G
guanophore
Guest
Notice that it is in the past tense?
We are not to go on sinning!
God can heal whoever He wants, however He likes. He can do it with mud, or Lourdes water. All healing comes from God.
- Status
We are not to go on sinning!
G
Good_Fella
Guest
John is telling us that the need for conversion is universal. And we can be assured of being forgiven and cleansed from our sins through Christ if we acknowledge them and repent. Any recurrence of sin remains a possibilty. Jesus expects us to resist temptation and overcome the power of sin by initially avoiding the occasions of sin; so to live holy and blameless lives in the grace of God is equally a possibility. Unlike Mary, we have been conceived in the state of original sin and are inclined to sin, so for us it is much more of a challenge to walk in the light. This is why our Lord exhorts us to pray constantly for his actual helping graces. Although we may have sinned in the past, we are called to put our sins behind us. Our Lord does not consider an amendment of our lives an impossibilty. If he did, there would be no point for him to exhort us to “sin no more.”
If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.
1 John 1, 9
But “if” anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
1 John 2, 1
The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Anyone who says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live just as he did.
1 John 2, 3-6
Thus says the Lord: You say, “The Lord’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair? When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, and does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed, he shall surely live - he shall not die.
Ezekiel 18, 25-28
Original sin is the universal law of our inclination to sin. We are not held accountable and punished for Adam and Eve’s personal sin and disobedience. We are held accountable for our own personal sins and punished for them if we fail to sincerely repent and amend our lives. Like Adam and Eve, we are free to choose between the Word of God and the word of the serpent, the devil, now that we have been sanctified and restored to the original state of justice before God in our baptism. God did not create us so that we necessarily have to commit sin.
God did not destine us for wrath, but to gain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live together with him.
1 Thessalonians 5, 9-10
Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith.
1 Peter 5, 8-9
Be angry, but do not sin; do not let the sun set on your anger, and do not leave room for the devil.
Ephesians 4, 26-27
“Amen I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
Matthew 21, 31
PAX
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The same kind of thing has never happened in a non-Christian religion nor in any of the Protestant religions founded by men. And it never will.
L
Leeann
Guest
To guanophore and justasking
Hi - I just read some of your latest postings, with regards to “sinning” - and the scriptures that Goodfella posted just prior and the explanation given seems to offer a good understanding - (although I don’t agree with the line in reference to Mary being conceived without sin and the one about regarding how we stand justified…by baptism…by the Cathlolic perspective I mean) - but if you re-read it, it explains how we have been offered the way of living a righteous life.
Hi - I just read some of your latest postings, with regards to “sinning” - and the scriptures that Goodfella posted just prior and the explanation given seems to offer a good understanding - (although I don’t agree with the line in reference to Mary being conceived without sin and the one about regarding how we stand justified…by baptism…by the Cathlolic perspective I mean) - but if you re-read it, it explains how we have been offered the way of living a righteous life.
Peace and God Bless
L
Leeann
Guest
oops…Sorry! I must have had my screens back a few and didn’t realize that Goodfella had “just” posted it. 
Peace and God Bless
Peace and God Bless
J
justasking4
Guest
Not so. There are many claimed miracles in protestantism as there are in other religions.Originally Posted by justasking4
What would you say if the same kind of thing happened in a non christian religion? Would that mean its true?
Good Fella
The same kind of thing has never happened in a non-Christian religion nor in any of the Protestant religions founded by men. And it never will.
Now if you were presented with good evidence for such a thing would you believe it?
G
guanophore
Guest
I would. I believe that the angel really did stir the water in the Temple, and the first person into it got healed.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Tell me the name of any non-Catholic whose body lies uncorrupted in the grave. I’m sure God has worked miracles in the lives of non-Christians as well, but the point is that the miracles of Lourdes confirm the authenticity of the Blessed Virgin’s apparitions there and the truth of the Immaculate Conception.
L
Leeann
Guest
In what way?
J
justasking4
Guest
Where in Scripture does it say that a body is to be dug up after its buried and that a uncorrupted body is a some kind of miracle?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Our Blessed Mother told us herself in an unusual way.
Bernadette recounts the 16th apparition of 25 March (The Feast of the Annunciation) 1858:
“She lifted up her eyes to heaven, joined her hands as though in prayer, that were held out and open towards the ground, and said to me:”
“Que soy era Immaculada Concepciou.”
Bernadette left the grotto immediately after this appartion and ran back to tell her parish priest what Our Lady had told her (in the local dialect of Lourdes near the Spanish border), constantly repeating to herself the words she had failed to understand (Immaculate Conception) so as not to forget them. For the visionary’s parish priest had instructed her to ask the lady to identify herself. Until this appartion occurred, Bernadette had no idea who this lady was, though many Catholics who were aware of the current apparitions believed she was the Blessed Virgin Mary. The visionary’s parish priest did not believe in the autthenticity of the apparitions at the time, and he still doubted for a short time after he heard what Bernadette had told him. Yet he was stunned.
On 8 December 1854 Pope Pius lX had declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception a dogma: belonging to the deposit of faith. Bernadette had not yet heard of this teaching by this time, still under catechetical instruction for her First Communion.
On December 9-12, 1531, Mary appeared to a Mexican peasant, Juan Diego, at the hill of Tepayac in Mexico. Our Lady had him pick some flowers that were not growing in that region at that time of year as proof she was appearing to him. She instructed him to take the flowers back to the disbelieving bishop to show him. When Juan arrived and opened up his coat (tilma) the flowers dropped to the floor and there was the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary crushing the serpent under foot on the inside of the cloth he wore. This is known to the Aztecs as Tecoataxope or de Guadalupe in Spanish. This translates to “she will crush the serpent of the stone”. The tilma with its inscribed image has been preserved in the Basilica of Guadalupe to this day. I mention this event because I see a connection between it and Lourdes.
*“The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race…These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence…the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” *
Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854
Throughout the ages there have been so-called “private revelations”, some of which have been recognized by the Catholic Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation (i.e, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the faithful) knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church [67]
‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your young men shall see visions,
your old men shall dream dreams.
Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids
I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days,
and they shall prophesy.’
Acts 2, 17-18
PAX :harp:
L
Leeann
Guest
From Goodfella’s previous post
A couple of sites that show serious controversy with regards to this apparition.
www.cathetel.com/guadalupe
There has been considerable controversy, derived from re-evaluations of the event, including that Juan Diego never existed and was an invention of the Bishop to aid in converting the peasants. In 1611, the fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the following as the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. The shrine at Tepeyac was popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe, Tonantzin, and was a confusion in their minds with an Aztec goddess. In 1999, a study was commissioned to test the tilma’s age by a researcher who had worked with the Shroud of Turin. Three distinct layers were found, one which was signed and dated. The original showed striking similarities to the original painting of Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain, the second showing another Virgin with indigenous features. The fabric was hemp and linen not agave fibers as popularly believed. Another researcher stated that the painting had been tampered with, but disagreed with the conclusions, suggesting the conditions for conducting the study were inadequate. In 2002, an art restoration expert, examined the icon with a stereomicroscope and identified materials consistent with 16th century materials and methods. This contradicts earlier findings by Richard Kuhn (1900-1967), a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, who had stated in his report of the tilma that it had not been painted with natural, animal, or mineral colorings.
END NOTES:
The full message of the Virgin is still controversial because she spoke to Juan Diego in the Nahuatl language and it does not appear recorded in the Spanish translation of the Nican Mopohua Book, sanctioned by the Vatican.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
(Wikipedia onine…)
Controversies
“At the time of the apparitions in 1531, Zumárraga was not yet bishop of New Spain, he wouldn’t be formally consecrated until 1533 and became an Archbishop in 1547. Zumárraga had, however, been recommended for the post of bishop by Charles V on 20 December, 1527.[33] Thus, at the time of the apparitions, Zumárraga was bishop-elect. There is no explicit mention of Juan Diego nor the Virgin in any of Zumárraga’s writings. Furthermore, in a “catechism” published in New Spain before his death, it was stated: “The Redeemer of the world doesn’t want any more miracles, because they are no longer necessary."[12]
As early as 1556 Francisco de Bustamante, head of the Colony’s Franciscans, delivered a sermon before the Viceroy and members of the Royal Audience. In that sermon, disparaging the holy origins of the picture and contradicting Archbishop Alonso de Montúfar’s sermon of two days before, Bustamante stated:
“The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.”[34][12]
Some historians consider that the icon was meant to syncretically represent both the Virgin Mary and the indigenous Mexican goddess Tonantzin, providing a way for 16th century Spaniards to gain converts among the indigenous population of early Mexico. It may have provided a method for 16th century indigenous Mexicans to covertly practice their native religion, although the contrary was asserted in the canonization process of Juan Diego.[35]
In 1611 the Dominican Martin de Leon, fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin.[12] The missionary and anthropologist Bernardino de Sahagún held the same opinion: he wrote that the shrine at Tepeyac was extremely popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe Tonantzin. Sahagún said that the worshipers claimed that Tonantzin was the proper Nahuatl for “Mother of God”—but he disagreed, saying that “Mother of God” in Nahuatl would be “Dios y Nantzin.”[36] This type of worries relative to confusion in Indian minds were due to missionaries feeling responsible for the souls of their flock.
Famous 19th-century historian Joaquín García Icazbalceta, foremost authority on Fray Juan de Zumárraga was also very hesitant to support the story of the apparition and concludes, in a confidential report to Bishop Labastida in 1883, that there was never such a character as Juan Diego.[37]
Many historians and some clerics, including the U.S. priest-historian Fr. Stafford Poole and former abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, Guillermo Schulenburg, have expressed doubts about the accuracy of the apparition accounts. Schulenburg in particular caused a stir with his 1996 interview with the Catholic magazine Ixthus, when he said that Juan Diego was “a symbol, not a reality.”[38] Schulenburg was not the first to disbelieve the traditional account nor the first Catholic prelate to resign his post after questioning the Guadalupe story. In 1897 Eduardo Sanchez Camacho, the Bishop of Tamaulipas was forced to leave his post after expressing similar disbelief.”
I apologize for having to cut “down” the quotation parts, but there wasn’t enough space to include it all here…however the original post is just prior to this one.
How do you connect this with the Lourdes apparition?
A couple of sites that show serious controversy with regards to this apparition.
www.cathetel.com/guadalupe
There has been considerable controversy, derived from re-evaluations of the event, including that Juan Diego never existed and was an invention of the Bishop to aid in converting the peasants. In 1611, the fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the following as the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. The shrine at Tepeyac was popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe, Tonantzin, and was a confusion in their minds with an Aztec goddess. In 1999, a study was commissioned to test the tilma’s age by a researcher who had worked with the Shroud of Turin. Three distinct layers were found, one which was signed and dated. The original showed striking similarities to the original painting of Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain, the second showing another Virgin with indigenous features. The fabric was hemp and linen not agave fibers as popularly believed. Another researcher stated that the painting had been tampered with, but disagreed with the conclusions, suggesting the conditions for conducting the study were inadequate. In 2002, an art restoration expert, examined the icon with a stereomicroscope and identified materials consistent with 16th century materials and methods. This contradicts earlier findings by Richard Kuhn (1900-1967), a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, who had stated in his report of the tilma that it had not been painted with natural, animal, or mineral colorings.
END NOTES:
The full message of the Virgin is still controversial because she spoke to Juan Diego in the Nahuatl language and it does not appear recorded in the Spanish translation of the Nican Mopohua Book, sanctioned by the Vatican.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
(Wikipedia onine…)
Controversies
“At the time of the apparitions in 1531, Zumárraga was not yet bishop of New Spain, he wouldn’t be formally consecrated until 1533 and became an Archbishop in 1547. Zumárraga had, however, been recommended for the post of bishop by Charles V on 20 December, 1527.[33] Thus, at the time of the apparitions, Zumárraga was bishop-elect. There is no explicit mention of Juan Diego nor the Virgin in any of Zumárraga’s writings. Furthermore, in a “catechism” published in New Spain before his death, it was stated: “The Redeemer of the world doesn’t want any more miracles, because they are no longer necessary."[12]
As early as 1556 Francisco de Bustamante, head of the Colony’s Franciscans, delivered a sermon before the Viceroy and members of the Royal Audience. In that sermon, disparaging the holy origins of the picture and contradicting Archbishop Alonso de Montúfar’s sermon of two days before, Bustamante stated:
“The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.”[34][12]
Some historians consider that the icon was meant to syncretically represent both the Virgin Mary and the indigenous Mexican goddess Tonantzin, providing a way for 16th century Spaniards to gain converts among the indigenous population of early Mexico. It may have provided a method for 16th century indigenous Mexicans to covertly practice their native religion, although the contrary was asserted in the canonization process of Juan Diego.[35]
In 1611 the Dominican Martin de Leon, fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin.[12] The missionary and anthropologist Bernardino de Sahagún held the same opinion: he wrote that the shrine at Tepeyac was extremely popular but worrisome because people called the Virgin of Guadalupe Tonantzin. Sahagún said that the worshipers claimed that Tonantzin was the proper Nahuatl for “Mother of God”—but he disagreed, saying that “Mother of God” in Nahuatl would be “Dios y Nantzin.”[36] This type of worries relative to confusion in Indian minds were due to missionaries feeling responsible for the souls of their flock.
Famous 19th-century historian Joaquín García Icazbalceta, foremost authority on Fray Juan de Zumárraga was also very hesitant to support the story of the apparition and concludes, in a confidential report to Bishop Labastida in 1883, that there was never such a character as Juan Diego.[37]
Many historians and some clerics, including the U.S. priest-historian Fr. Stafford Poole and former abbot of the Basilica of Guadalupe, Guillermo Schulenburg, have expressed doubts about the accuracy of the apparition accounts. Schulenburg in particular caused a stir with his 1996 interview with the Catholic magazine Ixthus, when he said that Juan Diego was “a symbol, not a reality.”[38] Schulenburg was not the first to disbelieve the traditional account nor the first Catholic prelate to resign his post after questioning the Guadalupe story. In 1897 Eduardo Sanchez Camacho, the Bishop of Tamaulipas was forced to leave his post after expressing similar disbelief.”
I apologize for having to cut “down” the quotation parts, but there wasn’t enough space to include it all here…however the original post is just prior to this one.
How do you connect this with the Lourdes apparition?
L
Leeann
Guest
**
“The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race…These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence…the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.”
Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854
As you are likely aware – the bible verse listed above has different translations, whereby they either infer that the “seed itself “ - JESUS - is the one that ‘crushes the serpent’s head’ – not Mary – or it states clearly ‘he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.’ – again not Mary.
Throughout the ages there have been so-called “private revelations”, some of which have been recognized by the Catholic Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation (i.e, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the faithful) knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church [67]
But what of the instruction as stated in:
1 John 4:V1 -3
(Douay Rheims Bible online)
1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
The apparitions refer to God or to the Son on occasion, some never mention Jesus at all….but pleas for the rosary to be prayed, etc. None of the visionaries ever actually “tested” the apparitions by asking them to “tell us who Jesus was/is”…yet these apparitions and the messages they gave were accepted as having come from God.
The authorities, the ‘sensus fidelium’ also accepted these apparitions as being “authentic” without knowing “where” they came from, simply because the question with regards to JESUS and who He was and is was never asked. It would appear that the acceptance seems to be in the way the apparitions a “support” the Catholic traditions of the rosary, penance, thus enabling the firm establishment of the Catholic Marian Theology, and most importantly - the gathering of “converts” to the CHURCH itself and its authority…which is all very nice…but doesn’t establish the authenticity of “where” the apparitions are from.
**
“The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race…These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence…the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.”
Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854
As you are likely aware – the bible verse listed above has different translations, whereby they either infer that the “seed itself “ - JESUS - is the one that ‘crushes the serpent’s head’ – not Mary – or it states clearly ‘he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.’ – again not Mary.
Throughout the ages there have been so-called “private revelations”, some of which have been recognized by the Catholic Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation (i.e, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the faithful) knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church [67]
But what of the instruction as stated in:
1 John 4:V1 -3
(Douay Rheims Bible online)
1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
The apparitions refer to God or to the Son on occasion, some never mention Jesus at all….but pleas for the rosary to be prayed, etc. None of the visionaries ever actually “tested” the apparitions by asking them to “tell us who Jesus was/is”…yet these apparitions and the messages they gave were accepted as having come from God.
The authorities, the ‘sensus fidelium’ also accepted these apparitions as being “authentic” without knowing “where” they came from, simply because the question with regards to JESUS and who He was and is was never asked. It would appear that the acceptance seems to be in the way the apparitions a “support” the Catholic traditions of the rosary, penance, thus enabling the firm establishment of the Catholic Marian Theology, and most importantly - the gathering of “converts” to the CHURCH itself and its authority…which is all very nice…but doesn’t establish the authenticity of “where” the apparitions are from.
L
Leeann
Guest
Acts 2, 17-18
Beautiful verses and I indeed believe them …however they do not “confirm” in any way the authenticity of the above apparitions.
Also see:
1 Timothy 4 V.1 – 3
1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times (latter times) some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,
3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
(Explanation as given in Catholic Duoay Rheims bible version)
3 “Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats”… He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics**,(He was not speaking of “that” time, but of “last days”-“****latter **times”) who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; **(as “instituted” by “the church”)**though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance.
Note: I used “red” as red is used when you access the online bible.
And please, please, please…these verses can and do apply to ALL Christians of whatever faith in whatever time that can be defined as “last/latter days”…as indeed has been proven in the past and will most likely be proven again before Christ returns. But we are to take “heed” of these words also.
Peace and God Bless
S
SIA
Guest
i must disagree with you. The RCC does raise Mary to divinity. It parallels her with Christ on all of the Marian dogmas. It claims that Mary was sinless like only Christ was. It claims that Mary was taken into heaven body and soul which parallels the resurrection of Christ and it claims that Mary was born without sin like only Christ was. Furthermore, Catholicism claims that Mary was and is perfect and is the queen of Heaven which parallels that Jesus is the King of the Universe. The Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Scriptures.
E
elvisman
Guest
Man, SIA – where do you get this stuff? Certainly not from Scripture.
**Since you usually avoid my answers to your ridiculous claims, I though I’d piggyback on this one.
**For your information, Adam and eve were also created without sin.
As for the Catholic Church teaching that Mary’s assumption into heaven parallels Jesus’ resurrection – it doesn’t. His resurrection can’t be paralleled because he did it under his own power – as he did his Ascension. **
For your information, there is a precedent in Scripture for man to be assumed bodily into heaven:
Enoch Genesis (5:22) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11).
L
Leeann
Guest
Originally Posted by SIA
i must disagree with you. The RCC does raise Mary to divinity. It parallels her with Christ on all of the Marian dogmas. It claims that Mary was sinless like only Christ was. It claims that Mary was taken into heaven body and soul which parallels the resurrection of Christ and it claims that Mary was born without sin like only Christ was. Furthermore, Catholicism claims that Mary was and is perfect and is the queen of Heaven which parallels that Jesus is the King of the Universe. The Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Scriptures.
Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.
As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.
As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.
Mary
Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)
Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)
Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)
Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)
Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (no where in scripture)
Jesus
Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)
Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)
Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)
King (clearly defined in scripture)
Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)
Peace and God Bless
i must disagree with you. The RCC does raise Mary to divinity. It parallels her with Christ on all of the Marian dogmas. It claims that Mary was sinless like only Christ was. It claims that Mary was taken into heaven body and soul which parallels the resurrection of Christ and it claims that Mary was born without sin like only Christ was. Furthermore, Catholicism claims that Mary was and is perfect and is the queen of Heaven which parallels that Jesus is the King of the Universe. The Mary of Catholic theology is not the Mary of the Scriptures.
Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!Man, SIA – where do you get this stuff? Certainly not from Scripture.
**Since you usually avoid my answers to your ridiculous **claims, I though I’d piggyback on this one.
For your information, Adam and eve were also created without sin.
As for the Catholic Church teaching that Mary’s assumption into heaven parallels Jesus’ resurrection – it doesn’t**. His resurrection can’t be paralleled because he did it under his own power – as he did his Ascension.
For your information, there is a precedent in Scripture for man to be assumed bodily into heaven:
Enoch Genesis (5:22) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11).
Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.
As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.
As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.
Mary
Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)
Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)
Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)
Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)
Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (no where in scripture)
Jesus
Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)
Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)
Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)
King (clearly defined in scripture)
Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)
Peace and God Bless
J
justasking4
Guest
elvisman;4242797]Man, SIA – where do you get this stuff? Certainly not from Scripture.
**Since you usually avoid my answers to your ridiculous **claims, I though I’d piggyback on this one.
It is true that Adam and Eve were of a special creation. Jesus was also. Mary though was born of 2 human parents while Christ, Adam and Eve were not.
Mary’s assumption is meant to parallel Jesus’ assumption.
Just because these 2 were taken directly to heaven does not mean Mary was. There is no record of her in Scripture for this claim.
E
elvisman
Guest
How is Enoch’s and Elijah’s assumptions not relevant?Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!
Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.
As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.
I was pointing out to SIA that Mary’s assumption wasn’t without precedent - and it wasn’t. Very relevant.
As a Bible-believing Catholic, I don’t rely solely on scripture as it is unbiblical.
However, John 16:13 clearly tells us that Jesus was sending his advocate (the Holy Spirit) and that it would lead the Church into ALL truth. These truths have been revealed to the Church. To deny that is to deny the Authority vested in her by Jesus Himself.
Don’t forget - the Bible came from the Church - not the other way around.
Remember the wise words of St. Augustine:
"I would not believe in the Gospel itself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."
E
elvisman
Guest
First of all Jesus ASCENDED into heaven under his own power. Mary was ASSUMED under the power of God. Get that straight.
It is NOT meant to parallel anything - let alone Jesus’ ASCENSION.
**Secondly, as I already told Leeann - I don’t rely solely on scripture as it is unbiblical. **It has been revealed to the Church that Mary was, in fact Assumed into heaven.
Finally - you deny the Authority of the Church - I don’t.
I choose to believe that Jesus was not a liar.
- Status