Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[BlackJack774]

Funny how the same people who claim that the Popes could have (and imply strongly that they DID) ‘get it wrong’ on certain Catholic teachings have no problem whatsoever believing that these very same Popes absolutely ‘got it right’ when it came to the canon of the Bible.

Only the Bible is protected? Where exactly is that in the Bible, that Christ would only protect a valuable, but incomplete, part of His teaching (leatherette and KJV preferred) but that He would allow His Church to stumble about and make mistakes in teaching the Faith in everything else? The Bible is not self-interpreting and indeed, private interpretation (see 2 Peter) is forbidden. . .

I have a very important question. Why does the Holy Spirit allow one group of Protestant Christians to teach in His Name that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s flesh and blood–and another group (also claiming in the Name of the Spirit) teaching that it is not? The two claims cannot both be true. . .one is true, one is false. . .but (using Scripture alone) please prove to me which of the two is correct.

I’ll be anxiously waiting.

John 6:53-58
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the FLESH of the Son of man, and DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth i me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall LIVE FOR EVER. (KJV)

And we all know what happen in the upper room.

Matthew 26:26-28
The last supper where Jesus said Take eat; this is my body;… Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
see also Mark 14:22.24;Luke 22:19-20

Jesus said it and I now believe it. The Eucharist is the truth! Body, blood, Soul and divinity of Jesus Christ OUR LORD. I can hardly wait to take part.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thank you, Black Jack. Now can somebody explain to me how this clear reading of Scripture is interpreted by those who claim (in the name of the Holy Spirit) that the Eucharist is ‘only symbolic?’ How can they read this and say, “it’s only symbolic” and ignore this clear Scripture?

Or would a Protestant who believes that Scripture says the Eucharist is symbolic explain to me how Black Jack’s clear Scripture indicating the Literal Eucharist is ‘wrong?’ Because (since many Protestants do indeed profess that the Eucharist is only a symbol), they must think that Black Jack (as well as we Catholics) are wrong and they must be able to show us from Scripture an even more compelling ‘proof’ in a symbolic Eucharist.

 

[Teneas]

For those that do not understand what we mean when we say the Church’s teachings are infallible, along with the Pope’s. Also why we believe in apostolic succession.

It starts with:

Apostolic Authority

A. The Church’s authority is apostolic authority [Principle #4]

B. Mt 28:18-19 and Jn 20:21; Jesus sent with all authority in Heaven and Earth, Jesus sends the apostles in the same manner.

C. Lk 10:16; “He who hears you hears Me”

D. Characterized by charism of Infallibility; Mt 28:18-19 (always with you), Jn 14:16-17, 26 (Holy Spirit with you forever and will teach you all things), Jn 16:13 (Holy Spirit guides them into all truth) [Principle #5]

E. Infallibility prevents teaching error in faith & morals

F. Acts 8:30-31 (need a guide); 2 Ptr 1:20 (private interpretation is not scriptural); 1 Jn 4:6 (there is a group of men we need to listen to); 1 Ptr 1:12 (men who preached the good news through the HS)

Apostolic Succession is what we in the Church believe to be the reason for our current Pope being a successor to Peter himself. As our Church still pratices these practices from sacred scripture.

Apostolic Succession-the Apostles passed on their authority, the authority given to them by Jesus, to others and instructed them to do the same [Principle #6]

1. Mt 28:19-20

a. Make disciples of all nations; 1 Cor 12:28 (in the Church, first apostles)

b. Jesus with them to the end of the age; but they died…yet, their successors live on

c. Mission of the Church is a teaching mission; Jesus said “teach”, not “go” and “write”

1. Acts 1:15-26; apostolic succession; apostles occupied offices; when office holder died, he was replaced-succession
2. Office of bishop; 1 Tim 3:1
3. Passing on an inheritance; 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2, 2:1; 1 Tim 1:18, Titus 1:4, 1 Cor 4:17
4. Apostolic authority is passed on; 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Tim 1:3, 4:11-13
5. Authority passed on by laying on of hands; 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 1:18, 4:14, 5:22

The Catholic Church has continued #6 since the days of the apostles.

The Pope

A. Pope is the Bishop of Rome; Successor of Peter

B. Mt 16:15-19; revelation from the Father, the Rock, keys of kingdom, binding and loosing

C. Is 22:20-22; keys-authority, father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, opening and shutting - binding and loosing, house of David

D. Primacy of Peter among the Apostles

1. Mt 16:15-19-only Peter is given the keys
2. Jn 21:15-19-Peter appointed shepherd
3. Peter’s name is mentioned almost twice as many times as all other Apostles together; Peter listed first among Apostles; Peter is first to act (1st half of Acts of Apostles)
4. Acts 4:18-20 and Mt 23:2-3, O.T. seat of authority was the chair of Moses; chair of Peter is N.T. seat of authority
5. Lk 22:31-32; Jesus prays specifically for Peter to strengthen his brethren

E. 2 Peter 1:12-15 and John 21:15-19

1. Peter is talking to mature Christians; 2 Ptr 1:1
2. God’s Word never goes unfulfilled; Is 55:11
3. Peter is going to do something which will enable Christians to always and at any time� be reminded of certain things; What did he do?
4. Jn 21:15-19; Jesus about to return to Heaven, Jesus appoints Peter as shepherd of the flock and Jesus shows Peter how Peter is to die
5. 2 Ptr 1:14, Peter soon to go to Heaven as Jesus showed him; Peter is going to do something which will allow Christians to always and at any time be reminded
6. How did Peter fulfill his promise? Nothing in Scripture, so as a Protestant I would have no answer; as a Catholic, I would suggest that Peter imitated Christ and appointed a shepherd for the flock

More for Papal infallibility:

From the Catechism:

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

You’ve just hit the nail on the head… It does not matter WHY. We do not question why God sent Mary to the Saints and clergy to tell us to pray to her.

What matters is that it happened… And we must respond accordingly to God, as he sent Mary to us by His will… Mary is trustworthy, she is the Mothr of Jesus, and is the mother of this entire church. We love her as a mother, and cry to her like babies cry to their own mother. There is a level of intimacy here, maternal intimacy that catholics have with Mary. I have no scriptural support, only trust in the Church.

How did Mary tell you to pray to her??

 

[Teneas]

Also, I thought this was a very good example of the only times that the Pope is infallible. He isn’t always, certain things need to be meet to be such.

Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

* a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
* an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

this is actually from wikipedia, but does nice job explaining it

 

[Teneas]

How did Mary tell you to pray to her??

Through her sightings. Through the visions of her that we believe have happened, and those that have happened, only those that are officially recognized by the Church are considered legit. There is no scripture of her telling us to pray to her, there were times she has been seen where she has spoken to a select few throughout history.

One of those times is the reason we have the rosary, and we pray it to honor Christ and his mother.

 

[PRmerger]

Are they cousins? If you want to translate the word used for James and Jose etc as cousins, then why shouldn’t ‘brothers in Christ’ be cousins in Christ?

We’re not saying they’re necessarily cousins. We’re just saying they aren’t *uterine *brothers. They could be step brothers, or 1/2 brothers, or…yes, cousins. Given the ancient Hebrew culture, it could be any of the above.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Not quite. For something to be corrected, it has to change from its previously errant state to that of its correct state.

I am also concerned about your misrepresentation. You may be Catholic but it appears you are a fallen away Catholic. If I, for all intents and purposes, decided that I was a mormon but did not adhere to important tenets of the mormon faith, then it would be dishonest of me at best to join a message board where people go to learn about the mormon faith and label myself as a mormon when I quite clearly am not representing the mormon faith.

Again, dishonest at best.

If she was dishonest she would avoid all the grief her Christian family is giving her.

 

[Dokimas]

We’re not saying they’re necessarily cousins. We’re just saying they aren’t *uterine *brothers. They could be step brothers, or 1/2 brothers, or…yes, cousins. Given the ancient Hebrew culture, it could be any of the above.

I guess that takes us back to the verse that tells us Joseph did not know Mary till she delivered her firstborn Son, Jesus.​

BTW, anyone getting the feeling one side of this issue is telling Jesus Him mother had to have had more children and the other side of this issue is telling Him there’s no way Your mother could not possibly have more children?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Until does not imply that the condition of 'no sexual relations ‘before the birth’ changed to ‘sexual relations after the birth’. Quite simply, you don’t have a leg to stand on here. There are plenty of examples of the word’s use, in Scripture, that show that a condition that existed ‘prior’ to an event remained the same ‘after’ the event. For example, “Michal, wife of David, had no children until her death.” Before her death. . .she had no children. She died. After her death. . surprise, surprise. . .she **still had no children.
**
Here’s an even better one from the New Testament: And Christ must reign until all are under His feet.

So. . >Christ is reigning, yes? All are now under His feet. . .He still keeps reigning, just as before, yes? He doesn’t stop reigning, does he? Despite the use of “until” the situation ‘after’ is the same as the one ‘before’ and does not change. . .

As for the "firstborn’, Scripture tells us that a male child who ‘opens the womb’ has a legal status as “Firstborn male” and is sacred to God and must be redeemed.

Suppose a couple get married, and their first child is a girl. Is this a 'firstborn male? No.
Suppose the couple go on and have another child. it’s a boy. is THIS a firstborn male? No. The girl was born first but is not a ‘firstborn’ for she is not male. The boy was born second.

Suppose another couple marry, have a child–a boy! Yay, a firstborn male, born under the law, redeemed. The couple never have another child. Is this child of theirs still FIRSTBORN? YES HE IS. . .even though there is never a ‘second’ or third or more born after him.

 

[Dokimas]

Until does not imply that the condition of 'no sexual relations ‘before the birth’ changed to ‘sexual relations after the birth’. Quite simply, you don’t have a leg to stand on here. There are plenty of examples of the word’s use, in Scripture, that show that a condition that existed ‘prior’ to an event remained the same ‘after’ the event. For example, “Michal, wife of David, had no children until her death.” Before her death. . .she had no children. She died. After her death. . surprise, surprise. . .she **still had no children.
**
Here’s an even better one from the New Testament: And Christ must reign until all are under His feet.

So. . >Christ is reigning, yes? All are now under His feet. . .He still keeps reigning, just as before, yes? He doesn’t stop reigning, does he? Despite the use of “until” the situation ‘after’ is the same as the one ‘before’ and does not change. . .

As for the "firstborn’, Scripture tells us that a male child who ‘opens the womb’ has a legal status as “Firstborn male” and is sacred to God and must be redeemed.

Suppose a couple get married, and their first child is a girl. Is this a 'firstborn male? No.
Suppose the couple go on and have another child. it’s a boy. is THIS a firstborn male? No. The girl was born first but is not a ‘firstborn’ for she is not male. The boy was born second.

Suppose another couple marry, have a child–a boy! Yay, a firstborn male, born under the law, redeemed. The couple never have another child. Is this child of theirs still FIRSTBORN? YES HE IS. . .even though there is never a ‘second’ or third or more born after him.

Here we go again… first born — Why did the Holy Spirit tell us in no uncertain terms that Jesus is the Father’s ONLY Begotten Son? He made it quite clear. All the Holy Spirit would have to do is say, Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of Mary. He chose not to. WHY?​

Let’s use your ‘till’ logic: Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”​

according to your logic, Jesus, Mary and Joseph never left Egypt. It’s the same word in bother Matthew verses. It’s best to compare apples with apples.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

If God appeared to you personally, and told you to do a favor for Him, would you deny God claiming: “hey, that’s not in the bible.”…???

I would ask for God to tell me an unpredictable future event, then if it came to pass then I would listen to Him.

 

[rev_kevin]

We’re not saying they’re necessarily cousins. We’re just saying they aren’t *uterine *brothers. They could be step brothers, or 1/2 brothers, or…yes, cousins. Given the ancient Hebrew culture, it could be any of the above.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I apologize. But FYI, if I asked someone on CAF to apologize to me every time they put words in my mouth, I would never get anywhere. I move on and try to witness to the Faith as best I can. But I truly am sorry. Maybe you understand my point by now?



**What?? ** Tweetymom has a duty to defend and profess the Catholic Faith. And the rest of us, her fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, must remind her of that for the benefit of her own soul.

Hold On are you saying her soul is in jeopardy for not believing in praying to Mary???

 

[Teneas]

Hold On are you saying her soul is in jeopardy for not believing in praying to Mary???

Just that she is misrepresenting her faith. Or the faith she claims is all. Not that her soul is in jeopardy. If she truly is Catholic, then she does not understand what our Catholic church believes. She simply can not. I am not bashing her, I think she means well, and perhaps even goes to a Catholic Church, partakes in the Eucharist, and takes part in all the sacraments. She does however, based upon her posts here, and her thoughts on what Catholics believe, not have a grasp of what the Church teaches. At least, that is from what she posts.

Again, not flaming or bashing, and wasn’t going to respond to much to this about her, but she is honestly misrepresenting the faith that she claims to take part in. You wouldn’t want someone of your domination saying things that simply were not true about it would you?

There have been some harsh answers in response to hers. This is unfortunate, as people do tend to get upset about their faith, and church. These things do happen however. For us to have a decent conversation, and accurately represent the true teachings of the Church, we should know what we are talking about should we not?

 

[izoid]

They are not my cousins. Fellow Christians are Blood brothers and sisters by the Blood of Jesus.

You have proven my point regarding Jesus’ brothers. THey were not His uterine brothers jut as your Christian brothers are not yours.

 

[Joshua27]

I have a very important question. Why does the Holy Spirit allow one group of Protestant Christians to teach in His Name that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s flesh and blood–and another group (also claiming in the Name of the Spirit) teaching that it is not? The two claims cannot both be true. . .one is true, one is false.

Truly…If one group is true and the other is false, why does the Holy Spirit of the Father allow BOTH groups - claiming the same name - to teach two opposite things?

Well know that…[Matthew 7:21-22] Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter into the kindgom of heaven: but only those that do the will of my Father who’s in heaven. Truly, many people will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, haven’t we prophesied in your name? And in your name haven’t we cast our devils? And in your name haven’t we done many wonderful things?” And then I will answer and say to them, “I never knew you: get away from me, you who work in evil.”

Why?

Because…[Matthew 24:21] for then shall be great tribulation…[Matthew 24:24] For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, who shall even show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Again…Why?

Because that is how we’re proven perfect; through trial and by fire.

Zechariah 13:9
Malachi 3:3
Luke 3:16
1 Peter 1:7 - …that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearance of [He].

What does fire do?

1. it burns away the impurities
2. it makes the [thing] more pure.

…but (using Scripture alone) please prove to me which of the two is correct.

Cannibalism has always been a mark of evil/abomination/punishment.

Lamentations 4
Deuteronomy 28:53-57
Jeremiah 19:9
2 Kings 6:26-29

Rebuttal: But what about this reference; directly from Jesus’s mouth!?

[John 6:53-56] Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Answer: Jesus often used metaphors that his listeners misunderstood and interpreted literally (see clear examples here in John 2:19-21, and John 11:11-15). This metaphor was symbolic of something MUCH more important…God’s Sacrifice for our Salvation. Christ even empasizes that this is symbolic when he says "do this in rememberance of me (a memorial)".

Use your spirit to know the truth…

Christ dies in front of the disciples…and prior to that, his side was pierced.

If He truly taught that salvation comes from **eating his physical body **and drinking his physical blood as if relics of salvation, why didn’t the disciples immediately seek to drink the blood that was spilling from him (with mouths open)? Why didn’t they take a finger or - more easily - a toe? He was on his way out anyway (and already in pain), right?

Better yet, they had the best opportunity to eat (and drink) Him when they prepared his body for burial in the tomb, right? Why not ***divide the spoils of salvation ***right then and there and at least guarantee it for themselves with the real stuff while leaving us with the transubstantiation?

I know I sound very disrespectful to treat Him this way, but it is only to prove the point. Remember, satanists, witches and those of the dard arts drink blood and eat human flesh, so why (all of a sudden) is it holy and righteous to do when we talk about the Messiah?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Yes, I agree. It’s really, in the end, alway about authority, isn’t it?

The Western way is “Me as the ultimate authority”. I go by what* I believe *the Bible says.

However, the existence of now over 40,000 different Protestant denominations is testament that this sad reality is a paradigm designed in the gates of hell.

Gods design, where He was when He designed it I dont know.

 

[Teneas]

Truly…If one group is true and the other is false, why does the Holy Spirit of the Father allow BOTH groups - claiming the same name - to teach two opposite things?

Well know that…[Matthew 7:21-22] Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord will enter into the kindgom of heaven: but only those that do the will of my Father who’s in heaven. Truly, many people will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, haven’t we prophesied in your name? And in your name haven’t we cast our devils? And in your name haven’t we done many wonderful things?” And then I will answer and say to them, “I never knew you: get away from me, you who work in evil.”

Why?

Because…[Matthew 24:21] for then shall be great tribulation…[Matthew 24:24] For there will arise false christs, and false prophets, who shall even show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Again…Why?

Because that is how we’re proven perfect; through trial and by fire.

Zechariah 13:9
Malachi 3:3
Luke 3:16
1 Peter 1:7 - …that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearance of [He].

What does fire do?

1. it burns away the impurities
2. it makes the [thing] more pure.

Cannibalism has always been a mark of evil/abomination/punishment.

Lamentations 4
Deuteronomy 28:53-57
Jeremiah 19:9
2 Kings 6:26-29

Rebuttal: But what about this reference; directly from Jesus’s mouth!?

[John 6:53-56] Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Answer: Jesus often used metaphors that his listeners misunderstood and interpreted literally (see clear examples here in John 2:19-21, and John 11:11-15). This metaphor was symbolic of something MUCH more important…God’s Sacrifice for our Salvation. Christ even empasizes that this is symbolic when he says "do this in rememberance of me (a memorial)".

Use your spirit to know the truth…

Christ dies in front of the disciples…and prior to that, his side was pierced.

If He truly taught that salvation comes from **eating his physical body **and drinking his physical blood as if relics of salvation, why didn’t the disciples immediately seek to drink the blood that was spilling from him (with mouths open)? Why didn’t they take a finger or - more easily - a toe? He was on his way out anyway (and already in pain), right?

Better yet, they had the best opportunity to eat (and drink) Him when they prepared his body for burial in the tomb, right? Why not ***divide the spoils of salvation ***right then and there and at least guarantee it for themselves with the real stuff while leaving us with the transubstantiation?

I know I sound very disrespectful to treat Him this was, but it is only to prove the point. Remember, satanists, witches and those of the dard arts drink blood and eat human flesh, so why (all of a sudden) is it holy and righteous to do when we talk about the Messiah?

The problem is that this is merely your interpretation of the scripture. What is it to say that yours is the right one? Can we all interpret it for ourselves? If so, we are all correct aren’t we?

Flesh & Blood
~ John 6
~ Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24,Luke 22:19-20
~ 1 Cor 11:23-26, 27-29

Many disciples leave.

~ John 6:66

~ Usually Jesus explains parables to avoid confusion as in: Matthew 13; 15:15; 17:10-19; & chapter 19

Why didn’t Jesus explain that he was talking symbolically so that the disciples wouldn’t leave? Perhaps he actually meant what he said?

1 Cor. 11:23-29

If this was merely symbolism, why would you have to examine yourself before partaking? Why would you bring judgment upon yourself for eating or drinking a symbol? That would make no sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s assume I’m right and God did call me to be a minister because he don’t see the Catholic church as the one true church.
Let’s assume that God intendes for ministers to spread his word to sheep that are not lost.
Let’s assume that Christ is the church and we are a part of his church.
Let’s assume God don’t care what denomination.
Let’s assume that when Jesus said to Peter upon this rock I will build my church, he meant his teachings.

All these assumptions have already borne out into the reality of 40,000 Christian denominations–each reading the same Scriptures (ok, give or take 7 books), but coming to different conclusions–sometimes even contrary conclusions.

This chaos and confusion is most certainly *not *God’s will, but is a paradigm designed in hell.

All these assumptions have done is provide the Evil One with a way to foster more chaos in the Christian family.