to communicate idea’s and truths was not by letter writing and reading, but by means of the spoken word itself, by art, by drama, and by Liturgy which comprises all of them. (see Hugh Thomas, “A History of the World,” N.Y: Harper & Row, 1979, p.198.) And remember this point: God’s Word itself says faith comes by hearing the Word proclaimed (Rom.10:17).»

Original article here.

God bless you

 

[Janet1983]

I know the Pope is not your leader, today… but you are en ex-Catholic so he was one time your leader. It seems that you didn’t “agree”, “believe”, “have confidence”, “trust and yield” the Pope, but you were suppose to do it when you were a Catholic.

Yes, I agree with you that I was once catholic and I did see the pope as my leader throughout that time.
Here is what I wrote about me leaving the RCC.
I did at one point do exactly as you described. I went so far as to plan a future in a nunnery (even though I ended up spending only 10 months there while I was still in school).

The Pope is not going to ask any Catholic to obey “unconditionally” to any thing that comes to his mind. Would you believe that your President is going to do something like that? Neither will the Pope, it’s not like that. But in matters of FAITH and MORALS he has Authority, just as your President or Congress have authority and they expect your obedience in certain matters.

That is the point. He defines in what matters you have to obey him and believe him unconditionally. There is no way that you have a choice to believe or not believe if the pope would proclaim a dogma. I can disagree completely with what congress is doing and I have a right to my own opinion. Try and disagree with a dogma and you will be expected to change sooner or later after some instruction.

Catholics do not deny that, as you say, “our true ruler however is Jesus Christ and Him we will obey unconditionally, led and comforted by the Holy Spirit through the grace of our Father who is in heaven.” But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to obey our Church leaders. Most Protestants I know accept the authority their pastors have over them. These pastors are like “little” Popes.

There will always be a certain authority with those who study a certain subject and that is just a matter of logic. If I go to a doctor I will expect that he knows more about the functions of my body than I do.
A pastor has some authority in that he is a teacher to those who did not study theology. He is however to base his words on scripture and stay within the Word. There are pastors out there who do not do that (one of them being the pastor of the biggest congregation in the US… he is a mere motivational speaker with some religious inkling). We do not claim that any of our pastors are infallible however in any form or fashion.
He may err as well as a doctor may err in his diagnose. That is why both have to be careful in what they say and make sure that they stay on the right path.
A good preacher at a chapel I once attended told the congregation to not trust him, but to search the Bible whether these things were true.

You cannot deny the confusion that Protestants have in their hands, whether they admit it or not, when so many individuals are interpreting what Jesus Christ meant in one passage, or when Pastors tell you: “last night the Holy Spirit told me…”, who are you to believe, and why? There are thousands (if not millions) of Christians around the world, mostly Protestants, who beside their pastors, are also claiming to have received “word from God or the Holy Spirit”… how can one be sure? I’ve never heard a Pope, Bishop or Priest say “the Holy Spirit told me…”

A revelation? I need to tell you something: If something like that actually happens, it will always be in line with Scripture and be provable by what the Spirit instils in others.
Just as visions are… I have heard several people talking about seeing a demon (and I saw one once too) and without prior communication the descriptions were all fitting and basically the same. If God gives somebody a revelation it will always go in line with the Bible and with the minds of His people.

The Pope is an Spiritual Leader. You didn’t like the Catholic teachings, you left, you had that freedom. No one forced you to stay. I’m sure the Pope didn’t send a special envoy to talk to you. On the other hand, no one is forcing me to be Catholic either. Ours is a personal decision.

Nobody is forcing me to stay or you to leave, you are right in that. Even though they could hold a trial against me for schism or heresy (if they would actually bother). That’s the theory, but fortunately for me there are enough people like me out there which would make this endeavour way too big and the negative public relations immense.

It’s kind of like the army. Imagine if soldiers would have the freedom to interpret the orders of their superiors, or to say that they need no General to tell them what to do, that they know better how to defeat the enemy.

Like the Army? Come on! Even in an army discernment is important for ever soldier. Just in case you did not know, there are lawful and unlawful orders and a soldier needs to know which is which and discern. Of course lawful orders have to be followed, because the XO or even just their NCO simply have more information about what is going on. A soldier does his job usually with information on a need-to-know basis.
Yes we are at war, but who is to say that the pope is a good general?

I’m sure you will agree with the leaders of the army that that can’t be allowed. Then, why is it allowed that you can become your own leader when your eternal salvation is at stake?

I am not my own leader. My life does not even belong to me any more. Jesus Christ is my leader in my spiritual battle and Lord over my life. I am completely undeserving of such mercies however.
We battle against principalities and Jesus Christ is our guide and our leader in battle.
We are not part of this world any more, but we are deployed into it.

 

[Prieldedi]

Yes, I agree with you that I was once catholic and I did see the pope as my leader throughout that time.
Here is what I wrote about me leaving the RCC.
I did at one point do exactly as you described. I went so far as to plan a future in a nunnery (even though I ended up spending only 10 months there while I was still in school).

There will always be a certain authority with those who study a certain subject and that is just a matter of logic. If I go to a doctor I will expect that he knows more about the functions of my body than I do.
A pastor has some authority in that he is a teacher to those who did not study theology. He is however to base his words on scripture and stay within the Word. There are pastors out there who do not do that (one of them being the pastor of the biggest congregation in the US… he is a mere motivational speaker with some religious inkling). We do not claim that any of our pastors are infallible however in any form or fashion.
He may err as well as a doctor may err in his diagnose. That is why both have to be careful in what they say and make sure that they stay on the right path.
A good preacher at a chapel I once attended told the congregation to not trust him, but to search the Bible whether these things were true.

I can’t see where the Church failed you. Perhaps you were looking for someone to get personally involved in your problems, I don’t know, I’m just guessing here, but from what I read in your explanations as to why you left the Church, I don’t see where the Church failed you.

I don’t want to sound offensive, but a question comes to my mind: what if you had fallen in love with a Muslim? a Buddhist? An Atheist? What if he had been a Catholic like you? Would you have followed him to any of those destinations?

You say “While the general situation is rather catastrophic when it comes to attendance I nearly overdid it.” Were you trying to carry the Church on your shoulders? Were you feeling guilty for the lack of faith in some of your fellow parishioners? Why were you trying to force yourself to what I consider “religious extremes”? All these things were inside you, this was a struggle inside your head. It was you against you.

“The thing is that it all did not help. It did not help me a bit and I was scared.” Did not help what? Scared for what?

“I was plagued by demons and continuously lost in self-hatred.” Why blame your Church or God for the way your felt? Self-hatred? Why blame the Church for your feelings? You don’t have to answer my questions, I just write them for you to reflect on them, but I see deeper problems, and I think you had to find someone responsible for what you were going through. Were you looking for a miracle? Couldn’t you, yourself, on your own, bring about that miracle instead of expecting someone (God, a priest) to do it for you?

That is the point. He defines in what matters you have to obey him and believe him unconditionally. There is no way that you have a choice to believe or not believe if the pope would proclaim a dogma. I can disagree completely with what congress is doing and I have a right to my own opinion. Try and disagree with a dogma and you will be expected to change sooner or later after some instruction.

The Pope consults with other Cardinals, Bishops, Priests on matter concerning Faith and Morals. He takes time, sometimes years going through the issues before making it known to all Catholics. There is a lot of praying too… a lot! I think you have no idea how much the Pope and the rest of the Bishops pray. In the end, we all believe that the Holy Spirit is talking trough them just as promised by Jesus. We all know God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. With all the modern world calling us to be part of them, if not totally, at least partially, a lot of Catholics tend to be part of the world partially. An example could be our Catholic Congress Members that support abortion. They need the votes, they go against the morals our Church teaches in order to be elected. These are things that the Church teaches are sins, but many want the “freedom” to decide for themselves. Some stay and disobey, others just leave.

Continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

A revelation? I need to tell you something: If something like that actually happens, it will always be in line with Scripture and be provable by what the Spirit instils in others.
Just as visions are… I have heard several people talking about seeing a demon (and I saw one once too) and without prior communication the descriptions were all fitting and basically the same. If God gives somebody a revelation it will always go in line with the Bible and with the minds of His people.

Nobody is forcing me to stay or you to leave, you are right in that. Even though they could hold a trial against me for schism or heresy (if they would actually bother). That’s the theory, but fortunately for me there are enough people like me out there which would make this endeavour way too big and the negative public relations immense.

Do you know how many “revelations” does God give a day in the world? How many are truly from Him? This is a true story. Once in a Christian gathering the members were praying for the mother of one of them who was ill. Then a member said that he had a revelation from God, the sick lady was going to get well. People rejoiced and they were praising the Lord and giving thanks to God. Two weeks later the lady died. Did God lie to the gathering? Was it really God who talked to that member?

In the 1520’s with Luther rebellion the Church lost two million members in Europe. On this side of the world the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico brought ten million new members to the Church in one year, between 1531 and 1532. That’s how God answered Martin Luther.

Like the Army? Come on! Even in an army discernment is important for ever soldier. Just in case you did not know, there are lawful and unlawful orders and a soldier needs to know which is which and discern. Of course lawful orders have to be followed, because the XO or even just their NCO simply have more information about what is going on. A soldier does his job usually with information on a need-to-know basis.
Yes we are at war, but who is to say that the pope is a good general?

I am not my own leader. My life does not even belong to me any more. Jesus Christ is my leader in my spiritual battle and Lord over my life. I am completely undeserving of such mercies however.
We battle against principalities and Jesus Christ is our guide and our leader in battle.
We are not part of this world any more, but we are deployed into it.

God tells us the Pope is a good general. A Pope will never give you an unlawful order. He will not order you or me to sin. That’s the only unlawful order he could give you, and you don’t have to obey him.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your honesty and wish you well.

God bless you

 

[guanophore]

You need to understand your destroying the very foundation of their belief system, If Mary had other children which she did. Then they would have to explain hundreds of years of deception. Or admit they were wrong, about Mary. actually it doesn’t pertain to my salvation, nor yours. It is all to stir one up in a debate.

No, actually, what is destroyed when you deny the teaching of the Apostles is unity in the body. what requires explaination here is how Jesus went back on His promises to lead the Church into “all Truth” and why it is you cannot trust Him to preserve His Word in His Body as well as in Scripture. What you are purporting is that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling.

Or that the HS fell down on the job.

This does not “destroy the very foundation” of anything for Catholics, but it is a great source of grief and sadness about the lost condition of our separated brethren.

 

[guanophore]

So if I understand you the original sin, started when Eve ate the fruit, and gave it to Adam and this was the sin? Now Satan, said that if they would eat they would be like God, that is a awesome statement, knowing GOOD and Evil. so explain to me then If they knew no sin, and only by eating the fruit would give them a knowledge of GOOD and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness, then how can it be a sin if they would not know sin unless they ate the fruit.And how can they know Pride since they were innocent in the beginning. Pride, doesn’t that come with a knowledge after eating the fruit of good and evil?

This is a very interesting line of discussion. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the topic. Are you trying to change the subject because you are unable to pursuade Catholics here to reject the Apostolic Teaching that Mary remained a virgin?

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for the insight-- although I have yet to find the exact verses-- I am glad that you have reminded me of them.

Perhaps one of the main reasons for my assumption that Joseph and Mary were not celibate was the address of Gabriel to Joseph in Matthew 1:20-21, “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Of course it’s nothing conclusive, and as I’ve said before I was ignorant of this concept of perpetual virginity until only a few days ago. So, I guess it was because the angel never mentioned anything of abstaining from sexual relations that I figured it was not done. But this would deny the validity, acceptance, and merit of a ‘free-will’ offering. I understand now, that if I had known about the concept of perpetual virginity earlier, I may have sought to justify it more so than its antithesis.

I find it very difficult to believe that someone representing themselves as “catholic” would not be familiar with “blessed Mary, ever virgin”.

 

[1beleevr]

tatum ergo: I heard that the early Christians(Antioch) were called believers; they had no real affiliation! The early church was called “The Way”<which is what our church is called; The Way Felloowship! Not sure when or why the word catholic was added! And a large portion of this "congregation were Jewish.