To Protestants: HAPPY REFORMATION DAY

[Ag_not]

… rather than allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide and read the Bible for yourself.

So, the Holy Spirit is leading an guideing the Catholic Church and She believes in the Assumption.

And, the Holy Spirit is leading me into communion with the Catholic Church.

In addition to the fact the Holy Spirit has my coworker convinced the catholic church is the W>O>B.

Coupled with the fact the Holy Spirit has lead branches of Anglicanism to accept divorce, contraception and homosexual marriages.

Meanwhile, The Holy Spirit cunningly disguised as the Paraclete has faithfully guided the reformed church of the lithuainian pentacostal fundamentalist evangelical liberated anabaptists to dispose of all sacraments as just reading the bible saves.

Yet this same Holy Spirit has given you the keys of scripture and YOU and YOU ALONE are right.

In fact, EVERYONE in the above scenarios will tell their adherants THEY are right.



Surely you can see just how laughable this position is

Only ONE Church and ONE church only has the unbroken authority and the real Spirit of Christ guideing it - and the gates of hell won’t prevail against it - and it’s NOT the Abanes Free Church of Fiction

 

[guanophore]

Not all Catholics believe the same thing. Ask 100 catholics various questions and you’re not going to get 100 exact same answers – i.e., not all RCs are truly RCs, especially in areas where Catholicism has been merged with local folk magick, occultism, and witchcraft.

This is true, but you cite the salient element (except that Catholicism is not “Roman”. But the essence is “truly Catholic”. Yes, there will be 100 (and lot’s more) that say they are Catholica and are poorly catechized (I know, I used to be one) and therefore cannot articulate properly what the Church Teaches. There are some who call themselves “Catholic” but who are really Protestants, an there are some Catholics who are just downright disobedient the TEachings of the Church. However, in all of these cases, the Teaching of the Church remains solid an immoveable, immutable, like a city on a hill. Those who choose not to embrace her teachings fall from grace. That is how Catholicism differs from denominations. There is One Teaching, One Church, One Body, One baptism, etc. It is this Oneness that Jesus prayed we would have.

My interpretations are hardly private.

they are personal, private to the extent that they are not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching. Let’s face it, we all have interpret the word for ourselves when we read it. It is a private activity.

My interpretations are hardly recent.

How do you define “recent”? We define it as occurring within the last 500 years, and discounting what has occurred previously.

All of your interpretations and RC beliefs do not, contrary to what you might think, go back to the first century.

Well, we see it differently.
po18guy;4366045:

I am no one’s pope. There’s only one of those at a time – and that is plenty.

there have been anti- popes and false popes. When you rely on yourself for your own way of understanding the Kingdom, basically you have made yourself the center of your faith.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**AG: **So, the Holy Spirit is leading an guideing the Catholic Church and She believes in the Assumption… . . . [other examples] Surely you can see just how laughable this position is …

RA: Did you forget about sin? The Holy Spirit guides sinners. And sinners sometimes get things wrong. That includes you, me, your co-worker, those leading the RCC, those leading the Anglicans, my own pastor, other pastors, members of the EO, my Protestant neighbor, etc. I factor sin into the equation.

What’s actually laughable is that you would allow sinful others, who CLAIM to be led by the Holy Spirit, to make decisions FOR you. And tell YOU what the Bible says. And run YOUR spiritual life. And determine what YOU should eat on Fridays and how YOU should and shouldn’t have sex…

Wait, that’s not laughable at all. :crying:

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

G: basically you have made yourself the center of your faith.

RA: I respectfully disagree. That place belongs to Jesus, whereas the center of your faith is an institution run by men whose sin is evident – just like anyone else’s. If you want to have an institution and some so-called Vicar of Christ at the center of your faith, then okay. I’ll keep Christ there.

RA

 

[Ag_not]

What’s actually laughable is that you would allow sinful others, who CLAIM to be led by the Holy Spirit, to make decisions FOR you. And tell YOU what the Bible says. And run YOUR spiritual life. And determine what YOU should eat on Fridays and how YOU should and shouldn’t have sex…

Wait, that’s not laughable at all. :crying:

R.A.

Honest question, no sarcasm, Although an acknowledged sinner, you ARE correct in your faith? yes? So given that the Holy Spirit cannot mislead and contradict Itself, YOU are correct in your beliefs, Yes? You are not misled, misguided, or misinformed in any way in matters of your faith and your salvation? Correct?
So from that - am I to conclude that I MUST believe what YOU believe. Surely yes, because you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and He cannot tell you one thing and me another. And if He has revealed to you that the Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life, that Mary has not been assumed into heaven or conceived without original sin, if He has revealed to YOU that auricular confession is not necessary and Rome is NOT the church of God, then that MUST be correct, yes?
So when I say Im being led by the Holy spirit to the Catholic Church, it is NOt the Holy Spirit that is doing this. It is another spirit at work? And its another spirit that is misleading all those thousands of churches? In fact, unless we fall into line with YOUR view of salvation, we are all being misled by other spirits?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Honest question, no sarcasm, Although an acknowledged sinner, you ARE correct in your faith? yes? So given that the Holy Spirit cannot mislead and contradict Itself, YOU are correct in your beliefs, Yes? You are not misled, misguided, or misinformed in any way in matters of your faith and your salvation? Correct?
So from that - am I to conclude that I MUST believe what YOU believe. Surely yes, because you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and He cannot tell you one thing and me another. And if He has revealed to you that the Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life, that Mary has not been assumed into heaven or conceived without original sin, if He has revealed to YOU that auricular confession is not necessary and Rome is NOT the church of God, then that MUST be correct, yes?
So when I say Im being led by the Holy spirit to the Catholic Church, it is NOt the Holy Spirit that is doing this. It is another spirit at work?

Technically, “Rome” is not the Church of God. The Catholic Church is.

Funny story, about a year prior to my own Tiber swim, an online friend of mine (who was Nazarene) and I were discussing our concern that certain other friends of ours who had become Catholic were, in fact, being led by “another spirit.” We’re both Catholic now.

 

[Ag_not]

Technically, “Rome” is not the Church of God. The Catholic Church is.

I know - but RA has made several referrences to ‘‘Rome’’ being a misled, adulterated, if not outright false church, in that it has it’s own Gospel, which is not the Gospel of Christ - hence my ‘Rome’ referrence Notice I said in the last line Im being led by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church

 

[Yeshualuver]

Thank you Richard!

Let’s finish what Luther started…let’s not just reform the church…let’s restore her to her proper footing and foundation. Which was the gentiles now being grafted into the covenant promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Our Lord Yeshua said it himself: “Salvation is of the Jews”

Eph 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)–
Eph 2:12 remember that **at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without **hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

A Hebraic faith, delivered through a Hebrew Messiah, taught by Hebrew men within the framework of a Hebrew matrix and mindset.

We cannot come to the Scriptures with a Greco-Roman mindset and expect to understand the full meaning and import of the Scriptures.

Someone once said and it’s true: “What began as a movement of God in Jerusalem became a philosophy in Greece, an institution in Rome, a culture in Europe and an industry in the USA.”

God didn’t change. Yeshua didn’t come to start a whole new religion that was totally foreign to everything Israel would know and be familiar with (as modern day Catholicism is). Yeshua would’ve been a false prophet then.

Rather Yeshua came to rescue Israel from her sins. Yeshua rebuked the religious leaders for making the oral traditions of the rabbis as binding as Scripture (sound familiar?) and from imposing a legalistic adherance to the Mosaic law as a means of salvation. Salvation has always been by faith from Genesis to Revelation.

If we want to restore believers back to the truth and one unified body, we have to go further back than Rome. Further than Antioch. We must go back to Jerusalem.

Let’s eliminate the leaven of replacement theology and the branches of covenant theology that embraces the same. Eliminate infant baptism, transsubstantion, consubstantiation, icons, statuary in churches and the other pagan trappings smuggled in from heathen worship.

Remember, Luther had been an Augustinian monk. Augustine had been greatly influenced by gnosticism prior to his conversion. And even though Augustine left this sect, the Neo-Platonic** dualism had influenced his thinking and theology. As a result, Augustine spiritualized and allegorized away many plain truths of Scripture. The idea of “transsubstantiation” was an idea of Aristotle adapted by Augustine. Also the idea of amillennialism came from this dualism…the idea of the church replacing Israel is a doctrine of demons.

Yes, let’s eliminate the leaven then Luther’s work would not have been in vain. Yes, let’s thank God that men like Luther had the courage to stand up to the religious leaders of his time at the risk of his life, reputation and livelihood as an Elijah before Ahab of his time. He dared to go outside his comfort zone for the sake of the truth. Dare we?

**Neo-Platonic dualism-basically asserted this: Physical, material things, bad. Immaterial, spiritual things, good.

 

[Ag_not]

Thank you Richard!

Let’s finish what Luther started…let’s not just reform the church…let’s restore her to her proper footing and foundation. Which was the gentiles now being grafted into the covenant promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Our Lord Yeshua said it himself: “Salvation is of the Jews”

Eph 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)–
Eph 2:12 remember that **at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel **and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

A Hebraic faith, delivered through a Hebrew Messiah, taught by Hebrew men within the framework of a Hebrew matrix and mindset.

We cannot come to the Scriptures with a Greco-Roman mindset and expect to understand the full meaning and import of the Scriptures.

Someone once said and it’s true: “What began as a movement of God in Jerusalem became a philosophy in Greece, an institution in Rome, a culture in Europe and an industry in the USA.”

God didn’t change. Yeshua didn’t come to start a whole new religion that was totally foreign to everything Israel would know and be familiar with (as modern day Catholicism is). Yeshua would’ve been a false prophet then.

Rather Yeshua came to rescue Israel from her sins. Yeshua rebuked the religious leaders for making the oral traditions of the rabbis as binding as Scripture (sound familiar?) and from imposing a legalistic adherance to the Mosaic law as a means of salvation. Salvation has always been by faith from Genesis to Revelation.

If we want to restore believers back to the truth and one unified body, we have to go further back than Rome. Further than Antioch. We must go back to Jerusalem.

Let’s eliminate the leaven of replacement theology and the branches of covenant theology that embraces the same. Eliminate infant baptism, transsubstantion, consubstantiation, icons, statuary in churches and the other pagan trappings smuggled in from heathen worship.

Remember, Luther had been an Augustinian monk. Augustine had been greatly influenced by gnosticism prior to his conversion. And even though Augustine left this sect, the Neo-Platonic** dualism had influenced his thinking and theology. As a result, Augustine spiritualized and allegorized away many plain truths of Scripture. The idea of “transsubstantiation” was an idea of Aristotle adapted by Augustine. Also the idea of amillennialism came from this dualism…the idea of the church replacing Israel is a doctrine of demons.

Yes, let’s eliminate the leaven then Luther’s work would not have been in vain. Yes, let’s thank God that men like Luther had the courage to stand up to the religious leaders of his time at the risk of his life, reputation and livelihood as an Elijah before Ahab of his time. He dared to go outside his comfort zone for the sake of the truth. Dare we?

Oh YEAH - That’ll work

 

[guanophore]

**AG: **So, the Holy Spirit is leading an guideing the Catholic Church and She believes in the Assumption… . . . [other examples] Surely you can see just how laughable this position is …

RA: Did you forget about sin? The Holy Spirit guides sinners. And sinners sometimes get things wrong. That includes you, me, your co-worker, those leading the RCC, those leading the Anglicans, my own pastor, other pastors, members of the EO, my Protestant neighbor, etc. I factor sin into the equation.

Yes, Catholics agree that it is possible for individuals to make errors in doctrine. However, the Church cannot, because her head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS. This is why the Church is infallible, it is the divine elements that cause this, not the frailty of men. Teaching error is equivalent to passing through the gates of hell. Once one begins to teach error, all kinds of sin results. This is why Jesus gave His Spirit to lead into all truth.

What’s actually laughable is that you would allow sinful others, who CLAIM to be led by the Holy Spirit, to make decisions FOR you. And tell YOU what the Bible says. And run YOUR spiritual life. And determine what YOU should eat on Fridays and how YOU should and shouldn’t have sex

Such a response would have to presuppose that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling. He promised to lead them into all truth, but then was unable to do so ,because He was weaker than their sinful nature.

I guess that would mean you have to throw out the whole NT also, since it was written by sinful men. If God cannot produce infallible works through them, then the NT is not inerrant or inspired.

It sounds like you have some real problems with authority. This is not uncommon, especially in America, a country that was founded on rebellion against authority. Our constitutional inheritance is one of pursuing our own liberties. However, the Kingdom of God is not a democracy. He is Lord, and He appointed His teaching authority, and gave them the power to speak on his behalf:

Matt 28:18-20
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Luke 10:16

16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Wait, that’s not laughable at all. :crying:

R.A.

I agree, it is no laughing matter.

That place belongs to Jesus, whereas the center of your faith is an institution run by men whose sin is evident – just like anyone else’s. If you want to have an institution and some so-called Vicar of Christ at the center of your faith, then okay. I’ll keep Christ there.

RA

It is amazing to see how much hostility you have toward the Catholic Church. When did the HS abandon the Catholic Church? When did the promise of Jesus to remain with them through the end of the age fail? When ever did sinful men prevent Christ from fulfilling His great and precious promises?

If it is really “okay” with you for us to believe that Jesus is still head of the Catholic Church, why are you here on CAF?

 

[eucharisteo]

We have the bones of St. Luke and St. Paul. None of Mary. Those men weren’t assumed, She was. And, let me post as a reminder, **just because Richard grew up Catholic doesn’t mean he really knows what the Church teaches./**quote]

In fact it’s statistically probable that he really doesn’t know the real teachings of the Church and what he learned was not taught correctly by heretics or well meaning confused Catholics.

 

[adstrinity]

Ta muchly, eucharisto! I would like to point out that only relics of the saints in the NT are what we need for Mary’s assumption. We have the bones of all the saints, but not Mary nor Jesus. We have St. Thomas’ witnessing Mary going up to Heaven. We have the common sense factor that God loved His Mother so much that He would bring Her to Him fully so Her body would not have the ignominy of decaying in the dirt. …This thread has gotten off topic. Back on topic: Why the Reformers hate Jesus. Discuss.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: Honest question, no sarcasm, Although an acknowledged sinner, you ARE correct in your faith?

RA1: Yes. All sarcasm and kidding aside. Now, let me also say, you are correct too. We have much in common: same God, same Lord & savior, same gospel (although we see justification/sanctification differently, I CANNOT put you in any different a category that my Arminian brothers/sisters – e.g., several Calvary Chapel churches, most notably, the CC run by Raul Ries), same history in many ways, same historical struggles, same pre-Nicene martyrs, same ethics/morals/values…

So, I do see more in common than in argument. But we tend to talk more about differences than similarities, which is probably unfortunate.

AG: So given that the Holy Spirit cannot mislead and contradict Itself, YOU are correct in your beliefs, Yes? You are not misled, misguided, or misinformed in any way in matters of your faith and your salvation? Correct?

RA2: No. Incorrect. You are over-simplifying in order to win an argument. And I don’t appreciate it. This is the rift that exists between RC and Protestants – i.e., the Bible alone vs, the Bible + church tradition + biblical interpretation by church hierarchy.

If you would put emotion aside, you’d see that I was very specific in the things I noted up there that you quoted. I see no mention of salvation, nor do I see any mention of my “faith” per se, which I might interpret/define differently than you.

AG: So from that - am I to conclude that I MUST believe what YOU believe. Surely yes, because you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and He cannot tell you one thing and me another.

RA3: Again, you are over-simplifying in order to win an argument. It does not necessarily take the Holy Spirit’s guidance to simply read a biblical verse in context in English, then look up a Greek word, and read a thoughtful commentary. That would fall under the category of using the mind that God gave me – the mind with which I am told to love God (Luke 10:27).

Now, in this arena of our faith, there are complications that arise in people – religious agendas, social/communal loyalties, lack of knowledge, poor reasoning, emotional baggage, fear, ignorance, sincere/deep attachments – that can hinder someone from accepting the obvious.

That is not the Holy Spirit. That is self, free-will, conscious decision-making. Everyone does it. Catholics and Protestants. And cultists – especially cultists.

AG: And if He has revealed to you that the Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life, that Mary has not been assumed into heaven or conceived without original sin, if He has revealed to YOU that auricular confession is not necessary and Rome is NOT the church of God, then that MUST be correct, yes?

**RA4: **The Bible tells me that in print.

AG: So when I say Im being led by the Holy spirit to the Catholic Church, it is NOt the Holy Spirit that is doing this. It is another spirit at work? And its another spirit that is misleading all those thousands of churches?

**RA5: **Not necessarily another spirit. No. Of course not. That’s silly. See RA3

**AG: **In fact, unless we fall into line with YOUR view of salvation, we are all being misled by other spirits?

RA6: I accept your salvation. When did I ever say anything about your salvation. Read RA2. You’ve been reading to many anti-Catholic fundamentalist RC-haters. I am not one of them. In fact, if you look on another thread, I just recommended that a Mormon become a RC, and asked RC posters to please help him return to the church (see my Today, 6:57 am here).

AG: RA has made several referrences to ‘‘Rome’’ being a misled, adulterated, if not outright false church, in that it has it’s own Gospel, which is not the Gospel of Christ

RA: What? Where? Where did I say the RCC taught a full blown false gospel. I said it teaches a view of salvation that is comparable to my own Christian, evangelical, Arminian buddies!

RA

 

[Ag_not]

…And determine… how YOU should and shouldn’t have sex…

Wait, that’s not laughable at all. :crying:

R.A.

:bigyikes:

this is no time to be bringing up my non existant sex life.

:hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

:slapfight:

I’d be :crying: too, except that, thanks to the Catholic Church, I’ve reclaimed my body, I’ve not had to suffer idiotic men, I’ve realised I am loved by God and His Mother as I am, and I’ve had my eyes opened to the fact my body is a temple for the Holy Spirit. I’ve had sex since I was 17. Daily just about. It was the Catholic Church that taught me I don’t NEED to have sex to be a whole being. Far from telling me who I can and cannot have sex with, the Church has taught me the sanctity of sex and it’s role in a loving marriage!

Now, where to find a good man???

That really is something to :crying: over!!!

 

[Ag_not]

RA2: No. Incorrect. You are over-simplifying in order to win an argument. And I don’t appreciate it. This is the rift that exists between RC and Protestants – i.e., the Bible alone vs, the Bible + church tradition + biblical interpretation by church hierarchy.

I’m in all honesty NOT trying to win an arguement. Im trying to understand what you’re claiming.

So, if I understand you correctly, we both agree that the Holy Spirit cannot and will not mislead either of us.
But you referred to poor reasoning, fear, ignorance etc. Do I take from this that what you believe is that, a person, guided by the HOLY SPIRIT, in an honest effort to seek the truth, and IN THE ABSENSE OF IGNORANCE, FEAR, BAGGAGE, RELIGIOUS AGENDAS ETC ETC ETC WOULD in fact see things as you do?

 

[guanophore]

This is the rift that exists between RC and Protestants -- i.e., the Bible alone vs, the Bible + church tradition + biblical interpretation by church hierarchy.

I don’t think so. The “church heirarchy” doe snot interpret the scripture authoritatively for the Church, for one thing. For another. Magesterium (teaching authority put in place by Chirst), does not do “biblical interpretation” as the Protestant faiths do. Our Church is not “bible based”, so this is not necessary. On the contrary, they Magesterium faithfully receives the Apostolic Teaching from those to whom it was committed, preserves, protects, and hands it on (paradosis). Scripture is part of this deposit of faith, but not all.

It does not necessarily take the Holy Spirit's guidance to simply read a biblical verse in context in English, then look up a Greek word, and read a thoughtful commentary. That would fall under the category of using the mind that God gave me -- the mind with which I am told to love God (Luke 10:27).

Yes, but if one does this apart from the HS, it is not likely to result in much fruitful results.

Now, in this arena of our faith, there are complications that arise in people – religious agendas, social/communal loyalties, lack of knowledge, poor reasoning, emotional baggage, fear, ignorance, sincere/deep attachments – that can hinder someone from accepting the obvious.

I agree. this is why it was necessary for the Church to have the charism of infallibility.

That is not the Holy Spirit. That is self, free-will, conscious decision-making. Everyone does it. Catholics and Protestants. And cultists – especially cultists.

Yes. This is why Jesus established a Church to be a beacon of light, city on a hill.

The Bible tells me that in print.

Which brings us back to the habit of reading the text separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced it. When one does this, ever widening errors result.

What? Where? Where did I say the RCC taught a full blown false gospel. I said it teaches a view of salvation that is comparable to my own Christian, evangelical, Arminian buddies!

RA

Oh. just a partial false gospel?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

GUAN: Such a response would have to presuppose that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling. He promised to lead them into all truth, but then was unable to do so ,because He was weaker than their sinful nature.

RA: Absolutely untrue. Guan, think about what you just said. Now, really, please, think about it. If I do NOT share your foundational view of the what the church is, then what I said is perfectly acceptable. Don’t take MY comments, and work them into YOUR frame of reference.

Now, clearly, if I DID hold your foundational notions of the church, and made the comment I made, then yes, you would be right in saying I was attributing an error to Jesus (and THAT is only if I also agreed with your interpretation of the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”). But we do NOT understand “church” the same. We must listen to each other and not say things like “Such a response would have to presuppose that Jesus is a liar.” I mean, really. That doesn’t help.

GUAN: Teaching error is equivalent to passing through the gates of hell.

RA: And here we even have yet ANOTHER disagreement about what this verse means. The division of biblical understanding/interpretation just gets deeper and deeper, which leads to more and more problems, disagreements, and fights. We are working from different frames of reference, my friend. Again, don’t take MY comments, and work them into YOUR frame of reference.

GUAN: It sounds like you have some real problems with authority. This is not uncommon, especially in America, a country that was founded on rebellion against authority

RA: Again, very very unhelpful and insulting. I have no problems with authority. I adore cops, my dad, pastors, lawmakers, and most importantly, my wife.

GUAN: It is amazing to see how much hostility you have toward the Catholic Church.

**RA: **You know what is actually hysterical, and I’m being serious, is how I actually don’t have any hostility at all against the RCC. And, in fact, I have been so gracious, open-minded, accepting, and tolerant of the RCC in the evangelical/fundamentalist world that I have been labeled everything from a traitor, to a Rome-lover, to compromiser, to hater of the Reformers, to…well, you get the idea. I guess its a class ic example of trying to walk the middle path (yes, that’s Buddhist).

GUAN: If it is really “okay” with you for us to believe that Jesus is still head of the Catholic Church, why are you here on CAF?

RA: I’ve explained this elsewhere on CAF – do a search.

EUCH: In fact it’s statistically probable that he really doesn’t know the real teachings of the Church and what he learned was not taught correctly by heretics or well meaning confused Catholics.

RA: Sigh. I don’t think so. Peeps keep saying this, but the truth is, I was a fairly good RC.

**ADS: **We have St. Thomas’ witnessing Mary going up to Heaven.

**RA: **Oh my gosh, in The Passing of Mary, a fourth century apocryphal fraudulent false Gospel!!! Sigh. This book was condemned under the Decree of Gelasius (by a 6th century Italian churchman, but falsely attribute to Gelasius). No one knows who even wrote The Passing of Mary. And no, it wasn’t Joseph of Arimathea. Goodness, let’s just believe everything we read in all the Gnostic gospels, too.

ADS: his thread has gotten off topic. Back on topic: Why the Reformers hate Jesus.

**RA: **I can’t believe you said that. Such a comment is HIGHLY uncalled for and TERRIBLY hurtful and offensive. That goes way beyond just disagreeing. You should apologize, IMHO.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: Do I take from this that what you believe is that, a person, guided by the HOLY SPIRIT, in an honest effort to seek the truth, and IN THE ABSENSE OF IGNORANCE, FEAR, BAGGAGE, RELIGIOUS AGENDAS ETC ETC ETC WOULD in fact see things as you do?

**RA: **All things? No. Because I have my own issues, just like you. Also, there is invincible ignorance. You like that one?

RA

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

EUCH:
RA: ALL Christians? ALL Christians? From her ascension (c. pre-100-ish, I am assuming) onward to 1500? Okay. Please begin documenting that for me. Starting the disciples who, I assume, you would agree, knew Mary. I am indeed interested.

Gabriel of 12
Here is John’s vision While in heaven told to record everything he sees, Johns sees the Ark of the Covenant with Mary assumed into heaven crowned with 12 stars. Revelations 12:1
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. What you ask can be retaught to you in a formal RCIA class, or read a CCC.

Gab: I have heard many a x catholic repeat what you stated about your past catholicism, and when questioned by an informed Catholic, the x catholic always has or had a misinformed Catholic faith . . . Again your personal catholic view of Mary is not Catholic teaching.

**RA: **Exactly which view/concept of Mary, according to my RC experiences and what i was taught as a RC, are you saying is flawed? Perhaps we are talking past each other here.

Or, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear on my RC understanding as an RC and as I practiced devotion to Mary myself, as I saw it being practiced by my church, fellow RCs, family, friends, priests and nuns. That’s a lot of uniformed Catholics, so, please, what are you talking about precisely.

Gabriel of 12
Can you explain the four doctrines of Mary as a Roman Catholic believes them? Not how you view them, How Catholics believe them… Then I can expose your flawed Catholicism and false preaching you make to others about your misinformed catholicism. It might be in your interest to relearn Catholicism as to accurately attack her doctrines correctly, beware although, once you come to the accurate teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will find it is very difficult to divide Truth.

GAB: I find Mary in the beginning of the bible, in the middle of the bible, throughout the Prophets and Prophetic Psalms, in the New testament including the end of the bible in Revelations.

RA: I know. I’m sure you do. I’ve had the priests point her out to me there too. And I know the verses. But the end conclusions are flawed by the RCC. So, we disagree.

**Gabriel of 12
It would be more truthful to state "Your personal opinions and Late views of biblical interpretation of Mary conflict or disagree with 2000 years of Christian belief of Mary. I would not call your views of biblical interpretation as flawed? I agree with you, they are your personal views, I can respect than, but dont go start a church on your personal views of biblical interpretation without the Sacred Traditional apostolic teachings.B]

RA:** Luther also said some fairly nasty things about Jews, and I don’t accept those things either. So what? You don’t go around lopping off the heads of Muslims or burning witches, either, which used to be rather popular among your spiritual ancestors.

Truth: I don’t think Luther would agree with your conclusions about Mary:

RA: I’m sorry, did I say he would? I also don’t think he’d agree with my conclusion about Jews. I also don’t think he would agree with my stand as an evangelical on communion. (He sort of pulled that one over a little bit from his RC background, too).

Gabriel of 12
You miss the point of discussion, we are not engaged in personal opinons of Luther and you, we are talking fundamental Christian belief’s. And your chrisitan belief’s conflict with the reformers period, this is how far you have regressed in your new christian theology from the apostolic Catholic church.

Do you think I believe that Luther or ANY of the Reformers were perfect? No, that’s a Pope-ish thing (and an RCC thing) where you have to agree with everything that comes down from on high (ex cathedra, Papal Bulls, councils, and all that, etc. etc. etc.), rather than allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide and read the Bible for yourself.

Gabriel of 12
What you have not been taught correctly, is that the Pope and the Magisterium are the protectors of the apostolic teachings, and will protect them under threat of death, and in death for them not to change, as history records them doing so elegantly with their martyred blood. To which you appear to discount these brave souls who kept the faith so that you can grow in Jesus not change his teachings.

Look, I believe Mary was AWESOME, truly, awesome. And I’ve said this before. She is honored, blessed, and was full of grace.

**Gabriel of 12
This is very good, at least you have not discounted the blessed Mother altogether. So speak thus of her, do not shout negativity about those who hold her dear to our hearts, with misinformed Marian belief’s. One point I hope to get across to you is this. Please do not make false claims of what Roman Catholic’s believe of Mary, unless you can dictate our Catholic faith correctly.

Peace**

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Gab: Can you explain the four doctrines of Mary as a Roman Catholic believes them? Not how you view them, How Catholics believe them… Then I can expose your flawed Catholicism and false preaching you make to others about your misinformed catholicism.

RA: So, basically, you made an accusation against me without seeing anything in what I had said that was false?

R.A.