Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

[Leeann]

Have gotten really behind in responding…sorry…will try and go back and read through and respond as best I can. :sad_yes:

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
The Apostles warned the early Christians to “hold fast” to the gospel they had heard from them and not to accept “any other gospel”.
Jesus Himself, after the resurrection made sure they knew the “truth” and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost made sure they knew the “truth” and what was necessary for man’s salvation.

In what way is the message not the same today as it was then?

What and who has changed it?

Who are we to approach and turn too……Mary or Jesus?

mercygate:
And who was in the room at Pentecost? When does the Holy Spirit come?

The Holy Spirit comes when the Eleven are "together with the women and with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers . . . " In other words, the Holy Spirit comes when the Church is gathered in prayer, with Mary.

Catholics and the Orthodox understand that “the Church” is found where the Eleven are found (bishops descended in spiritual succession from the Apostles) and where Our Lady is found. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her so that her flesh would become the flesh of God in what amounts to a fruitful, spousal union. She holds a privileged place in the heart of God.

When we say the Apostles’ Creed, we say that we “believe in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” So it is also in our hearts and in the Church that Jesus is “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” They are never separated. The Gospel of Luke calls Mary, “kecharitomene”: full of grace. As at the Annunciation, she is now.

Yes – that is what the “Catholic church” teaches…but to whom would the Apostles point the Pope too…….Mary…or………Jesus….what did they teach and preach?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Yes – that is what the “Catholic church” teaches…but to whom would the Apostles point the Pope too…….Mary…or………Jesus….what did they teach and preach?

If you want to know what the apostles would teach, ask the people who learned from them. That would be the bishops and priests through the line of apostolic succession, through the Catholic Church.

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
Not what they originally set out…which was what was necessary for a person’s salvation and obedience and steadfastness in faith. They taught that all true and faithful and obedient believers of the gospel message could obtain salvation – and had become members of His body and would receive the Holy Spirit. They never taught that you must belong to the “Catholic church” in order to receive His Graces that can only be dispensed by them in order to be considered “valid” – they never taught that you must believe in any Marian Dogmas. These are just a couple.

mercygate:

They DID teach that one must be baptized. They DID teach that there was one Church.

By one “Church” – I’m assuming you mean the “Catholic church” (as it is known today) – if so, again I state that it is not the “one church” that they originally established.

Leeann:
His Apostles established the very early church and laid out how it should be set up and what should be taught/preached…and warned that there would be false teachers then…and in the future and to not veer away from the gospel message that they had been taught.

mercygate:
Yes. And even Paul, with all of his self-confidence made sure that what he was preaching – taught by revelation from Christ Himself – was “the same gospel” as that preached by the eyewitnesses.

Yes he did……3 years after the fact of His very personal commission from the Lord, by going to Peter, which was fine, as the “one church” back then - was in no way the same as the Catholic church became over the centuries or as is it today – the “gospel message” is not the same that was taught by Paul or Peter or any of the Apostles back then….if it is the same…the Pope would be turning to JESUS…not Mary.

mercygate:
Even Scripture shows that not all that would be needed would be known from the day of Pentecost. If it were, we would not need the persistent presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Church governance under Bishops, Presbyters (from which our world “priest” derives) and Deacons was established early. One would look for that form of governance in any church that purported to be authentically Christ’s

And one can find them and the presence of the Holy Spirit in many churches besides the “Catholic church” - where ever there are true, faithful believers in the gospel message that was preached.

 

[Leeann]

posted by TWB1621
Do you really believe Jesus would not want you to honor His mother for being His earthly mother? Shame Shame :tsktsk:

And how would you know that the way I honor Mary is not acceptable to Him?

posted by Leeann
Or perhaps like this?

How DARE you tamper with the “gospel message”…

Posted by TWB1621
“tamper with the gospel message?” how many books are in your Bible and how many interpretations in your Bible have come through with thousands of years?

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here?…sorry.

 

[Leeann]

**Leeann:**Thank you for these quotations – all taught by the Catholic church – but never mentioned by Jesus himself or any of His Apostles as they taught the pure and true “gospel message” for the salvation of all mankind.

fix:
I am sorry but how do you know that? I mean where did the bible come from? And is the bible the only source for these items?

The bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and those recording the events in the books of the N.T. – show how John the Baptist – preached the gospel message – as did Jesus – as did the Apostles – “the gospel message” that was necessary for the salvation of all mankind.
Jesus sent out His Apostles to establish His church based on “that gospel message” – the Apostles did so – it must have been complete at that time – nothing added to it – or they would not have warned the early Christians to “hold fast” to the gospel they had taught them and not to accept any other.

Leeann:
The question still stands to whom would the Apostles point……Mary or Jesus?

fix:
They would look to Christ’s vicar on earth and follow his authority in such matters, as we all should today. BTW, does Mary ever lead anyone away from her Son?

That’s an interesting opinion – not what the Apostles themselves were taught by Jesus to do – or what the Apostles then went out and taught and preached the early Christians to do if they were in need of help….I wonder….who taught you to believe this?

I don’t know, as I have never felt the need to go to her to be “lead” to Jesus, because HE”S there – fully accessible, fully capable, fully willing and desiring to be in full communion with each and every one of us in our times of need and in our times of victory.

 

[Leeann]

ok, but why are you smacking me and who is tomaszA, I am confused again

Sorry…Got my “tom’s” confused!

 

[mercygate]

By one “Church” – I’m assuming you mean the “Catholic church” (as it is known today) – if so, again I state that it is not the “one church” that they originally established.

Well the Catholic/Orthodox Churches have the paper trail. The “one church” of the first century can be traced back from the thread of witness and the authenticity of the message can be verified across all of those years. The Catholic/Orthodox churches have the succession of bishops that have sustained the apostolic teaching. So we find “I state” to be a rather pale claim by comparison.

Yes he did……3 years after the fact of His very personal commission from the Lord, by going to Peter, which was fine, as the “one church” back then - was in no way the same as the Catholic church became over the centuries or as is it today – the “gospel message” is not the same that was taught by Paul or Peter or any of the Apostles back then….if it is the same…the Pope would be turning to JESUS…not Mary.

As a Convert to the Catholic Church, I can appreciate that you think that the faith is not the same. But I assure you, the principle that doctrine cannot expand or contract is thoroughly attested to in Catholic teaching today.

And one can find them and the presence of the Holy Spirit in many churches besides the “Catholic church” - where ever there are true, faithful believers in the gospel message that was preached.

One of the points of the Gospel message was unity.

While you carp at the Catholic Church for devotion to Our Lady and claim it is not true to the Gospel, that it is not Apostolic, how much of the apostolic teaching do you embrace? Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Baptismal regeneration? Infant baptism? Confession to a priest? The sacramental character of Holy Matrimony? All of this belongs to the Church of the Apostolic age.

I propose that until you have accepted of these teachings of the Apostolic and sub-apostolic Church, you are scarcely in a position to challenge the Catholic and Orthodox churches for their devotion to Our Lady.

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
You state that Mary was “preserved, saved from the stain of original sin” which “makes her unique in all of God’s creation” and then go on to state that “she is a created person, a child of God.” We who believe are all “children of God” are we not.
As for being the “perfect model for us of Christian love”, how can you say she is a perfect model for us – “normal” human beings - (meaning not “unique” as you describe Mary as having been) if she was already “unique” (by no means of her own) – what kind of example is that for us to attain too…by your definition…she had a “head start”.

AshleyBelle:
We believe this is possible because, mary, like us was daughter of our Lord. But because of His grace (not of her own doing) He chose to save her, from the moment of her conception from the stain of original sin. Mary shows us perfectly what it means to live a life of holiness, working and cooperating with God through faith, in her salvation.
Do you doubt the power of God? Even the angel declared that mary was 'full of grace." How could she have been thus, if she hadn’t already recieved salvation? There are also signs pointing to this attribute of our blessed mother, pre dated in the old testament. When we see Mary, as the ark of the new covenant (Christ.)

Leeann:
Her “humanity” was what God desired to bring into fulfillment the plan of Jesus being both human and God while He walked this earth.

The Catholic church teachings have all but stripped her of that “humanity” that God so wanted and in place has taught that Mary herself was ‘holy’ before she was born – in the “dogma” of the “Immaculate Conception”.

AshleyBelle:
On the contrary, the catholic church teaches us that Mary was a perfect model for us, of how to love our Lord. She said “yes” to God’s plan for her. She continued to say “yes” to Christ “do whatever he tells you.” And she shared with Christ’s sufferngs on the cross “And your heart a sword will pierce.” Just as we should unite our sufferings to the cross of Christ.

The “dogma” of the immaculate conception was not officially proclaimed as dogma until it was contested by heresies. Often in church history, tradition will continue without an official document, and when the need arises to “re-state” what the church’s position has always been on a subject, the pope will proclaim it as dogma. Again, our marian doctrines are not essential for salvation…I think you confuse the Traditions we practice as means of working out our salvation, with those smaller traditions we hold dear as optional ways of growing in faith and love.

Leeann:
As any normal, human mother would.

AshleyBelle:
Any, normal human mother, would not be carrying the perfect, fully human, fully divine child Christ. As the perfect, loving creator, would it not stand to reason that Christ would also perfectly obey all of God’s/his commandments? One being that we are to honor our mother and father? We are to emulate Christ and honor his mother as he would. And he truly did, give us mary. As the mother of Christ, she became the mother of all Christians. “Woman, behold your son. And he gazed at His disciples, 'Behold, your mother.”

Leeann:
Why?

AshleyBelle:
We believe that Mary was perfectly united to Christ, in the flesh. As his mother, she participated with him in his work on earth. She did not share his divine nature, but as Christ is fully human and fully divine, she became forever tied to Christ, the son

Leeann:
But there is no need to do so in the first place.

AshleyBelle:
Perhaps to some, they would not see a need to do so. But please understand the perspective that has been handed down to us from Christ through the apostles. Christ loved his mother, and God had favor for Mary. We strive to emulate Christ, and what better way to show our love for him, than to honor the mother whom He loved? Mary is the only perfect model in all of history of perfect love for Christ. To understand how to love Christ, as created children of God, we would have a lot to learn from His mother

As for the 'queen of heaven" this is also a title that the church has given to Mary for many, many years. It is in reference to Revelation. It does not say “Mary.” But it says a woman in heaven, with a crown on her head of twelve stars. We believe that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven to be with her son, and that this passage is speaking directly of her.

Thank you AshleyBelle – It is obvious that you have a very clear understanding of what the “Catholic church” teaches.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you AshleyBelle – It is obvious that you have a very clear understanding of what the “Catholic church” teaches.

Leeann, please stop putting quotation marks around the phrase Catholic church, and be so kind, since this is a Catholic forum to refer to her as the Catholic Church.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Thank you AshleyBelle – It is obvious that you have a very clear understanding of what the “Catholic church” teaches.

…You’re asking to whom would the apostles have pointed the pope to, Jesus or Mary?

You fail to understand, or perhaps to accept, that the pope, IS a successor OF the Apostles!

If you want to know whom the apostles would point to, ask the pope, and the bishops in union with him!

 And If the catholic teaching has been made clear to you, then why do you still insist it MUST be an "either/or" question?

It all comes down to authority…as with all these circular arguments between catholics and protestants. You agree, that at one point Christ established a church with His apostles. Of all the churches in the world today, are there ANY besides the catholic church which can prove or have any sort of historical basis for a line of succession extending ALL the way back to the apostles? If you say no, then how do you know truth, and how will you EVER know what the apostles taught about the “gospel message?” or anything else?

If you say it's because we can all read scripture, I'd have to disagree, because that is a notion developed only in the past 500 years. How many people were even LITERATE 500 years ago, let alone could access the scriptures? 200 years ago...how many people were literate to read the scriptures?  Who do we trust to TEACH us matters of truth?  Is it luther? Is it your local church? Is it ourselves?  If we could define and KNOW the truth, why would we need to seek it?  If we can answer all these questions for ourselves and just come up with answers, then we don't need to answer to anyone else, because all truth is subjective to our own understanding.

And who decided what books of the Bible were truly inspired, and handed down from the apostles? Who decided that the book of Manessah, the Didach, the epistle of Jeremiah, the book of susanna, and others were not inspired? Who decided that the book of Mark was actually written by mark, considering no author was actually cited?

And what’s more, what did Christians do for the first couple hundred years when they only had the old testament and maybe only a handful of new testament writings?

What did Christ mean when he said "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall never prevail against it." ?

You said that Christ established a church, but that the catholic church of today is NOT the church of His time. But wouldn’t that contradict the words of Christ Himself?

If you believe the church of Christ’s time is not the church of today, please show us what has changed. Show us one teaching in the old writings of the church that the new writings of the church contradict.

 

[Leeann]

**Leeann:**Perhaps the “needs” that you are experiencing, are based on what you may be lacking in your relationship to the Lord.

utunumsint:
Everything that is sinful in me blocks my relationship with the Lord, and I will admit that I am a sinner. I multiple ways I let selfishness hinder my love for God and my love for neighbour. I have also seen some of the most convicted and on fire Christians display the most egotistical and destructive habits and tendencies you could imagine. I’m sure they are aware of their own sinfulness, but I certainly would not rely on them for prayers. The ones I would turn to for prayers are those who have let the light of Christ fully penetrate their soul and clean them from all sins. These are the people who know how to take up their cross daily. In a word, these are the ones who know how to love God about all things and love their neighbours as themselves. I look to these examples of Christian humility and faith, and I turn to them for their prayers for my intercession.

again…perhaps the “needs” you are experiencing, are based on what you may be lacking in your relationship to the Lord. See my next quote below.

Leeann:
A **very personal **and real relationship, that fulfills those needs, **when you place your faith and hope in Him **

utunumsint:
The issue I have with this is that I see Christ acting in my life through the mediation of others all the time. Especially through others that are more filled with the Holy Spirit than I am. I trust these people, often more than I trust myself. Because I can often deceive myself concerning the will of God because of my sinfulness. In short, these people are a source of Grace for me because they mediate the grace that Christ has poured into their lives to me.

You really should work on **your own communion directly **with the Lord and place your faith in Him. He’s very approachable.

Leeann:
and the Holy Spirit within you will direct and enable you to do His Will.

utunumsint:
Don’t you think that the more people you have praying for you, the more powerfully you will be able to fulfil God’s will through the Holy Spirit?

He’s interested in “you” and “your” relationship and communion with Him.

Leeann:
More time spent in direct communication with HIM, will bring all the necessary inspiration to want to obey and follow Him. How could it not!

utunumsint:
Amen. But I would also include time spent with the saints, including Paul, Mary, Joseph, etc… because I know that they are powerful in the Lord. I may also relate to aspects of their lives and the way God’s grace has transformed them. For example, my wife may sometimes pray to Mary while she is pregnant because Mary was pregnant. There are certain saints that inspire me because they lived similar lives than I did, or I am more attracted to their character. The one thing all of these people have in common is that they point me to the Lord. They help me cleave to him better.

Luke, Marc, Matthew, and John also help me do this through the Gospels they wrote. I would not know Christ but through them.

Amen to that! Immerse yourself in the Gospels and the "gospel message that Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Thank you for taking the time to share this with me.
God Bless you!

 

[Leeann]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann **
Not what they originally set out…which was what was necessary for a person’s salvation and obedience and steadfastness in faith. They taught that all true and faithful and obedient believers of the gospel message could obtain salvation – and had become members of His body and would receive the Holy Spirit. They never taught that you must belong to the “Catholic church” in order to receive His Graces that can only be dispensed by them in order to be considered “valid” – they never taught that you must believe in any Marian Dogmas. These are just a couple.

AshleyBelle:
So, if I’m understanding, the apostles taught what is essential?

Yes

AshleyBelle:
Can you point me to a reference of their teaching what is considered essential and what is non essential in the faith?

The whole of the “gospel message” that they preached and taught is essential.
What is “non-essential “ is what the Catholic church blends into this message….such as the “Catholic church” is necessary for salvation…the Apostles and Jesus never taught this…that the “Catholic church” is His one true church….they never taught this….

AshleyBelle:
I’m not sure if I understand what your’e saying about “could obtain salvation.” Are you suggesting that they had to do something to “get” it?

I don’t know how else to put it.
Perhaps……since we are warned that we can ‘fall away’….to persevere and remain obedient……does that make sense?

AshleyBelle:
And as for belonging to the “Catholic church” of course they didn’t need to teach that. The only Christian church was THE Catholic church.

Well….yes….the “catholic” church –universal – all true, believers in Christ, but not the “Catholic church” as such.

AshleyBelle:
And what were they using to teach? Was it the Bible?

???

AshleyBelle:
Also, as for dispensing graces, Do you believe that they performed baptisms?

Of course they did - and so do many other churches.

AshleyBelle:
So, the apostles knew very early on, what parts of the Bible were inspired and worthy of teaching?

The Apostles knew very early on what the true gospel message was……they taught it and preached it.

Leeann:
Did or did not what?

AshleyBelle:
I was asking, how do we know from the Bible that the apostles did or did not establish ONE true church? And how do we know it is not the Catholic church, if so?

Just check out the gospel message that John the Baptist/Jesus and what the Apostles taught back then….and after Jesus’ death/resurrection….check out the epistles sent to the early churches and what the Apostles taught…check out to “whom the Apostles pointed people too” - it was JESUS….not Mary.

 

[reggieM]

….such as the “Catholic church” is necessary for salvation…the Apostles and Jesus never taught this…that the “Catholic church” is His one true church….they never taught this….

I would like to see your proof for that statement.

 

[Leeann]

*They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did **him ***homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11

Leeann:
Beautiful, enlightening scripture!

Goodfella:

Catholics approach Jesus on his terms, not those of an individual competent-soul.

What are Jesus’ terms goodfella?

Matthew 11:28-30 (New American Standard)

28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Goodfella:
The infant Church in Palestine perceived Mary’s powerful intercessory role and turned to her for her prayers even while she was still alive for about fifteen years after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.

Which is exactly as James taught – going to one another for prayer support.

Goodfella:
The narrative of the Wedding Feast in Cana clearly reveals the Church’s early belief in Mary’s position as advocate to the people of God.

Because she was the one responsible for initiating His ministry and He obeyed her desire because He loved her so much and she knew that He would/could do a miracle?
**-or-**Because she asked Him to make more wine for the wedding hosts to save them from embarrassment?

Goodfella:
The Church in Palestine consisted of Jewish converts who were conversant with and sensible of the powerful mediatorial position of the Queen Mother between her son, the king, and his subjects in the ancient Davidic kingdom. It was practically natural for them to make a connection and see Mary as a type of Gebirah just as David and Solomon were seen as prefigurements of the King of kings.
Of course, you prefer something more explicit than typology, since you lack the analogical sense when approaching the scriptures from a literal perspective. Moreover, in your narrow focus on the written word you are blind to the allegorical and anagogical significance of the wedding feast story in John’s gospel.

You mean the part about the water in the water urns, that were used by the Jews for purification, (washing before meals) – being replaced by the wine – “the new replacing the old legalism."

Goodfella:
We mustn’t expect anything as explicit as you’d like it to be in the New Testament.

Why not?
Where’s your faith in God….the Holy Spirit….and Their ability to do whatever and reveal whatever They want too…to anybody They want…whenever They want too?

Goodfella:
In Scripture and in the Apostolic Tradition of the infant Church in Palestine attention was rightfully and primarily focussed on our Lord and Saviour. The New Testament was written with the intention of establishing the divine primacy of Christ and the purpose and fulfillment of his earthly mission. This goal took precedence over establishing any secondary corresponding devotion to Mary in the economy of salvation.

And so it should have, because that’s all that was necessary then and all that is necessary today.

Goodfella:
However, the acknowledgement of Mary’s unique position as Mother of God and Mother of the Church and devotion to her began to gel in apostolic times in the traditional beliefs of the infant Church (Lk 1:28, 34, 35, 42, 43-44, 45, 46-49; 2:35; 11:28; Jn 2: 3-5; 19: 26-27; Rev 12:1, 17). The Church Fathers took and carried the torch by further articulating Marian devotion as mediated through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Catholic Church.

There was “further” information….later that came to light… gathered through the Sacred Tradition, and they carried the torch…ran with it so to speak?

 

[Leeann]

Goodfella:
Leeann, above you claim that the Catholic Church strayed from the pure apostolic teachings of the infant Church at some point in the 4th century with regard to the Church’s Marian doctrines and devotions. I thought you knew by now, from the sources I provided in other threads, that Mary was invoked as the New Eve and Mother of the Church as early as the beginning of the second century shown in the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. I do recall you complained about having been given quotes of the early Church Fathers. I suppose they prick at your religious pride and offend your misguided zeal.

Yes, well you do have a problem with “supposing” and “assuming” and actually “speaking” on behalf of others, but that aside - not at all….they just weren’t “early” enough.

Goodfella:
Anyway, traditional belief in Mary as Queen Mother of the Church evidently existed by the time of the great Roman persecutions. In the catacombs at Rome (of St. Agnes and St. Priscilla) there are extant frescoes of Mary that depict early Christian belief in her royal privilege and powerful intercessory role. A notable frescoe is the ‘Onans’ (the woman in prayer), and there is an image of Mary seated above Peter and Paul with her arms outstretched to both of them as an advocate to the Church. These two apostles together have always symbolized the Church. The persecuted Christians prayerfully turned to our Blessed Mother in their distress. Do you dare criticize them as well?

Oh not at all….I feel for them as I do for those now…who veer away from what the Apostles actually taught.

 

[Leeann]

Hi mercygate:

Leeann:
Yes, I’ve stated before I’ve never had a problem with the first dogma – Mother of God – due to the reasons of why it was brought into being, it’s the following ones that have surfaced.

With regards to your last paragraph, that is true - but by doing so, the “gospel message” of salvation itself was not altered in any way.

mercygate:
Nor is the Gospel message in any way altered by the Marian dogmas. They illuminate the Person of Jesus Christ.

Something’s got to have changed…why would the Pope turn to Mary…instead of to Jesus, as the Apostles pointed the believers in the early church to do?

 

[Leeann]

**Originally Posted by Leeann **
As I posted and stated previously – James wrote to those early Christians who were being persecuted and instructed them to encourage and support one another and instructed them to call on the elders to pray for them for healing – I believe he was inspired by the HS to do so – so I don’t believe that Jesus was offended by this at all….having His followers support and pray for one another as they struggled here on earth.

I still don’t get why calling on others to pray on your behalf is ok? Why not just pray to Jesus directly?

You can do both….take a look at the book of James…he explains it all there.

Leeann:
In regards to the way the Pope was praying – directly to her and stating that if she wouldn’t help us…to whom are we to turn ??? – it certainly takes on a different meaning.

When you call on others to pray for you you call on them directly, there’s no other way to do it. If God doesn’t hear the voice of those more righteous than you, then what hope do you really have in your petition ever being answered?

James Ch1: 5 – 8

5 But if any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, which is moved and carried about by the wind.
7 Therefore let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways.

There is no human more righteous than Mary so her prayer is the most powerful and she ought to be called on for praying on our behalf.

And where have you learned this?

Leeann:
What do you mean by “Mary doesn’t exclude Jesus, it requires Him.”?

Without Jesus trying to intercede with Mary is fruitless. Intercession always requires Jesus.

That’s right….Jesus is the one that is “necessary”.

 

[Leeann]

Leeann, please stop putting quotation marks around the phrase Catholic church, and be so kind, since this is a Catholic forum to refer to her as the Catholic Church.

I really am sorry if this has offended you mercygate.
It’s a bad habit that I’ve gotten into and it may take a few posts to break.

 

[twb1621]

Sorry…Got my “tom’s” confused!

hey, no problem, I was just really confused for a minutes there. My face is a little sore but its ok…