My new Catholic apologetics website

Hey all, I am in the middle of developing a new Catholic Defender website. http://thecatholicdefender.webs.com/ Check it out!! Please register and become a member with me. I will continue to update the website daily with more info. Feel free to post comments on the blog, or even in the forums. God bless you all.

Dan

peachfuzz, the anti-catholic. pt.1

I thank you for replying.

John 14:6 (New International Version)
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. {Yes, I agree with you on this, but let me put His saying in context. No one gets salvation from anyone but Jesus. Jesus said many things dealing with salvation.}
Does Jesus say that No one can come to the Father but by me +, {This is not a statement of the things Jesus has commanded us to do in order to gain salvation. Jesus is saying that the things He requires us to "do" must be done in and through Jesus for us to be granted salvation. As you can see, I have given you plenty of verses to back up my statements.}

being confirmed? Acts 19:5-6 - Paul imposed hands on baptized, received Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17 - laid hands upon them, they received Holy Spirit. 2Cor 1:21-22 - put seal on us and given Holy Spirit in our hearts. Eph 1:13 - you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. Heb 6:2 - instruction about baptism & laying on of hands

being baptised? Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16 - baptism required for entering heaven. 1Cor 15:21-22 - in Adam all die, in Christ all made alive. Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom. Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him... Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision. Jos 24:15 - as for me and my house, we will serve Lord. Mt 8:5. - daughter healed because of centurion's faith. Mt 15:21. - daughter healed because of Canaanite woman's faith. Lk 7:1. - just say the word, and let my servant be healed. Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved. Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household. Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once. 1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas.

praying to anyone else? Eph 6:18-19 - making supplication for all the saints & for me. Tob 12:12 - angel presents Tobit & Sarah's prayer to God. Ps 148 - David calls upon angels
Zech 1:12 - angel intercedes for Jerusalem. Mk 12:25, Mt 22:30 - men in heaven are as the angels. Rev 5:8 - those in heaven offer prayers of the holy ones to God. Mk 12:26-27 - he is God of the living, not of the dead. Mk 9:4 - Jesus seen conversing with Elijah & Moses. Lk 9:31 - Elijah & Moses aware of earthly events. Rev 6:9-11 - martyrs under altar want earthly vindication. Heb 12:1 - we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. Lk 16:19-30 - departed rich man intercedes for brothers. Rev 20:4 - saw the souls of those who had been beheaded .

genuflecting? Who said genuflecting has anything to do with salvation? It is nothing more then a sign of respect.

Adoration of the eucherist? In order to gain salvation? No, but as a Catholic we take Jesus at his words. We Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God". Mt 26:26 (Mk 14:22., Lk22:17.) - Eucharist instituted. Mt 26:26 (Mk 14:22., Lk 22:17.) - Eucharist instituted. 1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ's body & blood. 1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood. Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten. Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God". 1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed. Jn4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food. 1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what "the flesh" means in Jn 6:63.

confessing sins to anyone else? Mt 9:2-8 Son of Man has authority to forgive sins. Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained. Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, "receive Holy Spirit" [recall Gn 2:7] 2Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation. Jam 5:13-15 - confess your sins to one another. Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven. Why would Jesus instruct the apostles about binding and loosing of sins, if no one confessed their sins to them? How do you make sense out of this verse if we are not to confess to anyone but God? Explain this one for me, please....

ECT, ECT,, ECT, AD NAUSEUM!

Need I go on? Yes, I think you do.

Catholicism is a cult, because the attatch all the THINGS that catholics have to do, in order to know God, when Jesus CLEARLY STATES HERE that HE & HE ALONE is all that is needed to come to the Father! As I have shown you, Jesus said a lot more then your quote. I have another view. The church Jesus founded (the Catholic church) has held to His teaching more then ANY other christian church in existance. I will furvently defend "any" of the Catholic doctrines, and I will do it using only the bible.

Look at what Scripture says here:

Revelation 22:18 (New International Version)

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Many will say the this only refers to Revelation, which is a lie, These word apply to the WHOLE BIBLE, because the Bible is a book of prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation!
Again, I agree with you. Why are you using a bible that someone (Martin Luther) took 7 books out of your bible. So, by your own words you are using a tainted bible. The Catholic church did not add any books. Look it up. 392 A.D. the Catholic church (the Pope and Bishops) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined the books of the bible. From 392 A.D. to 1517A.D. when Luther removed these books, no one questioned the books of the bible.
You don't NEED anythjing BUT JESUS-not all this garbage & non-Biblical stuff that catholics preach! Jesus alone! Period! Well, I think I have put a big fail on this statement.

peachfuzz, the anti-catholic

I got this message from YA.

Look at what Jesus says here:

John 14:6 (New International Version)
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Does Jesus say that No one can come to the Father but by me +

being confirmed?
being baptised?
praying to anyone else?
genuflecting?
Adoration of the eucherist?
confessing sins to anyone else?
ECT, ECT,, ECT, AD NAUSEUM!

Need I go on?

Catholicism is a cult, because the attatch all the THINGS that catholics have to do, in order to know God, when Jesus CLEARLY STATES HERE that HE & HE ALONE is all that is needed to come to the Father!

Look at what Scripture says here:

Revelation 22:18 (New International Version)

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Many will say the this only refers to Revelation, which is a lie, These word apply to the WHOLE BIBLE, because the Bible is a book of prophecy, from Genesis to Revelation!

You don't NEED anythjing BUT JESUS-not all this garbage & non-Biblical stuff that catholics preach! Jesus alone! Period!

update on the fallen away catholic.....???

I have not had anymore e-mails from Erik since my last reply. So I got into another conversation with an anti-catholic from yahoo answers called "peachfuzz."

fallen away Catholic cont...

My primary source of authority is God's Word, the Holy Scriptures. I do not base my beliefs on anything else. My beliefs must line up with God's Word, God's Word is not to be conformed to our beliefs. If I have been taught something that does not line up with what God has revealed in the Bible, then I must discard those beliefs as false. Ok, that being said. You must hold true to scripture right. When scripture shows someone teaching something that didn't go along with want Jesus taught, what did the apostles (Paul and Barnabas) do? They went to Peter and the others. What happened at this council? After much debate, Peter rose and spoke, after he finished speaking, all were silent. The issue was over-ruled by Peter. So, in keeping with your primary source of authority, God's word is telling you, when you see something that is not what Jesus taught; take it to the church. I did not leave the RCC because I didn't agree with its teachings. I left because it has teachings which contradicts the Scriptures. After writing you for the last few weeks, I have given you multiple scriptural references for your issues with the Catholic church. In my view you are ignoring these scriptural facts to follow your man-made traditions. The Protestant idea of the "Bible alone" (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. The Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. The Bible even warns against sola scriptura. In the Old Testament God gave authority to his priests to interpret his laws and issue binding teaching based on those interpretations, even with regard to criminal and civil issues- both of which were dealt with by divine revelation (Lev. 20:1-27, 25:1-55). In the New Testament, he endowed the Church with infallibility in teaching.

In order to learn what the Truth is, we must have a standard for Truth in which to test all things. Truth is not found in man, but in God. If the RCC teachings come from God Himself, then its teachings will always agree with God's Word Just like I have shown you. I don't put my belief to the test, I study the Scriptures and believe what it says. No church is perfect because humans are not perfect. Only God is infallible in all things. I don't embrace all my church teaches, unless it lines up with what the Scriptures says. How can I know if my church's teachings are from God if I don't study the Scriptures?. Follow your own advice, read...>>> Acts 15: 1* But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
The question is, are you afraid of the truth? If I were afraid of the truth , I wouldn't read the Bible.

Fallen away Catholic. Are you affraid of the truth?

Erik,

I see there is but one real issue you have with the Catholic church. AUTHORITY As you grew in your christian faith, when you came to a certain issue that you either didn't agree with or didn't understand, what did you do? Where do you go for advice you can trust to be true? There is nothing wrong when a person growing in his faith poses questions in an earnest quest for truth. That's how we learn what the truth is. No one, then should be afraid of entertaining "perhaps." Perhaps God doesn't exist. But perhaps he does. Perhaps the Catholic church is woefully wrong in her teachings. But perhaps the Catholic church's teaching come from God himself. These kinds of question must be entertained. Those who are afraid to put their beliefs to the test in this way are clinging to an ideology that they fear will not stand up to reality. On the other hand, those who seek the truth have no fear of surrendering their beliefs to reality. Entertaining the "perhaps" is the only way to the truth. It's the only path to the surety and freedom of faith.

Faith, however, is a gift that doesn't always come all at once. The Catholic church recognizes that an educational growth process is necessary in order that individual believers... may patiently be led forward arriving at a richer understanding and fuller integration of (Christ"s) mystery in their lives. Still, if the Catholic church is who she claims to be, then the gift of faith will ultimately lead the seeker of the truth to embrace all that she teaches. If in the end a person still protests what the church teaches, then that person doesn't really believe the Catholic church.

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you" Pose every question you've ever had about the Catholic church, entertain every "perhaps" you can think of, but don't be satisfied until you find the answers. The truth is not afraid of your questions. The question is, are you afraid of the truth???

Erik #2. Please give me some feed back on his comments

my comments are in blue.

You say the Bible is not meant to be the Christian's living manual. No, I did not say that. I agree the bible is the christian's living manual. Jesus told the apostles to teach, he did not tell them to write a book and give it to everyone and let them make up their own minds. Jesus set up the church as a teaching church. (Mat 28:18-20 NRSV-CE) And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

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, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.' Let me ask you: How does one learn how to pray? (Mat 6:9 NRSV-CE) 'Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Go to the Bible. It also says to avoid vain repetitions. What did Jesus do at Gethsemane? (Mat 26:44 NRSV-CE) So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. Is Jesus wrong? (Rev 4:8 NRSV-CE) And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing, 'Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.' Is John wrong?? Or, are using this verse out of context? vain = means simply to take it for an “empty” (“not good”) purpose. repetitions = constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas. Erik, you are a starter man then this. The rosary is NOT empty or meaningless. Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen. (Luke 1:28; 2:42)

How do we avoid satan's temptations? Check the Bible. Jesus used the Scriptures to deal with satan. How do we know what are God's Commandments? The bible. How do we deal with a brother who errs?(Mat 18:15-17 NRSV-CE) 'If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. How do we know if what is preached to us is true and not false teaching? Now we are getting to the main issue here. Who did Jesus give his authority to? Peter, and later the rest of the apostles. (bishops) and again what did Jesus tell the apostles to do before he departed into heaven? (Mat 28:18-20 NRSV-CE) And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.' Lets take a closer look at these 3 verses. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, and how did he send his apostles out into the world? With his authority. He told them to make disciples, (confirmation) baptizing, teaching them to obey everything He has commanded. What was the early church like? The teachings of the Apostles? These are the same thing. Read Acts. Go to the Bible. The Bible even says not to go beyond what is written. Where?

The religious leaders of Jesus' day were learned men who claimed to be pious and devout but they mixed man made traditions with the Truth and nullified the Word of God. Yes, I agree.Jesus called them white washed tombs. They added teachings such as washing hands before meals, etc which became unscriptural burdens not God's commandments. They endorsed legalistic bondage. Yes.

Many times Jesus said: "It is written," indicating the primacy of God's Word. Or He would say: "You err," or "you do not understand, because you have not read the Scriptures." He never said go to the Synagogue and have a rabbi read the Scriptures to you and interpret it for you. No? again I refer to (Mat 28:18-20 NRSV-CE) And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.' The Bereans searched the Scriptures for themselves whenever Paul, Silas or someone else preached to them. That is right, Acts 17:11. they were being taught, and they were searching the old testament. They judged the preachers and what they taught by the Scriptures, not the other way around.

Jesus resisted the temptations of satan 3 times by saying: "It is written." Jesus said to the Jews: "You search the Scriptures thinking in them you have eternal life, but you don't do what it says!" John 5:39 says: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Yes, He was speaking to the pharisees. You are not taking the side of the pharisees are you? Paul warned: "see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ." (Col. 2:8). Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers. The only way false teachers can be confronted and exposed is in the power of God's Word. Yes.

The Jews considered that eternal life was revealed to them in their Scriptures, and that they had it, because they had the word of God in their hands. Jesus urged them to search those Scriptures with more diligence and attention. You do search the Scriptures, and you do well to do so. They did indeed search the Scriptures, but it was with a view to their own glory.They admired and overvalued themselves. Jesus said, Search the Scriptures, and it was spoken to them in the nature of an appeal. It is spoken to us as advising or commanding all Christians to search the Scriptures. Not only read them, and hear them, but search them; which indicates diligence in examining and studying them. We must search the Scriptures for everything pertaining to salvation is in there. As do I. I can not speak for other catholics, but in my parish we are encouraged to study daily. A Catholic Exegesis of Sacred Scripture has for 2,000 years been based on four rules in the Exegisis of Scripture fully defined Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino... that Leo's encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to "the supreme guide in Biblical studies"

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church

2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.

3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one's theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.

4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number "2" and "3". Rule "2" states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source. Second and Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

The Apostle John concluded his gospel acknowledging that the life of Christ was too wonderful to be contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. He included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Show me where it says just that. The RCC tries to claim that many things were left out of the Bible because John says nothing about 7 sacaments, Oh really?? (Joh 3:5 NRSV-CE) Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Baptism). (Joh 6:53 NRSV-CE) So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (Eucharist). (Joh 20:23 NRSV-CE) If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' (Confession). (Joh 20:21 NRSV-CE) Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' (Holy Orders). humm, 4 out of the 7 sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, penance, or an institiution such as the RCC. (Joh 21:15 NRSV-CE) When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs.'(Joh 21:16 NRSV-CE) A second time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend my sheep.'(Joh 21:17 NRSV-CE) He said to him the third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.

Who told catholics they cannot interpret the Scriptures? Not God, but the RCC.(2Pe 3:15 NRSV-CE) and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, (2Pe 3:16 NRSV-CE) speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2Pe 3:17 NRSV-CE) You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. If one is depending solely on a priest to tell them every Sunday what the Bible means, then one will remain woefully ignorant of the life giving riches which it contains. Here I agree with you, many Catholics have fallen way behind our protestant brothers. The Scriptures were written to all people, yes. not to popes or the Magisterium to be interpreted for lay people. no, this is the mission of the church, to teach. Paul delivered the uncorrupted Word of God to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4:2) Any time we allow others to interpret God's word for us, we leave ourselves open to deception. That's why Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. (1 Tim 2:5)

It isn't just popes who are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us all born-again believers in Christ receive the indwelling Holy Spirit who testifies of God's truth. John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.".context my friend, context. this is the last supper. Who was there? the apostles. Jesus was speaking to them. Can you remember everything Jesus said and did?

Since the books were written under the inspiration of God, they were canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true. Yes, it did. No book became canonical by the action of a church council. What the council did was determine which books did not meet certain tests for canonicity. Right, thanks for making my point.

We have the infallible Bible today, not because of the RCC, So you think all the gnostic gospels should have been in the bible? right... but because Almighty God has protected it and will continue to do so (Matt 5:18). One day we will all be held accountable for what we did with God's Word. It is His Word that will judge those who supplant God's authority with an authority of their own.

talking to a fallen away Catholic

This is just one of the many e-mails I have responded to. His (Erik) words are in black, and mine are in blue.

When can a human being who is flawed and a sinner, ever be infallible?Yes! in matters of faith and morals. &nbs p; If individual fathers are capable of erring, then a whole cluster of them can also err in their agreement. We do not need the consent of popes when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Who else is better qualified to guide the christian faithful, then the direct spiritual descendant of Peter along with the Magisterium. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave the earthly control of His church to Peter, and Peter in turn said he would see to it that the church would be able to remember all things at "any time." The Bible was never meant to be only in the hands of the few and the learned. It is the very instruction manual of the Christian. Erik, that view is not following scripture, the bible was writen for teaching. (2Ti 3:16 NRSV-CE) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, and it is not just for anyone to make up their own interpretation. If you can remember while in the Catholic church, it is taught that we are to read scripture in light of the church's teachings. This was a big light bulb moment for me, I no longer had to come up with an interpretation to make it make sense. When I gave up my prideful notion that I can the scriputres speak to me, through the church the scriptures came alive. I have never had such a desire to just marinate myself in the words of God, as I do now.

The view of the RCC is that the Scriptures have been entrusted to the church, and the individuals must look to the official pronouncements of the church to know the true teaching of Scripture." Until twenty years ago (more like 50 years ago) Yes the Church does encourage us to look to the Church for teachings. This is how we keep ourselves from falling into error. and the second Vatican Council, that kind of thinking had kept the Scriptures concealed in Latin and had kept the average Catholic lay person in shameful ignorance of Scriptures. Although much of that is changing now, for centuries the Bible was kept from the people. When examining these charges against the Church, we must consider several points. First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. The chain kept it safe from loss or theft, so all the people of the church community (parish) could better benefit from it.

Secondly concerning the vernacular, we must remember that in the 5th century when St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages into Latin, Latin was the language of the people. This Bible is commonly called the Vulgate, the common version. Even after a thousand years, Latin still remained the universal language in Europe.

Translating the Bible into the vernacular languages during the Middle Ages was simply impractical. Most vernacular languages at that time did not have an alphabet, so they could not be put into written form. Also only a few people could read. The few educated persons, who could read, could also read Latin. This situation did not create a great demand for a vernacular Bible nor promote a popular devotion to personal Bible reading.

Even though impractical, there are examples of the Church promoting the vernacular. One example is the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavic people in Moravia during the 9th century. They are both famous for introducing the Slavonic liturgy. In their work St. Cyril had to develop an alphabet for the Old Slavonic language. (It became the precursor of the Russian "cyrillic" alphabet.) In 885 St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into this language. Despite strong political opposition from the Germans, Pope Hadrian II after careful investigation confirmed St. Methodius as archbishop of Moravia and endorsed their Slavonic liturgy. (St. Cyril had already died.) Several later popes continued to uphold their work against attacks; however, Pope Stephen VI recalled the liturgy after being deceived by the German opposition

In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue. During the early 8th century, St. Bede the Venerable also translated parts of the Bible into the language of the common British people. On his death bed in 735, he translated the Gospel of St. John. Also in this period, Bishop Eadhelm, Guthlac and Bishop Egbert worked on Saxon Bibles. During the 9th and 10th centuries, King Alfred the Great and Archbishop Aelfric worked on Anglo-Saxon (Old English) translations. After the Norman conquest of 1066, a need for an Anglo-Norman Bible arose, so the Church produced several translations, e.g. Salus Animae (1250). In 1408 the provincial council of Oxford made it clear that vernacular translations could receive approval from the Church. In 1582 the famous Douay-Rheims New Testament translation was completed, while the Old Testament was finished in 1609. Ironically the Douay-Rheims New Testament influenced the King James Bible. There are writings of popes (and I can quote them for you) which say that the Bible must not be allowed in the vernacular (language of the people). That it would do more harm than good! Scriptures were for the priesthood only (They were prohibited to anyone in the laity without written permission from one's superior. The ban against translating the Bible into local languages originated from the desire to make sure people didn't get inaccurate translations. Case in point: Luther adding the word "alone" after "faith" in his German translation of the Bible when it didn't exist in the original texts. To violate this was considered a mortal sin). The Latin Vulgate could not be understood by the people, only trained priests. Pope Innocent the 3rd forbade Bible reading. One would have to learn latin. The council of Valencia, the council of Trent and pope Clement Xl issued a papal bull to forbid letting people have a Bible in their own language and reading it for themselves. Clement the 11th also issued a papal bull against Bible reading. Reading the Protestant bible only. I have all of these Encyclicals, and they speak only of reading the errored translations of Wycliff and Tyndale.

But thanks to men like Wycliff and Tyndale, the Holy Bible was translated in English. And that changed history forever. Yes, you are right here. This is where the Protestants stepped away from the guidance of the church in the interpretation of the scriptures. (1Co 1:10 NRSV-CE) Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

One of the hallmarks of the Protestant/Evangelical faiths is that the church and its ministers are judged by Scripture, and not vice versa.To judge the Holy Bible, God's Word, is to judge God. The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Everyone has the right to read the bible and come up with their own interpretation. This is why there are over 50,000 christian denominations today. All of them claiming to be true to the bible. So, are all of them right? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them in all truth? 30,000 different truths? Erik, this is not following scripture. The bible tells us to go to the church for truth. (1Ti 3:15 NRSV-CE) if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This is why unregenerate man who is an enmity of God cannot understand the Scriptures because it is spiritually discerned. The Bible is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit=2 0 when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. Or these,

(Act 8:29 NRSV-CE) Then the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go over to this chariot and join it.'

(Act 8:30 NRSV-CE) So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?'

(Act 8:31 NRSV-CE) He replied, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?' And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.

(Act 8:35 NRSV-CE) Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus.

The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years. However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).

(2Pe 1:12 NRSV-CE) Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you.

(2Pe 1:13 NRSV-CE) I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory,

(2Pe 1:14 NRSV-CE) since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

(2Pe 1:15 NRSV-CE) And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counseled them to search the Scriptures on the b asis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39) Many times Jesus would say things like: "You err." or "You do not understand." because you have not read the Scriptures. Over and over Jesus would say: "It is written," to show the primacy of the Word of God. He rebuked the pharisees for elevating traditions which were made of no effect. Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."Jewish traditions, yes I agree. Vs. 13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye"

The Catholic Bible

You see way back in the time of the Apostles their was this Catholic by the Name of Evodius And this Man was the first Bishop of Antioch a Catholic, He was ordained and taught by Peter and the rest of the Apostles and he is credited with being the first person to call the followers of Christ, "Christians", as shown in Acts 11:26. See Eusebius, book 3, chapter 22.

He was then followed thru Aposolic succession by this man Saint Ignatius (35-107), the second Bishop of Antioch wrote a letter to the Smyrneans in 107 A.D..

In this letter is recorded the first known use of the words "Catholic Church"... He also was Taught by The Apostles…

Now as you Can see the word itself is a catholic word their were no so called Protestants around at the time… In Fact when the Bible was canonized it was done by the Catholic church….

At the Time the New testimate was written their was only One Church The Catholic Church

I write these things to thee hoping to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of GOD, which is the Church of the Living GOD, the pillar and mainstay of the truth." 1Tim 3:14-15

the Bible came from the Church, and that the Church did not come from the Bible. The Catholic Church is the Mother of the Bible, not the Daughter.

THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK. Compiled by Catholic’s For Catholics

The Word Bible is also a Catholic Word The Holy Scriptures were first called the Bible by St. Chrysostom, the Catholic Archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century.

For those who deny that the Bible is a Catholic Book, the founder of Protestantism,

Martin Luther, concurred that the Bible is indeed a Catholic Book.

He had this to say:

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all."

Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.

Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church ``another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as ``the pillar and ground of the truth.'' (I Tim. 3:15). If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther's revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it--it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers. Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot see how the division of Christianity into hundreds of rival camps and doctrinal variations can be called a ``reformation'' of the Christian Church. In the Catholic mind, hundreds of conflicting interpretations of Christ's teachings do not add up to a true interpretation of Christ's teachings…

So that Leads to this these so called Christians aren’t Christians The Best you could call them are believers..

How could you be a Christian and reject Christian Teaching..

Peter's Keys

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

talk with an atheist-anti-catholic

Hi Dan

Look, I am fairly militant when it comes to religion now, and if you read through many old posts will find a number that are openly insulting. I am happy to have a rational debate via email with you - in fact it quite appeals in one way - and keep it moderate. I know that on some things I will never change on; and the same will be true of you. On these, we agree to disagree, and move on. Abortion is one that I wouldn't expect us to have much common ground on.

To start with Mary is to admit a weak point on my part. I know the church reveres her as Christs mother. My gripe is that the extent to which she is revered. And, if appropriate, why not Christs father? Things such as the rosary are more dogmatic so they do not affect a viewpoint - you either like or hate dogma - I personally hate it, but admit millions love it and by me that's fine, it is their choice. However, if I was a church-going person, I would not agree with th emphasis placed on her.

On Mary of Magdalane:

Now, after Nicacea and Constantinople, the Catholic church had a major hand in writing and selecting what went into the bible. It was also intended that the common person could not interpret it (like a trade union for preists almost). Mary (of Magdalene) got a raw deal at this time. Mary was NOT a prostitute; anything but. She came from a fairly wealthy family - or certainly one that was not destitute. She was Christs companion to the point it irked other disciples. Sorry, despite having read th bible, doing bible studies and studying comparitive religion (when an atheist actually) I cannot quote chapter and verses.

Sorry, I have drifted off topic. I am happy for you to put me right on misunderstandings - on my part about Mary. I have said I disagree with th emphasis placed on her - that it is a dogmatic issue to me - and I personally don't care for it. Please feel free to enlighten on this area.

Cheers
Brett

my reply

I will do the same, we can agree to disagree. I am assuming you know about her blood line in the bible. The OT speaks of the Messiah coming from the house of David. That blood line comes from Mary, not Joseph. By the way Joseph is highly honored too. The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless. Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
I hope this helps you in our view of Mary and why she is held in such honor.

Now for the rosary. Again I am assuming you mean the "Hail Mary". The next prayer in the rosary, and the prayer which is really at the center of the devotion, is the Hail Mary. Since the Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary, many Protestants assume it’s unbiblical. Quite the contrary, actually. Let’s look at it. The prayer begins, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." This is nothing other than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28 (Confraternity Version). The next part reads this way: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. The only thing that has been added to these two verses are the names "Jesus" and "Mary," to make clear who is being referred to. So the first part of the Hail Mary is entirely biblical. The second part of the Hail Mary is not taken straight from Scripture, but it is entirely biblical in the thoughts it expresses. It reads: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Let’s look at the first words. Some Protestants do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman. I'm sorry Brett, I could go on and on about Mary, but I will leave it at this for now. May God bless and comfort you in His love

his reply

Dan, thank you for your reply, and, no ned to add to it.

I have read it twice slowly, absorbing what you say, and it is clear in my mind that you do not need to add to it for my benefit. In one of my books on religion (yes, we atheists read about religion too) I have seen both a description and more familiar pictorial layout of Marys bloodline. That is a matter which to me is simply a scholastic collection of records, which prove (presumably to most poeple) that she is a descendant of house David. I was not aware that Mary "freely and actively" co-operated with Gods plan.

I would have wagered at 8am today that I would noyt have my nose in a bible before lunch - yet I did. Thankfully you quoted Luke and I recalled the piece, without actually remembering why I do. Everything in your first two paragraphs, taken as a whole, essentially prove your point to me. Part of it I simply did not know, and other parts I knew - remembered or not..

Whil I agree with your statement about all Christians, of whatever flavour, believing in being raised from the dead - and a final judgement day, etc, you need to remember that someone such as myself does not believe this. I also have an issue with Christianity as a whole here - what about all the people who have (and do) exist in such a way they cannot learn Christian techings and logically, not partake of this final glory? I have chosen my path with knowledge, but what about those who do/did not have my choice? This is off subject for now, but something I would be interested in hearing an opinion on later.

At a personal level I feel it wrong to discuss th Rosary - in rather th same way as reading someone elses diary. It is a private thing and should remain that way. Nevertheless I know part of it and you illuminated more. I personally held no opinion to the effect that it is unbiblical. I have a number of boks on my bookshelf dealing in religion, yet only two bibles; that does not make the other books unbiblical!

Again, your reference to Luke confirmed what you claimed and I personally have no issue with accepting it - with an understanding I did not previously hold. I was probably wrong to pick on this topic as one that deeply bothers me. Thank you for that reply; I have read many (not all) verses quoted and the surrounding text and would conclude - if say in a court of law - that what you said was correct and in text (not that I wish to imply you personally would do otherwise). Your comment of Mary being a very holy woman now stands on feet it didn't have when I awoke this morning.. Thank you for th effort and time in explaining that all. It will not change my overall view, but certainly enlightened me in a way that I would now never use it in a debate against someone as, clearly, it would be I who was wrong.

Regards
Brett

my reply

Brett,
Good morning from Texas. I am honored at your honestly. Thank you for you time. I am open to continuing this conversation on the topic of your choice. Again, thank you for being honest. I have to go to work now, but look forward to your next question. I hope you have a great day.

Peace

his reply

Good morning Dan,

I didn't realise you were from the great State. I lived in San Antonio on and off for about a year back in 1985/86 whil also working in Europe. I have a deep love of Texas and Texans. Who knows, if it wasn't for corporate asset strippers I might still be there.

I never have a problem admitting I either don't know or that I may be wrong. Also, if I throw stones (metaphorically), I expect some to be thrown back, so don't get at all upset by being called some rather terrible things on occasions.

OK, a concept I am unhappy with is the Pope; his declaration that he is Gods one representative on earth (made not so many years ago), a number of papal edicts - such as condoms not helping in the African fight against AIDS, Papal infallibility??, that Catholicism is the one true religion, and the list goes on. You are obviously highly literate and intelligent - do you personally believe every one of the Papal Bulls and statements in your heart of hearts? Let us include the attitude that women cannot join the preisthood here, and the issue of th participation of th Inquisition, seeing it was initiated by a Pope (yes, I am aware th Spanish inquisition was driven by Ferdinand).

I recall seeing a Vatican documentary about 10 years ago, where a fairly senior cleric - perhaps a cardinal - sat looking solemnly into the camera for 40 minutes 'proving' only about 10 people actually died and the rest were just bad accounting on the part of millions of villagers. This of course flies in th face of th recent release of Vatican records of th Inquisition for restricted but public scrutiny (even as a detracter from th church, this REALLY impressed me - full marks for that!!).

I suspect there may be just the odd issue above or two you might quietly be uncomfortable with. If not, we'll bypass those for the ones you do.

Cheers,
Brett

my reply

Hello Brett,
Good evening from San Antonio!! It is a small world.
Now, where to start? You have given me about seven points. (The Vicar of Christ, condoms/AIDS, Papal infallibility, one true religion, Papal Bulls, women and the preisthood, Inquisition) I could give you a full page on each point. I will try to summarize each point down to a couple of paragraphs.

Point #1. The Vicar of Christ.
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else. Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modified to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons. These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as (John 1:42) tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter. http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-II

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way (Matthew 16:15-19) is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in (Isaiah 22:22), kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isaiah. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy. A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church. It is founded on the words of the Divine Sheppard to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in (Matthew 16:18-19). Peter's name occurs 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the rest put together. This link will give you even more biblical evidence of Peter's primacy. http://scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them. Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8). Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene. The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura. As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church. Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
Brett, I am sorry for making this so long but I feel you deserve to see a good explanation of each point. Point two tomorrow, untill then. Peace be with you.
Dan

a conversation with a seventh day adventist about the Hail Mary prayer

this is part of the conversation.... I was explaining the hail mary prayer..

Message: hi ..well I read both parts.I was going to bed but curisity always get the better of me. Your writing is very well done.I enjoyed reading it..I guess i could just explain what I know,I am no scholar and I type the way I talk.As far as we know everyone except.Moses,elijah,Jesus.are walking around there and Encok but the rest are still sleeping in the ground waiting for the second Coming of Christ in the air and he will bring our rewards with Him all the dead christians will rise first then the ones remain alive will go up to meat christ in the air with the others. the unbelievers stay dead in there graves or the ones that were alive will die from the brightness of Christ coming down in the clouds.then thy will die running to hide them selfs in the rocks..There will be no one there to bury them.the crows will get to them ans Satan is chained up for a thousand years with a empty earth to meditate on his evilness.Then we go up to heaven and open the books of life to see why some made it and some did not After the thousand years we all come down in the new Jerusalen that God promise to build and we land on the mt. of olives in jerusalen all the dead rise .satun is unloosed and they all get together for battle againt God and His children and lose. God puts fire out there to destroy all people who held on to there sin and sin was all burned up in the lake of fire. Satan and his will burn the most becuse of the terrible sins he inflicked on us. others burn to fit there crime

apologetics MP3's

there are some great speakers on this list like, scott hahn, tim staples and more...... hope this helps you all as much as it has helped me. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

God bless
Dan

Column on understanding that Roe v Wade mandated abortion on demand, for all nine months

Roe and Doe, 36 years onBy Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist January 25, 2009A NEW antiabortion TV ad appeared last week, just in time for the inauguration of a president whose support for abortion rights is unqualified. The ad shows the ultrasound image of a fetus in the womb. As the camera slowly moves in, a message gradually appears onscreen:This child's future is a broken home.He will be abandoned by his father.His single mother will struggle to raise him.Despite the hardships he will endure. . .this child will become. . .the first African-American president.Then, alongside a picture of President Obama, comes the closing message: "Life: Imagine the Potential."Last week also brought the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and with it the annual March for Life on Jan. 22. Tens of thousands of Americans, most of them in their teens and 20s, gathered in Washington to implore the new president to help end "the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 pre-born boys and girls each day," in the words of an open letter on the March for Life website. For his part, Obama issued a statement restating his support for abortion rights and insisting that Roe v. Wade "protects women's health and reproductive freedom."Endlessly, the abortion battle goes on. The absolutists are forever polarized, but most Americans want to have it both ways. In poll after poll, substantial majorities say that abortion should be legal in only limited circumstances, if not banned outright. Only about one voter in five wants abortions to be legal at any time for any reason - i.e., abortion on demand. Yet by equally clear majorities, Americans say that they support Roe and would not want it overturned.But these are irreconcilable positions.Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court did not allow states to ban late-term abortions or restrict abortion on demand only to the first three months of pregnancy. It is true that Roe appeared to do so. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion declared that states could not regulate abortion at all in the first trimester and could do so thereafter only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Once a fetus became viable, Blackmun wrote, states could regulate and even prohibit abortion, "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Those 20 words became the exception that swallowed the rule.Roe wasn't the only abortion case the court decided on Jan. 22, 1973. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the justices decided that "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."Taken together, Roe and Doe meant that abortion could not be barred at any stage of a pregnancy. The "attending physician" could always say that in his medical judgment, the woman's "emotional" or "familial" health made it necessary to abort her unborn child. The result has been 36 years of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.Americans can be forgiven for not realizing what Roe really wrought. It has never been easy for its supporters to acknowledge its true impact. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who concurred in the decision, was sure that abortions would be performed only "on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments," not merely for reasons of convenience. "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."Burger was wrong, but he wasn't alone. Right from the start, the media have gotten it wrong, too. The morning after the decision, The New York Times reported on Page 1 that the high court had "overruled today all state laws that prohibit or restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion during her first three months of pregnancy." That mistake has been repeated endlessly in the 36 years since.Since 1973, more than 40 million US pregnancies have ended in abortion: Ours is the most liberal abortion culture in the advanced world. Reasonable people can differ over whether to preserve Roe or overrule Roe. But surely the way to begin is to understand Roe.

Vatican you-tube

This channel offers news coverage of the main activities of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and of relevant Vatican events.It is updated daily.Video images are produced by Centro Televisio Vaticano (CTV), texts by Vatican Radio (RV) and CTV.This video-news presents the Catholic Churchs position regarding the principal issues of the world today.Links give access to the full and official texts of cited documents.