(Gospel e-Letter - March 2008)
An article posted on a Catholic website begins with these striking words:
"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. [1]
Some Protestants continue to allege that Catholics worship images despite their constant denial. I happen to be one of those Protestants. Without referring to the Bible, I invite you to look at official Catholic sources, to show that the Catholic Church does in fact promote the worship of images.
So, what does the Catholic Church teach about images? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2132) is a good place to start:
The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honour paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends towardthat whose image it is.[2]
We should note several important points:
1. We understand that Catholics are not supposed to honour the image itself, as a mere physical object that would be crass idolatry. However, they are called to venerate the image not as a thing, but only as far as it is an image. Can this distinction be made in practice; this is another point for further discussion.
2. The Church teaches that the honour given to the image passes on to the person represented by the image; or perhaps we can say, Catholics honour the saints and angels through honour rendered to their images. The Council of Trent (session 25) explains:
... the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear. [3]
3. The church distinguishes between the worship and adoration of God (latria) and the lesser form of honour, or veneration (dulia), given to saints and angels. Thus a statue of St Paul should not be worshipped (latria) but simply honoured (dulia). On this account, it would be contrary to Catholic teaching to worship the image of a saint. The image of St Paul should be venerated, not worshipped. "The honour paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone."
At this point, a series of questions springs to mind:
What about images of Christ, who is God incarnate?
If the veneration given to the image of a saint passes on to the saint, what kind of honour should be given to the image of Christ?
Surely, Christ deserves more than mere veneration of the dulia type. Being God, Christ deserves to be honoured with the highest form of worship and adoration (latria). If Christ's image is merely venerated, isn't that honour far less than the adoration he is worthy to receive?
Shouldn't then the image of Christ – if Catholic theology is correct – be honoured with the highest form of worship (latria), given that this worship to the image passes on to the Person represented?
In other words, if saints can be honoured (dulia) by honouring (dulia) their statues, should God incarnate by worshipped (latria) by worshipping (latria) his image?
That seems to be the logical conclusion!
Someone may say, "That's only your fallible interpretation, you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching." Well then, look again at the sentence quoted above from the Catechism.
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.
This statement denies images are worshipped "in themselves" and "as mere things". That is quite obvious: Catholics do not intentionally worship wood and stone, but the same sentence continues to affirm that images are worshipped "under their distinctive aspect as images". Images of God incarnate are worshipped according to the Catechism.
The Catechism is actually quoting from St Thomas Aquinas. In the same paragraph, Aquinas concludes that "religious worship is paid to the images of Christ." [4]
In his discussion of the question, "Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of latria", Thomas Aquinas is even more explicit. Excerpts:
The honour given to an image reaches to the prototype, i.e. the exemplar. But the exemplar itself--namely, Christ--is to be adored with the adoration of latria; therefore also His image.
Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of latria.
Whereas we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ, Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is.
Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image. [5]
One would hope that Catholic apologists would be as clear and honest as Thomas Aquinas in saying publicly, "we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ." What they call "ridiculous" is in fact the teaching of their own Church! I appeal to Catholics and Evangelicals alike, not to be deceived by a watered-down version of Catholicism presented by modern apologists.
I have not tried to show from Scripture whether it is legitimate to worship images of Christ – that, Lord willing, we'll do another time.
137 comments:
Do you believe in the Shroud? What do you think Jesus wants us to do with it?
The Shroud has nothing to do with Jesus Christ..
Joe, I suspected that you might be off your "religious rocker". After reading your March E-Gospel, I am totally convinced.
Nonetheless, the Church is correct and you are in error. (1 Tim 3:15)
Being in Malta, a very Catholic country, perhaps you can find a good Catholic to help you understand the Church's teaching. It is admirable that you are spending time studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism is one of God's greatest gifts to the world. No other religion or denomination is even capable of producing anything like it.
God bless...
+Timothy
Why do Catholics construct similitudes anyway?
“Let the Church, therefore, stand open to all who are supported by their hands and by their own work; if there is no exception of arts which the Discipline of God receives not. But some one says, in opposition to our proposition of "SIMILITUDE BEING INTERDICTED [FORBIDDEN]," "Why, then, did Moses in the desert make a likeness of a serpent out of bronze?" The figures, which used to be laid as a groundwork for some secret future dispensation, not with a view to the repeal of the law, but as a type of their own final cause, stand in a class by themselves. Otherwise, if we should interpret these things as the adversaries of the law do, do we, too, as the Marcionites do, ascribe inconsistency to the Almighty, whom they in this manner destroy as being mutable, while in one place He forbids, in another commands? But if any feigns ignorance of the fact that that effigy of the serpent of bronze, after the manner of one uphung, denoted the shape of the Lord's cross," which was to free us from serpents--that is, from the devil's angels--while, through itself, it hanged up the devil slain; or whatever other exposition of that figure has been revealed to worthlet men no matter, provided we remember the apostle affirms that all things happened at that time to the People figuratively. It is enough that the same God, as by law He forbade the making of similitude, did, by the extraordinary precept in the case of the serpent, interdict similitude. If you reverence the same God, you have His law, "THOU SHALL MAKE NO SIMILITUDE." If you look back, too, to the precept enjoining the subsequently made similitude, do you, too, imitate Moses: make not any likeness in opposition to the law, unless to you, too, God have bidden it.” (Tertullian On Idolatry, 5)
Sadly, Catholics have no defense when their religion is exposed. Therefore, they must resort to personal attacks as in the previous comment shows.
I enjoyed the article, Joe, which provides evidence of another contradiction within the traditions of Catholicism. Billions of Catholics worship a host in a monstrance believing it to be Jesus Himself in the form of created and man-made bread. This is idolatry.
Pamela
1 Cor 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
1 Cor 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Matt 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Matt 7:16-17
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
James 3:17
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Anonymous, seek the truth, thinking Joe is off his rocker reveals evidence where you are standing in eternity, take heed.
Martin C
I do pray that God's grace will pour out on some that come to your site searching for answers. That is the key word 'searching'.
I have been witnessing to my dear brother for several months now and we have come to a road block. He insists that the Catholic Tradition and Catechism is authority OVER the Bible.
I of course know that the Bible is the authority.
So until Catholics can grasp who has authority, the catholic church, or the written word of God The Bible, than this is the kind of stuff we will have to deal with.
I have comfort in knowing that when you quote scripture it never returns void. Isaiah 55:11, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. Amen and Amen.
Saved since 1996 out of the Catholic System by reading the word of God!!! God Bless you Brother Joe...
Timothy,
The best way to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches is the official writings of the church, not the opinions of individuals.
You should come to Malta, however, to see the PRACTICAL outcome of undiluted Catholicism.
My soul is troubled when I see how my fellow Maltese are given to the worship of images (including a statue of the Trinity) bowing down, kneeling before them, paying money to participate in carrying the statues during its feast.
You should go to one of the marches organized in honour of the patron saints, with young men and women, barely dressed, dancing and intoxicated with beer and wine.
My heart aches when I see the devotion of many Maltese -- many of whom are genuinely religious -- deviated away from Christ, because they are preoccupied with so many saints and statues.
You should come to see hundreds of devout Maltese walking barefooted behind the statue of Our Lady of Sorrows with the hope of making satisfaction for their sins.
That my friend is Catholicism apart from the influence of evangelical Christianity.
By the way, do you admit that according to the Catholic Church you SHOULD WORSHIP IMAGES OF CHRIST?
Joe Mizzi,
Why don't you go straight to Rome and set up a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, and address your concerns about Catholicism, just like other Lutherans, evangelicals, and Muslims? Maybe if you can convert the "Visible Head" of Jesus' church then you might have a chance. Obviously, you make yourself out to be the "Head" of True Christianity. Therefore, I suggest you go Head to Head with our Pope.
Sorry, but your experience with the Catholics of Malta does not speak for the other 1+billion Catholics around the world. I continue to see your type of "examples" (like the many protestants I speak with personally) where you take practices of "ignorant" Catholics (e.g. barely dressed, dancing and intoxicated with beer and wine)and then conclude, "this must be all Catholics".
To Pamela:
The only thing exposed is your Bigotry and that you are a follower of the ignorant Jack Chick comic books.
Pamela,
If you were there when Jesus broke bread and offered wine and said "This is my Body, This is my Blood", Would you dare say to Jesus "No it's not! It's just bread and wine!" Well, would have the guts to say that to Him? Or do you feel empowered by this blog to say that to Jesus?
To Martin C and Joe Mizzi,
Since both of you are experts and all knowing of Sacred Scripture. I have one question for you. According to 2 Peter 3:16
"16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Would you please enlighten us Catholics as to which epistles (chapter and verse) St. Peter is reffering to that are hard to be understood? According to protestants, "the Holy spirit will guide you in all understanding of Scripture."
Also what does this Scripture mean:
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any "private interpretation".
To me, "private interpretation" is the "opinions" of what Scripture says from all of the 20,000 to 30,000 different Protestant denominations that does not have one leader (or Head) to confirm their doctrines. Unless that "Head" would be you Joe; or would Martin C be the Head of all Christians?
Oh, and my favorite, bc,
Where is that definition of Jesus' "TRUE CHURCH"?
Also bc, you never provided proof that Christians from 33A.D. to 430A.D carried their own personal Bibles around; you know, just like you do now, correct?
Would you please help out this poor little Catholic...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
BC,
Interesting quote "Tertullian" can we assume that since you quote Tertullian you are adherent to all Tertullian’s teachings?
Namely Tertullian discernment for Heretical Churches cited that any church that could not prove they were established by apostolic succession is a heretic community. You should be careful of the ramifications of your quotes since using a quote as a proof indicates you are promoting the teaching. We already know your method of operation, you will grab any quote you think will support your argument no matter how much you need to ignore their context.
Since Tertullian’s was later branded a heretic it places all his teaching in the questionable category. This is also true with Clement of Alexandria and Origen, since the Church or Alexandria morphed into Coptic Christians the question arises what exactly the root of the heresy lies. If you recall this came about with the Church of Alexandria’s rejection of the Council of Chalcedon dogma of God the Father and God the Son being of one nature or substance.
You and Mike are becoming the best proponent of Catholicism here. You see as Catholics we know we cannot judge the heart or the actions of others. We do not know how or when the Lord will touch the hearts of people, we have confidence he is capable of completing the work He began. As Catholics we are more than happy to speak the Word of Knowledge as imparted by the Holy Spirit to bring about the conversion of a Brother or Sister in Christ. But we also have the wisdom to know the Holy Spirit rarely acts as a lie detector test.
Joe now that you have the "Comment Moderation" enabled, you have taken the spontaneity out of this blog. Waiting for "time delay" posts is a drag. Besides, how fair are you being when it comes to allowing posts through?
Here's an idea--why not just accept posts that favor your beliefs and block all the rest? How do we know you are not doing that, already?????? You could block all the scholarly Catholic posts and allow only misinformed Catholic posts. I bet you could get some good posts from the Catholics like you described from Malta. You know the ones, the "young men and women, barely dressed, dancing and intoxicated with beer and wine." Now, Joe, do you really believe they represent Catholicism. If you do, you are either extremely bigotted or extremely naive or both.
Well, at least now you have given us a bit of an insight into what young Catholics and Sola Scriptura believErs (like yourself) are like in Malta.
As far as your invitation, "You should come to Malta, however, to see the PRACTICAL outcome of undiluted Catholicism." I think I'll respectfully decline. By the way, have you ever observed young Protestants behave in the same way? I'm guessing, probably not.
John 14:6 Jesus said,unto him, "I am the way, the truth and the LIFE: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that who so ever believes in Him should not perish but have ever lasting life. 17 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world: but that world through Him might be saved. 18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of
God will stay on him.
Roman 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of GOD; 24 Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 Whom God has set forth to be a mercy seat through FAITH in His BLOOD to declare his righteous for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: 26 To declare, I say now at this time his righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus.
Romans 5:8 But God commended His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners; Christ died for us. 9 Much more then being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [Hell] through Him.
read the gospel of John then read the book of Romans.
To focus our eyes on an image of Jesus created by an artist is to separate Christ’s divine nature from his human nature. And that’s heresy (Nestorianism). Jesus is fully God and fully man and any imaginary depiction of our Redeemer is by necessity a lie. A sculpture, painting or video image casts aside Christ’s deity. A false representation leads to false worship as when, in partaking of Holy Communion, Jim Caviezel’s portrayal of Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ comes to mind rather than the glorified Christ. And that’s idolatry.
Dr. Mizze, there you go, doing it again. Twisting words to make the Catholic Church fit the biases of YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.
In your March e-Gospel you left out this section of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church regrading the worship of images.
As you read, look at the use of words like HONOR and VENERATE, rather than WORSHIP. These are totally different from the word WORSHIP which you are trying to equate them to in your e-Gospel. Shame on you Dr. Mizzi.
IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image . . ."
2129
The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . ." It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works." He is "the author of beauty."
2130
Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131
Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the VENERATION of icons—of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132
The Christian VENERATION of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the HONOR rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever VENERATES an image VENERATES the person portrayed in it." The HONOR paid to sacred images is a "RESPECTFUL ]VENERATION," NOT the ADORATION due to God alone:
Religious worship is NOT directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. THE MOVEMENT TOWARD THE IMAGE DOES NOT TERMINATE IN IT AS IMAGE, BUT TENDS TOWARD THAT WHOSE IMAGE IT IS.
IN BRIEF
2133
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deut 6:5).
2134
The first commandment summons man to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him above all else.
2135
"You shall worship the Lord your God" (Mt 4:10). Adoring God, praying to him, offering him the worship that belongs to him, fulfilling the promises and vows made to him are acts of the virtue of religion which fall under obedience to the first commandment.
2136
The duty to offer God authentic worship concerns man both as an individual and as a social being.
2137
"Men of the present day want to profess their religion freely in private and in public" (DH 15).
2138
Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.
2139
Tempting God in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony are sins of irreligion forbidden by the first commandment.
2140
Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.
2141
The VENERATION of sacred images is based on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God. It is not contrary to the first commandment.
Source: Link
Joe, I think you sound Catholic.
Are you suggesting that we should worship images of Jesus Christ?
I think you are moving towards Rome.
Mark my words, one day you will become Roman Catholic and you will become a defender of the faith. And you will tell a different story.
The seeds of Grace are already planted. They will germinate soon.
God Bless,
Patrick
Dear John 17:17-23
With regards to the below comment you made :
"To me, "private interpretation" is the "opinions" of what Scripture says from all of the 20,000 to 30,000 different Protestant denominations that does not have one leader (or Head) to confirm their doctrines. Unless that "Head" would be you Joe; or would Martin C be the Head of all Christians?"
The head of the Church is Jesus.
And one more thing, just because a person is born into an evangelical church, or the catholic, or a protestant denomination does not mean that the person is automaticaly saved. Dont pride yourself just because you are catholic, i daren´t boast of my denomination, my boast can and will only be Jesus Christ who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Sandra
Sandra,
How long will Catholic apologists propagate the lie of a 30,000 (or whatever number you want) denominations?
Please check out the facts here:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm
Sandra, do you believe that you, as a Catholic, should worship images of Christ, in obedience to the teaching of your church?
To Joe Mizzi,
Let's not forget what happened with Protestants under Pastor Jim Jones (Peoples temple) in Guyana, where he took thousands of lives there.
Let's also not forget Protestant David Koresh (Branch Dividian) Waco, Texas in what he did with innocent protestant christians there - women and children...
There is also a protestant pentecostal church in the U.S. that dances around with venomous rattle snakes and they believe the
snakes venom will not harm them because of this scripture passage: Mark 16:18
"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Well someone from that church was fatally bitten. They also encourage children to handle these rattle snakes as well.
My point for the above examples of protestant worship you ask?...
Would it be fair for me to generalize all protestants with the types of worship I had mentioned above?
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
All,
Let's take a step back for a moment. The purpose of this site as I understand it is to "save" people from eternal damnation, to show them "How to be saved" right? Well, let's look at Joe Mizzi's answer to this question of salvation:
“What must I do to be saved?” Scripture gives this answer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31).
Alright, done. I'm saved right. Why are you telling me that I can't bow before a statue of Mary and pray. Why do you concern yourself with the "sins" of the Catholic Church. As far as I can tell the Catholic Church starts with the same belief in Christ as our Lord and saviour. Since that is all that is necessary to be saved, and I have done that, why is there a need to point out the "sins" of your fellow man. If as Joe says in this website that:
" ... we are all sinners."
then, should we follow each other around and keep a record of each others sins? Why? What is the point? Many of you claim to be "saved" yet you also claim to be a sinner, if that is the case, then pointing to the Catholic Church and proclaiming it's practices are sins is the same as me following around any individual and pointing out their sinful practices.
Isn't that the true purpose for this website? Not "saving" souls but pointing out the "sins" of others. More specifically the Catholic Church, which Joe seems to have a personal issue with and how it is effecting his country.
If this were a website directed at Buddhists or even Muslims I would understand the need to point out the missing elements and "sins" associated with the absence of Christ but to attack the Catholic Church which most agree is a Christian denomination, come on.
If you're dead set on dismantling a belief system, there are far better targets than the Catholic Church. From what I can tell this website is nothing more than a place where people can air their grievances with the Catholic Church. If that is your intention, fine, but do not disguise your true intention under a mask of offering salvation. Such actions will be judged harshly by the Lord.
I sincerely hope that if your true intention is to "save" souls you will re-think your presentation of this website and the materials that are on it, or change your introduction and make it match what is inside.
Blessings,
James
Dear Sandra,
You have rashed judged me. Membership in the Catholic church guarauntees nothing! No pride on my part. However, I must commend you if you are under the same understanding that all people regardless of race, religion or creed will be judged by Christ...that's what I believe from Matthew 25:32-34
But you, as a protestant, are at odds with many protestant Christians who say they are definitly going to heaven no matter what sins they commit.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Hey Joe, not catholic , didnt mean to give that impression, sorry. I was catholic, so I know personally that images are "worshiped", no one can tell me any different, i´ve been there.
Still in relation to images , why worship(adore, venerate, call it what you want) a dead image when there is a living God who wants to have a relationship with us?
And the Bible clearly states that there is ONE mediator between man and God, Jesus! So what is the need of images/saints/Mary etc?
But no matter WHAT church you are brought up in or mearly go to, everyone needs to be saved and until a person comes to the point where you realise that you are a lost sinner, repent and confess that Jesus is Lord and trust that He paid the price for your sin, you can continue going to whatever church you want to, but you are NOT a christian until you are born again.
Sandra
Joe,
Your opinion poll questions are really a trap, aren't they?
It's like the game some of my students play on each other. First, they get the student to agree that they will answer the next question they ask with "yes", "No", or "I don't know". Once the student has agreed they then ask the student "Does your mother know your gay?"
There is no way to truthfully answer the question without first agreeing to something that may or may not be true. Please, stop knowingly trap people into agreeing to something that may or may not be true in order to answer a yes or no question.
Dear Sandra,
It's me again,
You had said this True statement:
"The head of the Church is Jesus."
I agree with you 100%.
However, there have been visible heads under Christ from St. Peter (33A.D.) to our current 255th Pope, Benedict XVI (2008A.D.).
I'll post the dictionary version
of the Catholic church so as to avoid "my opinion"...
Sandra, please note that the dictionary mentions Jesus as the "Invisible Head of Authority", but notice who the "visible Head of Authority" is...yes, the Pope!
The "definition" of Jesus' True Church as found in a DICTIONARY!:
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (copyright 1998) defines the Catholic Church as follows:
"Roman Catholic Church" a visible
society of baptized Christians
professing the same faith under the "authority" of the invisible head (Christ) and the "authority" of the visible head (the pope, and the bishops in communion with the pope)."
Sandra, if you or any Protestant can give a definition like the above for Churches like Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Anglican, just to name a few, then I'll look into joining that Church. Until then, I will not accept "your" opinion on who or what Jesus' "True" church "is".
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Hi Sandra-- Good post--Thanks and God Bless
Just one addition---If you are in a false church--God will tell you to come out from them..and be ye separate....2 Cor. 6:17 Thanks again...
PM
To Joe Mizzi and Sandra,
There is quite a huge misunderstanding on your part of us Catholics. I love my Brothers and Sisters in the Saints who have departed from us centuries before any of us. Statues? Just an old fashioned version of today's digital pictures. Which brings me to my next point...
Joe and Sandra,
If you and others, of like mindedness, have a problem with Catholic Statues or Icons, I suggest you get rid of all digital pictures, 35mm pictures, video tapes and cameras of all types.
Get rid of all pictures of your loved ones; you know Sandra, "a dead image when there is a living God (or family/friends?) who wants to have a relationship with us?"
Right? Especailly get rid of picture of those deceased family members! They are dead as well as their pictures and mean nothing to you, right Sandra? Don't be ridiculous!
Dump all of those pictures out or I'll accuse you of idolatry if you have any of these items hanging around home or office of your "loved ones" like Father, Mother, Sister, Brothers, uncles, aunts, cousins and perhaps patients in Joe Mizzi case.
Hope you can understand and remember my point on this blog whenever you look at pictures of your loved ones "pinned" up on your bulletin board or magnetized to your refridgerator...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To James who said --
"If this were a website directed at Buddhists or even Muslims I would understand the need to point out the missing elements and "sins" associated with the absence of Christ but to attack the Catholic Church which most agree is a Christian denomination, come on.
If you're dead set on dismantling a belief system, there are far better targets than the Catholic Church. From what I can tell this website is nothing more than a place where people can air their grievances with the Catholic Church."
You have hit the nail on the head, James. This site is designed to allow fallen-away-Catholics to find a way to feel good and to justify having decided to leave the Catholic Church in the first place. As an educator trained in the study of human behavior, to the extent to which one feels insecure (conscious or unconscious) about oneself (or ones decisions) to that extent one has a need to point out the flaws of others. Hence the need to point out all of what is wrong with Catholic Church. Some people call it rationalization. I call it insecurity.
That's fine, this is Dr. Mizzi's playground. If we visit, we play by his rules.
Finally, in an earlier post Dr. Mizzi said to Sandra, "How long will Catholic apologists propagate the lie of a 30,000 (or whatever number you want) denominations?"
Well, perhaps he will accept the estimated figures, of the numbers of one demoniations of an example of a non-Catholic organization, one who puts the number of Protestant demoninations at 39,000 in 2008. See item #43 at the site This Site.
By the way, good insight, James.
To Anonymous who said,
“You should be careful of the ramifications of your quotes since using a quote as a proof indicates you are promoting the teaching.”
And also this,
“BC Seriously you have not proven anything other than your inability to see your error.
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome AD 215
http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html
Though having eyes they cannot see having ears they cannot hear, this is a stubborn and stiff necked generation.”
I want to thank you Anonymous, for bringing the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus to our attention. I am glad to see that by your own admission, you promote the teaching of the writing you referenced. After all the contextual proof I have provided, you are finally able to see that the eucharist is symbolic of the Lord’s passion rather than literally transubstantiated into His body and blood.
Even though the writing you point to is spurious, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that it parallels the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. The Apostolic Constitutions was written as though it came from the apostles themselves, but was actually written through time, primarily in the third century. What I found as I skimmed through the work was an interesting (though not surprising) phrasing in book seven concerning the eucharist.
“Do thou, O Lord Almighty, everlasting God, so gather together Thy Church from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, as this corn was once scattered, and is now become one loaf. We also, our Father, thank Thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us and for His precious body, WHEREOF WE CELEBRATE THIS REPRESENTATION, as Himself appointed us, “to show forth His death.” For through Him glory is to be given to Thee for ever. Amen. Let no one eat of these things that is not initiated; but those only who have been baptized into the death of the Lord.”
The two writings (the Apostolic Constitutions and the one you shared with us) do seem to agree that the early church considered the eucharist to be REPRESENTATIVE of the Lord’s body and blood.
So once again, thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Sandra
When you say something like, "Still in relation to images , why worship(adore, venerate, call it what you want) a dead image when there is a living God who wants to have a relationship with us?"
It makes it seem like you are against the taking of picture of the family or of honoring ( or venerating) pictures of loved ones, like Grandma or Mom and Dad or Husband, or Children, etc. Sounds very cold. By the way, if I am wrong and you do use them, then do you appreciate (or venerate) them because of the paper they are printed on or because of what the picture represent, the memories they stir up or the way it lifts up your mind and heart, to think of the persons they represent, especially if they have passed away or have moved far away from you?
Consider images of Jesus and of the saints, etc. in that way and you will not be far from the Catholic Church's position on the use of such.
To Anonymous who wrote:
"Your opinion poll questions are really a trap, aren't they? etc"
A Yes/No answer would be a trap if there were more options than a Yes/No.
When I ask, "Do Catholic worship images of Christ?", what other option do you suggest? But if there isn't, please answer the question clearly: DO YOU WORSHIP (LATRIA) IMAGES OF CHRIST?
I have a correction to make in my statement:
"However, there have been visible heads under Christ from St. Peter (33A.D.) to our current 255th Pope, Benedict XVI (2008A.D.).
It's actually 265th Pope and not 255th.
To Joe Mizzi,
Do you Worship (Latria) your Bible?
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To JMJ
No I do not worship the Bible.
You did not answer my question:
Do you worship images of Christ?
Joe,
I apologize for any confusion. My initial reaction to the opinion poll came from this question:
"Is it biblical to worship images of Christ?"
As I was trying to explain, this question relies on whose interpretation of biblical are you using? In order to answer the question yes or no I have to agree that your interpretation of biblical is the same as mine. That may or may not be true.
Second, to ask the question "Do you worship images of Christ?"
Again, if you are asking an individual what actions they engage in, is really just questioning whether they are sinning or not. You could just as easily put up the question, "Do you cheat on your taxes?" What is the point?
Now, if it were a question of "Does the Catholic Church teach the worship of images of Christ?" then it is a yes or no question. The answer is "No" by the way.
However, if you are asking that question then it seems your intention would be to teach the Catholic faith. If that is your intention, please stop. You are NOT an authority on the Catholic Church.
BC,
Interesting that you call a reference "spurious". I seem to recall a past post where you referenced your own article. I believe I could consider that "spurious". Also, I'm glad that you "skimmed" the text. I find the most profound research has been done by individuals who "skim" text. In fact, by "skimming" some of your past posts I might come to the conclusion that your Catholic.
Joe,
In response to what you said to 'JMJ':
You said you do not worship the Bible. Let me ask you a hard question.
Have you ever kissed your Bible?
Joe,
Just a quick observation. Joe, in your 'About Me' section you say:
"Cradle Catholic, converted to Christ... "
It seems to me that's like saying:
"U.S. citizen, converted to American..."
It's a little redundant.
Joe,
Your argument:
"Images of God incarnate are worshipped according to the Catechism."
is based on this premise:
"...but the same sentence continues to affirm that images are worshipped "under their distinctive aspect as images".
However, you fail to continue the quote:
"...but under their distinctive aspect as images LEADING US ON TO GOD INCARNATE."
This technique of pulling words and phrases out of context is very useful, in fact I have an argument :
Joe Mizzi is Catholic.
He says so himself:
"Cradle Catholic ..."
He agrees with Catholic teaching:
"The Church teaches that the honour given to the image passes on to the person represented by the image..."
"That is quite obvious: Catholics do not intentionally worship wood and stone ..."
Joe believes in confession:
"The root of all our misery is sin, because it separates us from God, the source and joy of life, and brings upon us His displeasure. Moreover, Judgement Day is approaching and sinners are in danger of everlasting fire in Hell."
"You are accountable for ALL you've done and said."
"When God so desires, you will be summoned to appear before His tribunal to give an account of ALL your actions."
Joe does not believe in individual interpretation:
"However, we are not interested in human opinions..."
"The best way to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches is the official writings of the church, not the opinions of individuals."
Joe, I'm sorry but you might as well admit which side you're really on.
Blessings,
James
Dr. Mizzi,
So far all the issues you have presented on your web site showing the Catholic Church in an unfavorable light have been challenged with logical, well documented arguments to the contrary, by apparently knowledgeable, practicing Catholics.
Why should we believe your interpretations of the information you present rather than theirs?
Finally, in all my rearch of Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, nowhere have I found a dogma that specifically states that their followers should worship anything other than God Himself. There are some cults and splinter groups that somethimes get Christianity, superstitions, and pagan practice intermixed, but not any of the mainstream Christian religions that I have researched.
So why is it so important to you to try to show the Catholic Church in such a bad light?
My research of their infallibly proclaimed dogmas nowhere states that the followers should worship anything other than God Himself, in fact they teach agaist it.
Can you supply a reference that specifically shows an "ex cathedra" pronancement that says her followers should worship images, instead of, or even, in addition to God Himself? Do you believe they are so ignorant as to believe that an IMAGE of Jesus is God, any more than you believe an image of your wife is your wife? (Try getting getting that one past her). It may soothe you and comfort you, give you warm feelings, bring up fond memories when you look at her picture, but you are fully aware that it is not your wife. (I hope that is the case, for your sake). Do your honestly believe Catholics feel differently when they observe and image of Jesus?
If you cannot find a specific dogma of the Catholic Church, one pronunced "ex cathedra" that supports your thesis, then I will have to question your motivations in presenting such questionable information on your website.
I don't know Joe Mizzi, but because he is an evangelical bible believer, he will never return to the RCC.
To Joe Mizzi,
Your link to 30,000 denominations is by an anti-catholic and biased, Eric Svendsen. I'll take Miss Buffy's link any day!
Right on! To Miss Buffy for the neutral witness (not protestant nor catholic) of this website proof of 39,000 denominations and counting...
http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=11&gps=383_529_972_626&f=00&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php
Joe, Latria to God alone, Hyperdulia to our blessed Mother, and dulia to the angels and Saints.
You can find these words in the CCC-Catechism of the Catholic Church.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
BC
Represent mean to re present, or to present over again. I wont say anymore, because you will accuse me, but in that sentence it is an adjective not a noun. Break down the sentence if you have to. But it read "Serving to re present Himself aka Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Noun.
And thank you for the proof, Apostolic Tradition Backs up Catholic Teaching of the Real Presence.
Do Catholics worship statues of Christ. The answer...NO! Why do we have a image of the crucified Christ on our walls, Churches, etc. To remind us of what he did for us on the cross. Crucified for our sins!
Do you "worship" the picture of your wife or your children on the mantle or your dresser. No, of course not. Those images are there to remind you of them and other family members, alive with us here on earth or those gone whom are in heaven.
DJ
To Joe Mizzi who caused the following message to appear:
"Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
4/3/08 13:45"
Would you be so kind as you give some reason why you chose to delete the post. Otherwise, those of us visiting your site will start beliving that you are starting to slant the posts to support your views.
It is your blog, but if you want honest sharing of information, then please offer some explaination. I can see where you would not want the use of obscenities and such, but if you are starting to block opinions expressed by Catholics that do not agree with your views, then your blog is starting to lose its appeal, at least to my family.
Perhaps you should consider renaming your web site. "Just for Catholics" is a bit misleading. From what I can tell, your site appeals mostly to people who already agreE with you. Nothing like "preaching to the choir", you think?
Best Wishes.
Re previous comment.
I do not usually moderate the comments; I was hoping to start doing so from this month because I wish that the comments are pertinent to the subject and concise.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case in the past. That's unfortunate.
I have rejected a couple of entries, but I cannot remember the details (one entry used obscene language). I invite you to post again, whatever you like, as long as it is decent.
I will probably not monitor the entries any longer, nor attempt to defend the ad hominem arguments directed against me.
However, I will delete any entries that use obscene language.
I feel for you Joe, it's not easy to go up against eternal Truth.
Here is an excerpt from a historical article I found at http://www.news-bulletin.com/lavida/70692-04-21-07.html:
“People reverently prayed and sang as they walked behind the statue of Mary. Recalling those times, Julia Romero Gutierrez remembers that she and others loved to sing songs like "Salve Reina," "Dios Te Salve" and the "Immaculate Conception." Girls scattered rose petals in the Virgin's path.
Meanwhile, residents waited anxiously by their front doors at the houses that the Virgin Mary would visit. Homeowners welcomed Mary and her entourage into rooms that were carefully prepared for the important occasion.
When she arrived at each house, men carefully placed the statue of Mary on an altar or table covered with starched white linens. To help transform the room into a special, holy place, the darkened chamber was lit with the flickering lights of candles and filled with the fragrant smell of rosas de Castilla (autumn damask). Originally brought from Spain and Mexico and long found in abundance in the Rio Abajo, these light pink roses were said to have the finest aroma among all the roses grown in the world.
Surrounded by candlelight and enveloped in the fragrance of roses, those in attendance fell to their knees to pray the rosary and sing hymns in the Virgin's honor. Later, refreshments, including coffee and biscochitos, were served before it was time to move on to the next scheduled stop on the procession's route.”
I don’t care what they call it, to any observer outside Catholicism that is idolatry.
To anonymous who said,
"I don’t care what they call it, to any observer outside Catholicism that is idolatry."
Are you going to accuse God of "Idolatry"? After all, God did order Moses to construct an Idol - a "BRONZE SNAKE"! for His people to look upon and be healed!
If you were an "outsider", what would you think of the Jews gazing at a bronze serpent to "live"? If Numbers 21:4-8 doesn't give you understanding towards Catholics and Icons, then no Biblical proof, even when God orders it, will change your mind...
Numbers 21:4-9
The Bronze Snake
4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, [c] to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!"
6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people.
8 The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To anonymous who said,
"I don’t care what they call it, to any observer outside Catholicism that is idolatry."
Here are more facts on relics/icons from the Bible that God uses to heal people:
My protestant brothers (especially Sandra)Please read and weep, then eat your hearts out!
Acts 5:15-16
- Peter's Shadow heals?- Never!
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that "AT LEAST THE SHADOW" of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 16There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
"handkerchiefs and aprons?" "illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left?" "No way!" says Sandra and my protestant brothers..."Idolatry!" "Idoltary!" "Only Jesus heals!" "Not some dead objects!" Right Sandra? Let me refresh your memory: "I was catholic, so I know personally that images are "worshiped", no one can tell me any different, i´ve been there." Not even the Bible Sandra? You're not a true Bible Christian! Wouldn't you love to be under St.Peter's shadow or touch hankys or aprons that St. Paul touched? I WOULD!!!
My protestant brothers (especially Sandra)Please read and weep, then eat your hearts out!
Act 19:11-12
11God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
The Catholic church's teacjing on Icons, relics, and images is 100% true as backed up by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Funny how the bronze snake always comes up and how it is used as an excuse to justify the icons used in the catholic church. One problem with this theory is that God directly told Moses to make that snake. God never told anyone to ever make a statue of a saint or of Jesus.
He never told anyone to pray for intercession to a saint or statue, He wants us to come to Him directly.
When I need something from my dad, I dont need to ask my mother, or my brothers or my uncle to ask my dad for me, I have the confidence to go directly to my dad because he is my father. God gives us this assurance when we are saved:
"And so, dear brothers and sisters, we can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19
"So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most." Heb 4:16
JMJ - have you ever read the bible from beginning to end? I encourage you and all to do this.
"Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ." Ephesians 4:15
Sandra
To Sandra who said:
"God never told anyone to ever make a statue of a saint or of Jesus."
Matthew 16:18-19
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Notice how He gives authority to the head of the Church... not a written Word. God HiMself is within the Church. When the Chruch binds and looses, she's only doing so by the power of God? What an awesome gift (The Church) He left us.
By the way, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. How righteous are the saints in heaven? More so than us down here. Are they cut off from their Body of Christ when the physical body dies? NO. Are we too members of the Body of Christ? Yes, all baptised Christians. Why then is it incorrect to ask a righteous man to pray for me?
If you're going to say it is unbiblical than I hope you have never prayed for anyone other than yourself or ever asked anyone to pray for you.
Don't worry though, I'll ask Mary and the saints to pray for all of us. I know I need all the righteous prayers I can get.
God Bless,
Majo
Sandra,
Did I read the Bible from beginning to end? Did you read my entire post? You are the selective reader!
Where in the Bible does it say thou shall "not" make an image of Jesus or His saints? Get rid of your family photos because you're being a hypocrite.
Funny how you bring up the bronze snake and COMPLETELY IGNORE THE HANKERCHIEFS AND APRONS TOUCHED BY ST. PAUL FOR HEALING PEOPLE AND ALSO ST. PETER'S SHADOW...
"handkerchiefs and aprons?" "illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left?" "No way!" says Sandra and my protestant brothers..."Idolatry!" "Idoltary!" "Only Jesus heals!" "Not some dead objects!" Right Sandra? Let me refresh your memory: "I was catholic, so I know personally that images are "worshiped", no one can tell me any different, i´ve been there." Not even the Bible Sandra? You're not a true Bible Christian! Wouldn't you love to be under St.Peter's shadow or touch hankys or aprons that St. Paul touched? I WOULD!!!
Acts 5:15-16
- Peter's Shadow heals?- Never!
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that "AT LEAST THE SHADOW" of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 16There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
My protestant brothers (especially Sandra)Please read and weep, then eat your hearts out!
Act 19:11-12
11God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
The Catholic church's teacjing on Icons, relics, and images is 100% true as backed up by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition!
Come on now Sandra read the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH...!!!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Oh Sandra,
BTW, You had asked,
"JMJ - have you ever read the bible from beginning to end? I encourage you and all to do this."
Well Let me enlighten you. Yes, from Genesis to Revelation, we Catholics read the "WHOLE" Bible every 3 years. Yup! Cover to cover! This is done at the Holy Mass every 3 years and does not include my own personal reading of the Bible.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To Sandra--
Let me start by saying that I have read the Bible, cover to cover, once a year, and have done so for several years now.
You made the following statement:
"He [God] never told anyone to pray for intercession to a saint or statue, He wants us to come to Him directly.
When I need something from my dad, I dont need to ask my mother, or my brothers or my uncle to ask my dad for me, I have the confidence to go directly to my dad because he is my father."
Sandra, correct my if I am wrong, but I would guess you have asked someone, at some time here on earth to pray for you. If you have, then you have violated your own rule.
Why do we ask for prayers of others (living or dead)? Because we and they are members of the same Body of Christ. This does not change once they pass into the next life. If you know of a scriptural passage that says otherwise, please quote.
I have never come across a passage that says we should not ask someone living or dead to pray for us. Again, if you know of such a passage, please quote it. Otherwise I will have to conclude that your belief has more to do with your own personal interpretations and opinions, than it has to do with scriptural fact.
Let me use an example. If, for example, Grandma would pray for you while here on earth, why would she not continue to do so after going to heaven? You think the souls in heaven are no longer aware of us poor souls still struggling here on earth?
Now if you are allowed your interpretations of scripture, I should be allowed a couple of my own, don't you think?
Let me give you a couple of scriptural passage that tell me that the departed souls as members of the Body of Christ are in fact still aware of us here on earth and consequently can still pray for us, you know, like Grandma can.
Consider Revelation 6:9-11:
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been."
Finally, consider Luke 16:19-30:
"There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'"
Yes, these are my interpretations, just as yours are yours. Which of us is right? Well, I would say we need an established authority here on earth, to help us to decide. Is there such an authority here on earth? I belive there is, the one established by Jesus Christ Himself over 2000 yEars ago.
San Medina said,
“Why do we ask for prayers of others (living or dead)? Because we and they are members of the same Body of Christ. This does not change once they pass into the next life. If you know of a scriptural passage that says otherwise, please quote.”
It is biblical to ask someone to pray for you so long as the person is living. But how do you ask a person who has died unless you pray to that person? Can you provide a biblical reference that states anyone other than God hears prayer?
To BC who asked --
"Can you provide a biblical reference that states anyone other than God hears prayer?"
Sorry, BC. I asked first. The questions for you and Sandra are still:
1. "Why do we ask for prayers of others (living or dead)? Because we and they are members of the same Body of Christ. This does not change once they pass into the next life. If you know of a scriptural passage that says otherwise, please quote [it]."
and:
2. "I have never come across a passage that says we should not ask someone living or dead to pray for us. Again, if you know of such a passage, please quote it."
Happy Hunting!
To BC,
As Catholics we believe that the Church is composed of three groups of believers. The first group is known as the Church Militant. This group is composed of human beings still on earth trying to complete the work that Jesus commissioned them to do and trying to conform themselves to His image. The second group is the Church Suffering. These are those who are in Purgatory being purged of the venial sins and imperfections they have not repented of. The third group of the Church is known as the Church Triumphant. These believers are the departed saints. Those humans who have completed the work that Jesus commissioned them to do and who have conformed themselves to His image. Together these three groups form what is known as the Communion of Saints. Distinct from each other but incorporated into one body by the Holy Spirit at Baptism.
Revelation 5:8.
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints.
If the prayers offered to God were prayed directly to Him why did the saints have them in their possession?
God Bless you ------I like to give credit where credit is due, to Sandra & Joe & a lot others out there that know the TRUTH { JESUS CHRIST]--They don't need a
tradition, that does not follow the Holy Bible .--They don't need the Church Fathers, Desert Fathers, the Celic Saints, or walk the Labyrinth.......But without them the RCC would be no more.....but we need the RCC to fulfill Scripture---Heresies must come....
1 Cor. 11:19 & 1 Tim. 4:1-3
PM
To Mike,
We need the Catholic Church because it was given to us by Jesus. If it wasn't for the words of Jesus Himself who said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, the church would be no more. But, Jesus said it and inspite of you and all the other haters of Jesus' church, which is The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Church is here to stay. From the beginning it has been attached by heritics but they have all failed and will continue to fail because Jesus will not abandon His Church.
Praise be to God.
Mike,
The Bible is a Catholic book. Do you not know your history? How do you know what books belong in the canon of Scripture? There is no INSPIRED table of contents. The Catholic Church, which is infallible, through its great oral Traditions put together the canon. How many of the original Apostles wrote. St. Matthew, St. John, St. James, and last but not least St. Peter. Are you saying that whatever the other 8 preached means nothing? Not everything is in The Bible. The word Bible is not even in Scripture.
John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
John 21:25 There are many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not thing the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by and ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter of ours.
Gods word is transmitted by oral statement (oral Tradition) or letter (written tradition-Scripture).
To Mike,
Well, well, well, aren't you full of HATE for the Catholic Church!
I would suggest you let St. Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15-16) or hankerchiefs and aprons touched by St. Paul(Act 19:11-12) to touch you and heal you of this great bondage of HATRED for Jesus'
Bride, the Catholic Church.
Yes Mikey, heresies come like you do, and they go like you will...
that's correct, the gates of hell, YOU, and Sandra, will not prevail against the Catholic Church.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
DR. Mizzi, this is great!
Thanks for making your blog "free flowing again". It is such fun! Your group -- you, BC, Mike, Sandra, Pamela, and others keep making statements against the Catholic Church and we practicing Catholics keep havin' to knock 'um down!
Who knows, one day maybe we can all get back together again into "one fold and one shepard". Until then, great apologetics exercises!
Hey, guys, keep 'um coming!
Thanks again for your "free flowing" web site and blog, Dr. Mizzi. You are to be commended!
Say, folks, let's keep it clean. Dr. Mizzi has enough on his plate already, being a doctor and all and having to monitoring this blog. I'm just happy that he is being fair and letting us Catholics share our sidE of the truth. There are some blog operators who delete all but what favors their side of the story.
Ziapueblo said,
“The Catholic Church, which is infallible, through its great oral Traditions put together the canon.”
The canon of the New Testament was put together through oral tradition? Care to elaborate?
To Mrs. Gus Thommason,
Very True. God bless you and Thank you Joe for setting up and letting us speak freely on your blog.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Come on now bc,
Everyone, bc has not answered many questions, especially when asked to provide a simple dictionary definition of Jesus' True church or even more simple, if Christians from 33A.D.-420A.D. carried their own personal bibles around like bc does today.
bc, care to elaborate? You little question dodger, you...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Maybe that is your problem JMJ, you’re looking in the wrong book. As far as your question about the Bible, let’s see if ziapueblo responds and maybe you will get your answer – again.
Mike,
That was an interesting statement you made, and perhaps you will read it and rethink or volition.
To be a Catholic we do not need a single thing you mentioned. As long as we have an Ordained Priest sanctioned by direct succession of the Holy Apostles we have the Eucharist, which is all we need.
It is faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament (sacred signs) instituted by Jesus Christ and his Holy Apostles that makes a Catholic a Catholic. All the items you mentioned are just the inheritance that a Catholic Christian receives.
But Mike you have not yet answered what specifically kept your from surrendering you heart to the Lord, every Sunday as Catholics we lift up our hearts unto the Lord. So my question for you is why did you not surrender your heart to the Lord in the Catholic Church as you were implored to do? Why should I believe that if you would not or could not surrender your heart unto the Lord, why would I believe you have now?
Not a single of your post seem to exhibit a single Fruit of the Holy Spirit. If you spirituality and love can only amount to calling name, it would seem you have to tear another down to build yourself up. If that be the case as it appears, are you not attempting to save yourself as apposed to trusting in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
Are you asking others to join you with the Good News of let us hate Catholics together? Granted it is much easier to plant cultivate and propagate seeds of hatred then plant seeds of love.
What's the matter bc?
You little question dodger, you...
Cat got your tongue? What happened to Mr. Church know-it-all? Sorry, but truth is outside of the Bible too. Check your birth certificate for starters.
You wrongly pride yourself in thinking that you know all of the answers to Christianity from the Bible; but from your posts, your problem is you produce the wrong answers from Scripture.
When Ziapueblo answers it will be the same truth as from the other faithful Catholics on this blog. Your other problem is you can't handle the Truth!
Come on now, just these two little questions?...
What's the True church??? Don't be afraid to admit it...
Did Christians from 33A.D.-420A.D. carry their own personal bibles around like you do today.
If they did carry their own Bibles what version(s) were they? NIV? KJV?
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Hi JMJ
You say some questions have been dodged, lets tackle that:
You wanted a dictionary definition of the Church, i´ll give you something which has more authority and worth than webster´s dictionary, the word of God.
Esphesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
So Christ is the head of the church. And what is the church? It’s His body. What is His body? Those of which He is Saviour. In other words all the people who are saved.
I had already mentioned before that no matter what denomination you are a member of, whether it be evangelical, catholic or protestant, all need to be saved and you are not a Christian until you are born again. Jesus said that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (John3:3).
To the question if the early Christians had their own personal bible with them, obviously they didn’t. But God in His infinite wisdom and care of them would have provided them with guidance, by His Holy Spirit and through the leaders and prophets of each local church body. But we know the Old Testament writings were available and it is also known that the letters of at least Paul were taken and read in various places.
15Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. Colossians 4:15,16
Sandra
But all this is deviating from the original topic, is it right to pray to/venerate Saints/statues/icons?
Let’s focus on one thing we all agree on. God is omnipotent and omniscient. Right? Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone omnipotent and omniscient. All agree up to here?
If you agree with the above and pray to dead saints then you are imparting to them a trait that belongs to God alone. How can a saint be in so many places at one time to hear the thousands of prayers made to st Peter, for example?
8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols." Isaiah42:8
The verses used so far to justify praying to dead saints, and making statues of these saints, just do not in anyway back up these practices. There are NO verses in the bible that back this up.
Asking prayer of a brother or sister (which is good and biblical) is not the same as praying to a dead saint.
Again I say, God wants us to come to Him, He promised to us that we can come boldly into His presence through the blood of Jesus and that if we draw near to Him that He will draw near to us (James4:8). He delights in having His children in His presence just like any loving human father does. Why so much reluctance to do this?
Could it be that you are not yet His child, for you not to have this confidence before Him yet?
He loves each and every one of us so much.
He proved this and made a way for us to be saved and free through the cross.
He desires each to be saved but does not force anyone to come to Him, the decision is ours.
“We love him, because he first loved us.” 1John4:19
To anonymous at 7/3/08 12:35,
There are a couple of misunderstanding you seem to be having trouble with. First you use "dead saints" multiple times throughout your post.
Question 1: Are we separated from the Body of Christ when we physically die?
Question 2: How many Body of Christ's are there?
Question 3: When we die do we die a spiritual death as well?
The truth is the saints are more alive than we are. They have inherited God's promise and already walk with the Lord. How can you call them dead?
Your second misunderstanding comes from your statement:
"Let’s focus on one thing we all agree on. God is omnipotent and omniscient. Right? Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone omnipotent and omniscient. All agree up to here?
If you agree with the above and pray to dead saints then you are imparting to them a trait that belongs to God alone. How can a saint be in so many places at one time to hear the thousands of prayers made to st Peter, for example?"
You're trying to tie God's omnipotent and omniscient powers with the saints. Only God has these powers. Think about it for a moment. At any given time on earth, we can count the number of people who are physically alive. This is a finite number. Within this finite number there are many who will be praying. Coming from a finite number, the number of prayers is finite as well. At any given time, there are a finite number of prayers being said. Is knowing these prayers the same as being omnipotent and omniscient. No sir, not by its very definition. So why do you link the saints gifts to God's power?
Rev 5:8 ...Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.
If the saints are dead, how could they offer prayers and what prayers would they be offering?
You claim that praying to saints is unbiblical and even have an interpretation stating:
"Asking prayer of a brother or sister (which is good and biblical) is not the same as praying to a dead saint."
Can you point me to the Bible passage that states this?
All Christians are members of the Body of Christ. The physically dead members are much more spiritually alive than we are here and as I supplied earlier, the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. I don't know about you but I'm going to ask my spiritually alive, righteous brothers and sisters to pray for me.
You also stated:
"Again I say, God wants us to come to Him, He promised to us that we can come boldly into His presence through the blood of Jesus and that if we draw near to Him that He will draw near to us (James4:8). He delights in having His children in His presence just like any loving human father does. Why so much reluctance to do this?"
How does your interpretation of "come(ing) boldly into His presence through the blood of Jesus" square with Jesus telling us to drink His blood in John 6 in order to have eternal life. I just have to turn your question back on you, Why so much reluctance to do this?
Could it be that you are not yet His child, for you not to have this confidence before Him yet?
He loves each and every one of us so much.
He proved this and made a way for us to be saved and free through the cross.
He desires each to be saved but does not force anyone to come to Him, the decision is ours.
God Bless,
Majo
Dear Majo,
I used the term dead saint to refer to the saints who have physically died already and are in heaven. You knew what I meant by it, why try to twist my words?
"The truth is the saints are more alive than we are. They have inherited God's promise and already walk with the Lord. How can you call them dead?"
To your above statement - anyone who is saved is a saint, including people, still alive and well on earth. Read this in the letters of Paul especially.
Saint is derived from the latin word which means holy, ie, separated.
A person who is saved has been separated unto God.
The original sense of the word did not mean someone of pious acts as believed by most today.
Therefore there are saints who are alive in the physical sense.
I seriously dont want to dispute with you, I cant make you change what you believe and you have your right to believe what you want.
By the way, why do you believe what you believe anyway? Because it is what you have been taught since childhood, because someone told you, or because of what?
I believe what i believe because
I know what God has done in my life, i know i am saved, forgiven and free, no one and nothing can take this away from me.
I hope you have this same assurance.
What Sandra so eloquently and truthfully stated has been stated on this blog over and over again. Joe has sown this truth into every article he has written. But still Catholics respond with the same rhetoric: “Jesus established the Catholic Church;” “the church Christ founded is a visible church with a visible head;” “the Catholic Church gave you the Bible;” etc… So my objective has been to challenge your assertions. So far no catholic here has been able to show biblically or historically that their assertions are true.
But perhaps that is for another place and time. Joe did ask us to keep it pithy and on topic. So with that in mind…
I read that article about the procession of the statue. I noticed that the author referred to the statue as though it was Mary herself. For instance he said, “Residents waited anxiously by their front doors at the houses that the Virgin Mary would visit…Homeowners welcomed Mary and her entourage… When she arrived at each house…”
Sounds like the line between a representative image and the person it represents may be blurred or not there at all. Given Catholics adoration for Mary it’s no wonder they created a “holy place” knelt before it and placed it on an altar. Looks like worship to me.
To Majo:
“O You who hears prayer, to You all flesh will come.” (Psa. 65:2)
Mike,
No where in the Bible (Genesis through Revelation) does it tell us what books belong in the Bible. If you are relying on the Bible as your sole authority in all religious matters, and the Bible no where tells us what belongs in it, then the Bible only doctrine has been refuted. The Bible does not have an official list of books. The list of books in the Bible is an essential religious truth no within the pages of the Bible.
I know what belongs in the Bible because I trust the infallible Church established by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19. Martin Luther, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." This quote is from his commentary on St. John, chapter 16.
Mike, I ask you...How do you know for sure what belongs in the Bible? By who's authority, Martin Luther's? You realize that Protestants do not share the same beliefs; Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Do you? Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and others baptize their infants. Do you believe in infant baptism? Luther and the original reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Do you?
BC,
Matthew chapter 16:18-19. Here we see that Jesus gives St. Peter a special authority. First he changes Simon's name to Peter. In John 1:42, Jesus changes Simon's name to Cephas. Cephas in an aramaic word. This word means rock. In many of St. Paul's letters, he refers to Peter as Cephas (Rock). Now back to Matt 16:18-19; And so I say you are Peter (greek=petros, aramaicl=cephas), and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I know, I know...you're going to say petros means pebble and petra means rock. In Koine Greek, remember that is the language the NT is written in, petra is feminine. It was changed to petros to make it masculine. Also in Koine Greek, petros and petra were synonyms for the same word, ROCK. If he wanted to call Peter a pebble the evangelists would have used the greek word lithos. Check any Koine greek dictionary and you will see. Remember "Cephas" aramaic for ROCK. Not evna which is aramaic for pebble.
BC,
Look and some older Bible translations and you will see this from Matthew 16:18
And so I say you are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Catholicism has never narrowed itself intellectually the way Protestantism has by relying on the bible alone and on faith alone. Catholicism has never denied history or history's complexities or its relevance to faith. Catholicism has never repudiated the wisdom and the talents of the ancients and has never limited Christian salvation as in the false theology of Luther and Calvin. St. Augustine once said, "A Christian's ultimate faith cannot be in the city of Man, no matter how mighty its fortunes, for all that is build on dust will return to dust. A Christian's ultimate home is in the City of God, and that is where he should seek his salvation. St. Augustine's relentless rhetoric against every heresy and schism, from the Manichaeans, to the Donatists, to the Pelagians, to the Arians, and to every other anti-Catholic faction out there today, make his continued loyalty to Catholicism undeniable. In "The Faith", St. Augustine wrote, "We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic, not only by her own members, but, even by all her enemies.
Ziapueblo,
I think you can’t see the forest because the trees are in the way. Have you ever taken a broader biblical look at what the church is? Why does it make sense to you that Christ would build His church on one of His disciples? Didn’t Jesus say to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”? How did Peter know who Jesus was? God revealed it to him. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” It is Peter’s confession Jesus is addressing. This is what God was referring to when spoke through His prophet Isaiah saying this:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.” (Isa. 28:16)
And Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit and quoting Psalm 118:22 said of this Stone:
“This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the cornerstone.'” (Act. 4:11)
Paul, showing how the people of God, both Jew and Gentile, are one through Christ said this:
“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:19-22)
To this Peter agreed when he said this to the church:
“You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, ‘Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame’"” (1Pet. 5-6)
The apostles (all of them) were commissioned to lay the foundation of the church. That foundation is the testimony of Christ by His prophets (the Old Testament); the witnessing, testimony, and examples of His apostles (recorded in the New Testament), and the indwelling Holy Spirit, which bears witness to our spirit that we are the children of God. (Rom. 8:16)
The apostles, not Peter alone, were sent out by Christ to lay this foundation. They were given special authority through the power of the Holy Spirit, to perform miracles, forgive sins, and proclaim the Good News. Mathew 18:18 makes it clear that all the apostles received the keys of the Kingdom for the purpose of laying its foundation.
BC,
Amen brother! St. Peter received the revelation strait from God that Jesus is the messiah. I don't disagree with you at all. Amen a second time, in Matthew chapter 18 Jesus gives all the Apostles binding and loosing power. The Apostles are the beginnings of Jesus' VISIBLE CHURCH on earth. Not an invisible church of many denominations with slightly different beliefs held together by the Bible alone.
Read John 21:15-17 here Jesus picks St. Peter to be the chief shepherd of the Apostles. All the Apostles went out to preach the Word of God. Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." Notice that THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation. Without the authority of The Church we would have no canon of Scripture. You must admit to that.
A few more things:
Read Isaiah 22:15-25, this is where "the keys" are talked about. Second, we are all stones that make up the Body of Christ (The Church). Finally, read the Bible in its context. 1 Cor. 3:11 Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church yet in Eph. 2:20, it is the Apostles who are called the foundation. 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Act 20:28, it is the Apostles that are called the shepherds of the flock. There are multiple metaphors for the Church, and words are used by the inspired authors of Scripture have various meaning. I agree, as all Catholics, that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean God cannot confer this distinction upon St. Peter as well, to facilitate the unity God desires.
Peace
Ziapueblo,
The apostles laid the foundation of the church. Each person who builds upon that foundation needs to take care how he builds. Those useless untruths, misguided teachings, and traditions of men are like hay, wood, and stubble. But the works of God done through us (for we are His workmanship) are precious and worthy to be built upon that foundation. Thus, the church - rid of its hay, wood, and stubble - is that great city New Jerusalem gloriously adorned and prepared as His bride.
You will recall that Peter denied the Lord three times. In John 21 he was three times confirmed an apostle; Peter himself must have doubted his worthiness to the calling. What need did Jesus have to ask the others the same question – three times? None of the others denied the Lord three times.
I don’t know why you think the verses in Acts (especially Acts 15) prove that peter is the rock (foundation) of the church. Remember, Peter was the one whose faith DID falter before Christ’s crucifixion. Do you not believe Christ is the foundation of the church? Who was the Stone the builders rejected; Peter or Jesus?
“Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” (Mat. 21:42-44)
Yes, the church is the pillar and foundation of truth; but you and I have different definitions of church.
What do you mean, “Without the authority of The Church we would have no canon of Scripture?” How did the church decide which books belonged and which didn’t?
Let me restate what the foundation of the church is because I don’t think you really caught it the first time.
The apostles (all of them) were commissioned to lay the foundation of the church. That foundation is the testimony of Christ by His prophets (the Old Testament); the witnessing, testimony, and examples of His apostles (recorded in the New Testament), and the indwelling Holy Spirit, which bears witness to our spirit that we are the children of God. (Rom. 8:16) And Christ Jesus Himself is the Cornerstone.
That foundation is Christ! “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1Cor. 3:11) Do you see it now? If you do, you would be the first Catholic I know of that ever did.
Jesus is the Shepherd and Bishop (Overseer) of our souls; the bishops and elders are overseers of their local churches. Acts 20:28 is not referring to the apostles. Did you happen to read beyond Acts 20:28?
Based on your last statement I can only conclude that you will never accept any scriptural proof, because you already determined that God could make Peter the foundation of the church if he wants to. So there you go; you believe whatever you want to believe.
In order to agree with our Non-Catholic and anti-Catholic brothers and sisters on this blog, we need to rewrite certain passages of Scripture as follows:
1. When the Lord’s followers voted with their feet in John 6, objecting, "This is an intolerable teaching. Who can accept it?", instead of having Jesus asking the Twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?", we need to have Jesus say, "Call them back. I’ll restate my teaching to conform to their preconceived notions of what they feel it should be."
2. When Jesus says to St. Peter, "Your name is Rock and on this rock I will build my Church," (Mt 16:18) we need make (Mt 15:18) read this way instead, "Your name is Theology, and on whatever the latest theological trend happens to be, I will build my Church."
3. And, when Jesus commissions His apostles to teach the nations "to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you." (Mt 28:20) must now read: "Teach them to observe whatever the majority opinion happens to be at the time."
Hello Sandra,
Thank you for your response to both of the questions. You are more man than bc is; assuming bc is a male.
But, I would say your first answer is nebulous at best. You're not taking all of scripture into context. Why didn't you use Mt 16:18? On this Rock I will build my "CHURCH"? We've been going back and forth in disagreement; so, when and what Church do we go to so that we may solve our disputes?
Jesus doesn't say go to the Scriptures, He said take it to the Church!
Your second answer implies that the apostles read letters and Gospels to the early Christians.
Well, how did the Christians know the Gospels and letters before they were written?
How did Christians from 33A.D. to 70A.D. read the Gospels? St. Mark was written around 70A.D., St. Matthew and St. Luke after 70A.D. and finally St. John written around 100A.D. Roughly 40 to 60 years without Gospels?
How did the Christians from 33A.D. to 58A.D. read Romans? 25 years without Romans?
Well hopefully you understand what I'm saying. There were decades of Christians who were without Scriptures, not to mention the fact that most Christians couldn't read anyhow. I understand illiteracy was about 90% back then
so there goes your implication that Christians at least read St. Pauls letters back then.
My point? Oral Tradition (hearing the word of God as Jesus commanded His apostles to do in "PREACHING TO ALL NATIONS") was practiced.
I was also born again (baptized) in water and the spirit as Jesus said in John 3:5
BTW Sandra, Do you believe women who don't bear children are not saved according to the conditions in sacred scripture 1 Timothy 2:15?
"15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." NIV
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
BC, my friend. The keys! What about the significance of the key to the kingdom of heaven. They were only given to St. Peter. Not until later were the rest of the apostles given binding and loosing powers.
Yes, Peter dined Jesus three times. I'm sure that you never have at any point in your life. God takes men that are week and makes them great. Moses was a murderer and Paul might have been as well. David was and adulterer. God choose these men.
At the time, Kephas (rock in Aramaic/Petros in Greek) was by no means a popular name. That would be like naming someone carrot. Why did Jesus change his name? When a name is changed in Scripture in is an important sign. Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5), Eliakim to Joakim (2 Kings 23:34), Simon to Cephas (John 1:42), Saul to Paul.
Ziapueblo,
You are simply assuming that only Peter was given the keys. Mathew 18:18 is the exact same words. If the keys don’t mean binding and loosening what do they mean? What you want it to mean is that Peter was given special authority he handed down to Linus who handed it down to Anencletus, and to Clement and so on all the way down to Ratzinger? The truth is, what Paul warned about in Acts 20 entered in like a small drop of leaven and eventually permeated the entire leadership of the church.
What happened in John 21 has nothing to do with Peter having primacy.
Your assumption that the church is built upon Peter because Jesus gave him the name Cephas is not congruent with the rest of Scripture. Every reference to the church concerning “rock,” “foundation,” or “stone” is a reference to Christ. You base your entire argument on that one verse and you can’t show that your interpretation is biblical. I, on the other hand, have provided you with numerous references that you know as will as I do, point to Christ as the foundation of the church.
Statement by BC:
"Your assumption that the church is built upon Peter because Jesus gave him the name Cephas is not congruent with the rest of Scripture."
Response to BC:
Your INTERPRETATION is not congruent with history.
Repeatedly, you hold up PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS as FACTS.
Sandra and bc,
Any rebuttles to the healing powers from St. Peters shadow, hankerchiefs, and aprons that were touched by St. Paul?
bc has been rather quiet and Sandra tried to answer two other questions; however neither of you have dealt with the healing powers of the relics from St. Peter and St. Paul...
Acts 5:15-16
- Peter's Shadow heals?- Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that "AT LEAST THE SHADOW" of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 16There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
Act 19:11-12
11God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
The Catholic church's teaching on Icons, relics, and images is 100% true as backed up by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition!
P.S.
Sandra, any answers yet on women being "saved" by childbearing?
1 Timothy 2:15?
"15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." NIV
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Statement by BC:
"You base your entire argument on that one verse and you can’t show that your interpretation is biblical. I, on the other hand, have provided you with numerous references that you know as will as I do, point to Christ as the foundation of the church."
Response to BC:
No one doubts that Christ is the foundation of His Church. What you are doing is using PERSONAL INTERPETATION of the scripture to deny that Christ delegated His authority to Peter and set him up as the head of His Church. History does not agree with these INTERPRETATIONS that you are, once again, presenting as FACTS.
Way to go, JMJ. Great questions. We anxiously wait for BC and Sandra's responses.
CAUTION: This is a "No Spin Zone" blog.
God bless you JMJ for your instights and for your persistence.
Thank you San Medina!!! Our Lord's blessings, Our Blessed Mother's prayers, and St. Michaels protection for you and our valiant and faithful Catholics on this blog.
Thanks again to Mr. Mizzi who had made this possible.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Amen Pancho!!!
bc has NEVER given us Catholics a definition of his invisible body of believers; and Sandra, bless her heart, gave us a nebulous Biblical interpretation. Anyway, I've got the definition that I've wanted bc and Sandra to refute from neutral sources and they continue to fail.
I'll post it after your response below to show that there is secular evidence as well as Catholic evidence that Jesus started the Catholic Church. We've got two witnesses!!! And your response to bc is proven by a dictionary definition...
Pancho's response to BC:
No one doubts that Christ is the foundation of His Church. What you are doing is using PERSONAL INTERPETATION of the scripture to deny that Christ delegated His authority to Peter and set him up as the head of His Church. History does not agree with these INTERPRETATIONS that you are, once again, presenting as FACTS.
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (copyright 1998) defines the CATHOLIC CHURCH as follows:
"ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH" a visible
society of baptized Christians
professing the same faith under the "AUTHORITY" of the INVISIBLE HEAD (CHRIST) and the "AUTHORITY" of the VISIBLE HEAD (the POPE, and the bishops in communion with the pope)."
Come on now bc, for the 10th time
get us that little ol' definition!
No opinions need apply!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To all my Catholic Brothers and Sisters,
I also ask all of the Angels and all of the Saints to please pray for us in bringing "TRUTH" to all who participate on this blog.
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray and do thou
O Prince of the most Heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls, AMEN...
St. Peter, Pray for us...
St. Paul, Pray for us...
St. Benedict, Pray for us...
St. Augustine, Pray for us...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
JMJ,
FYI, I do not answer your questions because you are mean-spirited and unreasonable. You like to throw out questions and scorn Christians (especially me) when we don’t answer to your satisfaction – which will never happen. Many of your valid questions have been answered, but you’ve been too busy attacking to notice.
I previously stated:
“The apostles, not Peter alone, were sent out by Christ to lay this foundation. They were given special authority through the power of the Holy Spirit, to perform miracles, forgive sins, and proclaim the Good News.”
The apostles power to perform miracles was not transferred to your graven images JMJ.
I have give you the definition of the Church over and over. The problem is, you don’t understand it nor accept it. If you want a more detailed (yet still concise) explanation you can read my article “A Chose People:” http://one-fold.com/a_chosen_people.html
Pancho,
Is there something you wanted to add, or did you just want me to know how you feel?
BC answered JMJ with the statement --
"Many of your valid questions have been answered, but you’ve been too busy attacking to notice."
Note a couple of key words in BC's statement to JMJ - "many" and "valid".
1. "Many" denotes "selective valid questions, but not all of your valid questions". It implies, "only the ones that I have a good argument against".
2. Valid menas "those which I (BC) subjectively have decided to be valid."
So, JMJ, since BC has acknowledged that he has answered "many" [but not all] of your "valid" questions, and since he has set himself up as the judge of which are and which are not valid questions, my suggestion is that you keep on posting those questions which are still unanswered. In other words, "keep on keeping on, brother".
Caution: Be aware that you [or I] may get back a response like, "that's not what I meant".
Possible translation: I still don't have a good argument against the other valid questions that were asked.
God saves us to do good works not because of our good works.
See how the jewish wedding relates to the rapture occuring before the seven year tribulation. God deals with us based on jewish traditions and feast days, not catholic.
san medina! Amen brother! LOL! You eloquently hit the nail on the head!
Now I have to prove (from previous comments) to bc that he, his cohorts, Mike, anonymous, and Pamela (and maybe other protestants) have been "mean spirited and unreasonalbe" and in my opinion down right bigoted to the point that they condemn us Catholics to hell because they don't understand Catholicism nor do they want to. The way I understand bc and his cohorts in relation to how they treat Catholics is like this: Let's say I wanted to know about the Jewish people and in my searching to find "truth" about the Jews, I first contact Adolf Hitler. Well, guess what kind of info I'm going to get from Hitler about the Jews? Or what if I needed info on african americans and went to to the "Christian denomination" the Kukluxklan, what kind of info would you think they would provide on african americans?
San Medina, It's is so true what you had said about bc and I would add that he/she is not finding any back up in secular history that proves his interpretations of Jesus' true Church. So, what does a person do when he or she can't produce the evidence? Yup, throw out the "mean and unreasonable" towel. Maybe if I ask bc to tell us the "truth" as to who was our 1st U.S. President, you think he'd be able to find it in Scripture? After all, bc accused me of looking in the "wrong book" to find Jesus' "TRUE" church. Maybe bc should "protest" Websters dictionary instead of us!
bc, did you check your birth certificate yet? It does contain truth as to who, when, and where you came from. Unless you can find your starting date in scripture...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Anonymous--8/3/08 17:53
Good post--There will be some that will believe..
PM
Statement by Anonymous (and Mike liked it):
"See how the jewish wedding relates to the rapture occuring before the seven year tribulation. God deals with us based on jewish traditions and feast days, not catholic."
Response:
Another example of PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scripture presented as FACT.
To my Protestant brothers and sisters who don't believe that Jesus built His Church
On St. Peter, the Rock,
To my Catholic brothers and sisters who have no "St. Peter's shadow" of a doubt,
That Jesus built His Church upon St. Peter, the Rock, please read the following:
Well, Jesus gave us a physical address of His Church. How you ask?
According to Matthew 16:18:
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of hell] will not prevail against it.
Check it out, the bones of St. Peter are under the High alter in St. Peter's basilica!!!
So, Our Lord literally constructed this Church structure over St. Peter, the Rock, in addition to the structure of the people of God!
bc, Sandra, and Mike, would you please provide evidence of St. Peter's grave site or bones
In any of your churches? Another reason for the importance of relics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb
http://www.amazon.com/Bones-St-Peter-Account-Apostles/dp/0385150393
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
To Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49:
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49 said:
"I used the term dead saint to refer to the saints who have physically died already and are in heaven. You knew what I meant by it, why try to twist my words?"
Majo:
Twist your words?? I believe I said you used the term "dead saints" multiple times throughout your and asked you 3 questions (which you dodged by the way). I'll try agian.
Question 1: Are we separated from the Body of Christ when we physically die?
Question 2: How many Body of Christ's are there?
Question 3: When we die do we die a spiritual death as well?
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49 said:
""[Majo]The truth is the saints are more alive than we are. They have inherited God's promise and already walk with the Lord. How can you call them dead?"
To your above statement - anyone who is saved is a saint, including people, still alive and well on earth. Read this in the letters of Paul especially.
Saint is derived from the latin word which means holy, ie, separated.
A person who is saved has been separated unto God.
The original sense of the word did not mean someone of pious acts as believed by most today.
Therefore there are saints who are alive in the physical sense."
Majo:
Good try, but I haven't forgotten the subject. Regardless of how YOU define a saint, we are both talking about the same subject... the saints in heaven. Your arguement is a poor effort in trying to change the subject. My 3 questions still apply whether or not we use YOUR definition of saint. I'll ask again:
Question 1: Are we separated from the Body of Christ when we physically die?
Question 2: How many Body of Christ's are there?
Question 3: When we die do we die a spiritual death as well?
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49 said:
"I seriously dont want to dispute with you, I cant make you change what you believe and you have your right to believe what you want."
Majo:
By your answer it's obvious you don't want to dispute with me. You sure have your opinion on how Catholicism is wrong but you didn't even attempt to address any of the issues I brought to your attention. Why is that? I appreciate you giving me the right to believe what I want. Jesus made it easy for us by giving us the Church. I choose to believe Him... EVERYTHING He said. How about you?
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49 said:
"By the way, why do you believe what you believe anyway? Because it is what you have been taught since childhood, because someone told you, or because of what?"
Majo:
Do I believe what I believe because of what I have been taught since childhood? Well it goes much further than that. I believe what I believe because of what Jesus and His authority has been teaching since the time of Christ. Why do you reject Jesus' authority? By the way, do you reject it because of what you've been taught or did you come up with these rejections all by yourself?
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:49 said:
I believe what i believe because
I know what God has done in my life, i know i am saved, forgiven and free, no one and nothing can take this away from me.
Majo:
Sounds good, just remember God doesn't ever stop working in our lives so I hope you keep your eyes open to ALL that God brings to your life and not just those particular things that YOU agree with. How do you distinguish between something that was done because God wanted you to see it and something that was done because Satan wanted you to see it. This blog is a good example.
Saint Anonymous at 7/3/08 14:19 said:
"I hope you have this same assurance."
Majo:
I have the fullness of Jesus Christ's Truth as He delivered to His Church. I hope you accept it one day as well.
In case you think I have forgotten, you still never aswered any of my questions about the saints or Jesus' saving blood. Would you care to address any of this now? The 3 questions about the saints were:
Question 1: Are we separated from the Body of Christ when we physically die?
Question 2: How many Body of Christ's are there?
Question 3: When we die do we die a spiritual death as well?
I also asked how your interpretation of "come(ing) boldly into His presence through the blood of Jesus" squares with Jesus telling us to drink His blood in John 6 in order to have eternal life.
Do you care to address any of these now or will you try and change the subject again?
God Bless,
Majo
BC,
Have you consulted your dictionary yet to find the word "Representation" in no way means "Symbolic" as you had gleefully hoped? And now can you see how your personal bias aka prejudice has effected clear thinking, and distorts your personal interpretation of the Bible.
I can clearly see where in the Bible, Luther Huss Calvin, did get their ideas, but as the continued fragmentation of the Church (Schism continue within Lutheran, Baptist and Pentecostal Churches) seems to indicate their dissertations are not embracing the entire Cannon of Scripture. There would be no frictions within these bodies if they did embrace the entire Cannon.
The primary factor used to discern the New Testament Cannon were Books (Each book a standalone document, Letter or Gospel) that did not contradict the Teaching of the Catholic Church. So if you think you find a contradiction it is apparent their thinking 1500 years ago was much different than the thinking of the Reformers 1000 years later. The number one reason for Schism in the body of Christ is human ego. Not much has changed since the Holy Apostles were competing for position as to who would be the Greatest in the Kingdom of God. The irony is Jesus was very clear and spoke in very simple terms that the greatest will be. The one who washes feet and the one who becomes like a little Child, and the one who is the Servant of the others is the Greatest.
It seems very strange to me that you would spend so much time and energy attempting to find fault with anyone who hears the words of Jesus and does them, those who know they cannot change the wording of a New Covenant established in His Blood because someone might take offence or we be accused of being childish. I pray that I never gain what you consider to be intellectual prowess, and think my way right out of the Kingdom of God.
The interesting thing is if followed the links on Dr. Mizzi’s website to the Baptist Church’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, I will need to read it again, but every indication they teach the Real Presence of Jesus in the Bread and Wine. For me it is almost as difficult to wrap my brain around their definition of the Lords Supper as it is Transubstantiation. If I read and understood correctly, during their Communion, they receive the real nature the real essence of Jesus Christ, but the Bread is Bread and the Wine is Wine. For me and in my thinking a Ferrari under a BMW car cover is still a Ferrari. Just my thinking, but if the Bread and Wine transmits the very Nature and Essence of Jesus Christ, how can one deny that it is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Like I said I will need to read it again, but my initial reading gave me the strong impression the Baptist teaches the Real Presence but then deny the reality of it being real. Almost had the impression they were their but did not want to be accused of being Catholic. But then again it was written in the 1600 and who knows how much it was tweaked to fit the common vernacular.
***the serpent of bronze, after the manner of one uphung, denoted the shape of the Lord's cross," which was to free us from serpents***
That BECAME an idol
2Ki 18:4...and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it
Behold the catechism of Satan,
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER TWO
ARTICLE 3
#460...
..."For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80
The mormons teach the same blasphemy, for catholics and mormons have the same father, Satan
In the service of the TRUTH, the LIVING WORD, JESUS CHRIST,
Craig
Rebuttal to Craig
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
Which is cross-referenced to:
1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:
[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.
Craig very sad that you dedicate your life to attack what you do not comprehend, much less claim to be a Christian when you do not even begin to comprehend the Divine Mystery. Jesus Himself said “Do you not call God to whom the word of God has come?” Jesus making reference to the Prophets, but had you been operating under the auspices of the Holy Spirit you would not have passed judgment. So by your own words you will be judged, the promises of Jesus not mine.
Well, well, bc,
Looks like I don't have to go too far back as to whom is "mean and unreasonble" not to mention "nasty" on this blog.
bc, we've got this gem of a christian in Craig your cohort now and he said Satan is the Father Catholics? Very kind indeed! Have you read anything like this idiotic statement from any of us Catholics towards protestants on this blog? Should I now conclude by Craigy's foolish posting that Mr. Mizzi and all protestants on this blog think the same way about Catholics?
Well Craigy boy, why don't you read the references from #80 and tell us what St. Athanasius meant by this?
Craigy boy, maybe you can interpret this for us which happens to be from Jesus Himself "IN SCRIPTURE":
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"
Craigy, you're going to have to run to your Strong's biblical commentary now...
Blessings to you Majo and anonymous9/3/08 01:12 for speaking Truth...
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
JMJ said,
“bc, we've got this gem of a christian in Craig your cohort now and he said Satan is the Father Catholics? Very kind indeed!”
When the Pharisees said to Jesus, “Abraham is our father,” Jesus replied, “If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.”
I am engaged in a civil debate with a civil Catholic on a controlled forum. I will no longer post here among such immaturity. Too bad Joe can’t put an age limit on this blog.
Joe, I highly recommend you moderate this blog as it is infested with hatred.
bc,
Tell us where the hatred is in my statement?
I take it your are okay with Craig's statement? "Satan is the Father of Catholics?"
Why don't you add the part where Jesus tells the pharisees that their Father is the Devil because the pharisees were trying to kill Jesus?
bc, you remind me of a whining kid in street football that quits because he can't win and crys, "foul"!...See ya!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
BC,
The keys, what about the significance of the keys. I do not assume that Jesus gave them only to Peter...I know it because Matthew 16 states it. I do agree with you that all the apostles were sent out to spread the gospel. However it is obvious, in Scripture, that Peter was singled out.
One body, one baptism. Not many, many denominations with similar beliefs. Thats not what Jesus wanted.
Why do you not see the significance of the keys to the kingdom of heaven that was given to Peter and Peter alone?
Well San Medina,
I believe this is bc's clever way of evading all of our questions...by running away.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
BC
Does that mean you have looked up the word "Representative" then, and you have seen your error? You pulled this same stunt with Clement and Origen instead of picking up a dictionary to find out what they really said you jumped to the conclusion that it supported your argument. Like I tried to warn you, your thesis would not stand up to a peer review.
Are admitting your error then by asking Dr. Mizzi to moderate, personally I am grateful when someone points out my error, it allows me to repent, discard old ideas and begin again anew.
You are not the first and not the last to pursue Dead Works in the name of God.
God Bless
NECROMANCY
Webster,
NECROMANCY, n. [Gr. Dead, and divination.]
1. The art of revealing future events, or INFLUENCING the course of future events by means of a communication with the dead.
SUCH AS,
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners now and at the Hour of Our Death.
This is prohibited. Deu 18.
BC replied to JMJ:
"I am engaged in a civil debate with a civil Catholic on a controlled forum. I will no longer post here among such immaturity. Too bad Joe can’t put an age limit on this blog.
Joe, I highly recommend you moderate this blog as it is infested with hatred."
Response: Note BC's use of the evaluatory (derogatory?) terms "immaturity" and "infested with hatred" as applied to Catholics who disagree with him and/or his associates.
1. Apparently, BC is now capable of accurately determining levels of maturity, over the Internet, and without administering psychological profiles.
2. BC is now able to judge the hearts of practicing Catholics, especially those who speak up and who do not "roll over and play dead" when confronted with mistruths by Protestants,(for example, when JMJ confronted Craig's misinterpretation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, when Craig was trying to equate Catholicism to Mormonism).
All right, so JMJ called Craig "Craigy". That strikes me more as JMJ just having some fun and not as being hateful.
Come on BC, lighten up. It's all going to be all right in the end. Jesus said so. He said that in the end we would all be one fold with one shepard.
If fact, we need to unite. Did you hear that a judge has ruled in California that parents can no longer home school their own childeren unless they have teaching credentials? Where is this godlessness going next? God help us all.
God bless you BC.
To Craig who once again is wrong when he speaks on
"NECROMANCY"
Craig, JMJ has already showed you where you were wrong in your use of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and trying to equate Catholicism to Moromonism. By the way, I did not hear an apology from you on being proven wrong.
Now you dare to try to equate praying to Jesus' Mother as NECROMANCY? Were you not humiliated enough already by your previous mistaken statements? Do you darE risk more humiliation by being proven wrong again?
Some people never learn.
To Craig who once again is wrong when he speaks on
"NECROMANCY"
Craig, JMJ has already showed you where you were wrong in your use of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and trying to equate Catholicism to Moromonism. By the way, I did not hear an apology from you on being proven wrong.
Now you dare to try to equate praying to Jesus' Mother as NECROMANCY? Were you not humiliated enough already by your previous mistaken statements? Do you darE risk more humiliation by being proven wrong again?
Some people never learn.
BC look at Craig's statements.
Do you think he is being "mean spirited"?
Do you think he is just suffering from LIQFU (Low I.Q. flair up)?
Yes, that's the ticket!
Craig,
[Luke 3:38] the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Now if Adam was the son of God, and through the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are restored to God the Father and can have the same relationship to the Father as Adam did? Are the children inferior or are children fully human as their parents?
Oh and your comment about Necromancy, Moses recorded the Great I Am saying He is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Living not of the dead. So if a Christian if fully united with God the Father through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, can one united with God the Father see death? If Enoch Elijah Moses were assumed into Heaven, not sure if that is in your Readers Digest Condensed version of the Bible but it is in there. If the good Thief crucified with Christ would be that day in God’s Paradise (same as Eden in Genesis) are they really dead?
Craigy,
Are you another question dodger like bc?
Give us Catholics your answer to the follwing scripture passage where Jesus calls mere men "gods":
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"
And for your Necromacy belch, Craigy, tell us why Jesus conjured up the "dead" Moses and the "dead" Elijah in Mark 9:4,
4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
If you can answer the above questions, then we Catholics will see if you are less "stupid" than our "stupid Pope" and our "stupid Church"!
Amazing! We go from bc who misinterprets the bible and never uses a dictionary; to Craigy, who
uses the Bible, the CCC, and a dictionary and triple honks-up his
misinterpretations!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
JMJ you are wonderfull! We get a joy in reading your responses to BC and Craig. You do a wonderful job representing the Catholic Church and trying to keep their hateful tone down a notch! God bless.
KriLayKra
I have read a few posts and quite honestly I feel sick.
I must admit, I do not have the time to read all entries, much less to moderate this 'discussion'.
I am ashamed by the attitude of some of the contributors, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
I would like the discussion to be focused on the subject at hand, but it's not a big deal if it doesn't. I would readily tolerate that.
But I cannot tolerate my blog to be used to spread hatred and animosity.
I really don't know what to do in this situation. I don't want to close down the comments feature. But if it's not for edification, I will be constrained to do so.
I will pray. I ask your advice too [email: justforcatholics@yahoo.com)
Thank you KriLayKra! God bless you too! Thanks again to Catholic anonymous(s), Pancho, San Medina, and to all of my Catholic brothers and sisters on this blog for keeping faith, truth, and love for Jesus one and also sharpening each other! Not one of us has given our opinion on anything and we held to Scripture and Tradition for our proof.
Should I hold my breath any longer for Craigy's misinterpretations?; because I'm turning blue at this point...
;-)
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Mr. Mizzi,
None of us can accuse each other as having Satan as our Father. This
was horrible and I dealt with Craig as charitably as possible without saying his father is Satan.
I also agree with you on the use of profanity/vulgar language etc.
So, with regards to the above, I think the rest of us are doing fine.
Please pray for all of us and thank you again for this forum.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
How can anyone honestly look at the jewish wedding tradition and not see the rapture of the church. God did not appoint the church to be a part of His wrath on those who denied Him. Please don't be stubborn about this. God Bless
And--we should give this blog and Dr. Mizzi a break, he is a new dad, let him be happy and at peace.
I don't have time to read and digest every single comment, but the point is God uses many ways to reach out to us. For some it's a revival meeting, an image, a song, Bible verses, etc.
One image I particularily like (and NO I don't worship it) is the sacred heart of Jesus. For those who never saw it, the thorns around his heart represent our sins which hurt him, and the fire represents his love for us. It reminds me that even though my sins are forgiven, it still hurts him but he still loves me. Another favorite of mine is any picture of a Resurrected Jesus.
Some people criticize the Purpose Driven Life as not being biblical enough or too watered down for Christians. While I don't agree with all Rick Warren's beliefs, the PDL really helps some people, Christian and non-Christian. So why argue with it?
Likewise, Christian images bring people to Jesus in ways we don't all understand. So why argue with it? Dont' assume they worship images just because they have them. How many of us worship pictures of our family?
The point to some folks here is you don't know how Jesus will reach others, and it's NOT your right to judge.
Blessings.
From a Bible-loving Catholic
FYI --
Origin of the term "rapture":
"rapture" comes from the Latin "raptus"
1. "The Latin Raptus has some specific meanings not fully captured by its English equivalent "rapture", which currently has accrued among certain Christian millennarian sects additional connotations of End Times transport of redeemed Christians, which are treated at Rapture.
Raptus has two connotations derived from its classical origins, one spiritual and poetical, the inspired vision granted to a prophet (Ezekiel, Daniel) or to a poet stemming from his invocation of the Muses (Hesiod, Virgil)— or in apocalyptic literature to a writer combining both natures, such as the author of Revelation—the other possessive and physical (raptus virginum Sabinarum). As the Sabine virgins were raped and abducted so the poet was abducted by the source of his inspiration— transported. This article treats both senses."
2. "The sense of ecstasy transport, or exaltation that are described in modern days as an out-of-body experience, and the trance that medical usage has adopted to describe epileptic seizures were described by classical poets and analyzed by the literary critic we call Longinus in his essay On the Sublime.
One famous example of a literary 'Raptus' is the one that (possibly) kills the main character in Dario Fo's 'AccidEntal Death of an Anarchist'."
3. "In social life and reflected in the Roman law, the Roman concept of raptus was quite different from the modern definition of rape. In Rome, raptus meant "carrying off by force;" it was a crime of property and included thefts of all kinds. If violence was at times a necessary component of this crime, sexual intercourse was not. So the "rapes" of mythology, which art historian Susan Brownmiller denotes "heroic rapes", are better translated as "abductions" and the abductee as a form of cultural property.
In Catholic canon law, the impediment of raptus indicates abduction or, more precisely, abduction with an intention to compel the woman to marry. This is currently an impediment to marriage while the woman remains in the power of her abductor; at times, it has been an impediment regardless of whether she was subsequently freed. (Although in theory a man could maintain that he was subjected to this crime, preventing a marriage, all recorded cases have been of abducted women.)"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptus
Dr. Mizzi,
First of all, let me say that I agree with your two statements:
"But I cannot tolerate my blog to be used to spread hatred and animosity.
I really don't know what to do in this situation. I don't want to close down the comments feature. But if it's not for edification, I will be constrained to do so."
In my belief system, spreading hatred and animosity is one of Satan's favorite tools. That and spreading disunity and discord on earth.
Back to your two statements. As has been said before, this is your blog so do with it whatever you please. You are aware, of course, that matters of politics and religion are two of the most sensitive topics one can bring up and will always emote visceral responses.
So you have to make a decision of whether or not you want to expose your blog to these kinds of exchanges. As a practicing Catholic, I will not stand idly by when someone refers to my Pope as "stupid" or to my religion as "stupid". Nor will I stand idly by when someone accuses the Catholic Church as being the equivalent of the Mormon religion. Nor will I stand idly by if teacings of the Catholic Church are misrepresented.
Profanity/vulgar language, as JMJ pointed out, is way out of line, as are other similar kinds of actions.
Again, religion and politics are both areas that are not without their challenges when presented in an open free flowing forum. Yet by their very nature, that is the most reasonable way to present them. Otherwise, you will be accused of filtering information to make your side look good. That too is your prerogative. You own the blog.
Thanks for giving us Catholics an opportunity to defend the Church's teachings. By the way, the operative word here is DEFEND. I pray that those representing the Catholic Church will present only well researched and properly documented facts and to do so in a civilized fashion, avoiding any name calling or causing any hurt feelings.
Truth will always stand on its own and does not need to be embelished with colorful language or hurtful words.
One suggestion for your e-Gospel and surveys: stay away from topics like "Do Catholics worship images of Christ?" These topics are very hurtful to Catholics and are sure to generate a lot of negative responses, from a lot of practicing Catholics.
Perhaps yours and your followers' experience has been one of dealing with a lot of "dumb Catholics", but I promise you there are a lot of well informed, well educated and very devoted Catholics out there who will, without hesitation, speak up in defEnse of the Church, and will do so with gusto.
So choose your topics carefully. But, this is your blog. You get to make the final call.
May God bless you and your family. Congratualtions on the new birth in your family.
I have come to a decision about the ‘Comments’. My purpose is to give opportunity to every reader to express his or her opinion in a civil manner. The ‘Rules’ are listed below and at the bottom of the main-page.
I have deleted a single entry (for offensive language).
Thanks to those of you who wrote and gave me advice.
RULES TO POST COMMENTS
1. Please sign your entry (you may use your real name, a nickname or a pseudonym), even if you're posting as ‘anonymous’.
2. Comments must be respectful, free from coarse, offensive language or rude comments.
3. Messages should be short and on-topic.
4. Do not paste articles or long quotations; however links to Internet articles may be used.
5. Do not post others’ email addresses, personal information or private correspondence.
6. Do not post anything that can be construed as a commercial advertisement.
7. Please do not post multiple entries on a particular thread.
Comments are moderated and published approximately once a week. Messages that violate these rules will be deleted or will not be published. Joseph Mizzi, 10th March 2008.
fyi,
God made the dust of the earth, and saw it as good and out of it he formed the first man which he saw as VERY good. Though many religious movements have shunned material things as base, unspiritual, and even evil, the God of Israel appears as a rather earthy divinity. He is so comfortable with the physical would that he even allows himself to be united to it forever, (the Divine word becoming flesh in the womb of Mary.) The physical body of Jesus is a visible sign of what can not be seen (His glorious divinity) But it is more than an empty sign calling to mind something that is not there. It makes visible and present that invisible divinity. From the body of Jesus goes forth divine power to heal the woman with the flow of blood and wipe away the sins of the paralytic. But sometimes, the Lord wants to use other earthy realities to contain and transmit his life-changing power. You can't get more earthly than mud! But if God can use mud to heal and give new life, why not water? Why not bread and Wine? Why not oil? What Jesus does for the man born blind is a sign of the whole sacramental economy of the Church he established. Physical symbols come to contain what they symbolize and transmit what they contain.
It's funny. When I meet and talk with individuals that are anti-Catholic, 9 times out of 10 they have something in common with me...they are fellow Christians. I hardly ever speak with non-Christians who are as anti-Catholic as other Christians I come across. I do not understand it?!? When I am at Church we never speak about Protestants on a regular basis (it may happen occasionally). At every church I have ever attended, when a priest or whoever is speaking about protestants they are called our brothers and sisters in Christ. As Catholics we pray for unity. When I have gone to baptist or evangelical services with friends, I have actually heard sermons that were purposely anti-Catholic. I don't understand!?!
Ziapueblo,
It's funny, (Or I guess, not so funny) I've had the same experience. I went to a Calvary Chapel service a couple of times and all they could talk about was what was wrong with Catholics. And it was quite anti-Catholic to say the least. I kept wondering, where is Jesus. I kept thinking, we're suppose to know each other by the love we have for one another, where is the love. I will never again miss a Mass to go to any service where there is no love, and most especially, no Jesus.
Beautifully said in your fyi Mary!
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
Well, I am confused. Dr. Mizzi. I know you can turn us vocal Catholics off if you choose. I for one will not follow your blog if I have to start signing in. Still it is your choice to handle your blog in that manner if you choose.
Before you turn your free flowing blog off again and make it for your "members only", let me address one loose end that was brought up earlier -- praying to the departed (spirits/saints).
You know, in scripture we are told that Satan (a spirit) can and does play havoc with mankind. He is an angel (a spirit), albeit a fallen angel. That means, spirits can, infact, interact with mankind. We know that God has (and probably still does) use his angels (messengers) to communicate with mankind. Then there is the concept of Guardian angels.
There are stories of possession in scripture, etc. Also, there are examples of people making bargins with the devil (i.e. selling their souls to the devil). There are examples of exorcisms being performed in cases of possessions, etc.
It stands to reason that people who have died and are in heaven (the saints), can also be communicated with in, by asking them to pray for us, as we do people here on earth. After all, we all all members of the Body of Christ. You have to realize that the dead are outside of the physical restraints we here on earth of subject to. They no longer have to depend on speach and hearing (they have no vocal chords or ears). But Who is to say they cannot communicate? God in His omnipotence, and as the creator, can allow any thing He pleases for His creatures. He can even make animals talk, if He pleases.
Think about it before you reject the concept of being able to pray for intercession of our loved ones who have passed away.
P.S. Thanks, Dr. Mizzi, for turning the Communication feature back on. I do enjoy using it.
JMJ, Mary, Ziapueblo, Majo, Pancho, Nivlem, Choudrant, Krylaykra and others, if we get kicked off Dr. Mizzi's web site, let's see about making contact on one of the forums on www.catholic.com. We make up a pretty good team of defenders of the Catholic faith. Let's go where we are wanted.
A Catholic Alert------
50 % of the new converts to Mormonism are Roman Catholics.......Per. Karl Keating.
PM
Joe,
If you call down the thunder be prepared when it comes. You decided to create and maintain a website call "Just For Catholics" then, in that website you contradict the Catholic Church. Your true intention of pulling Catholics away from the Catholic Church will not happen without resistance. If you don't want to spread hatred and animosity then don't name your website "Just For Catholics" name it "Why the Catholic Church is Wrong".
-James
I'm on catholic.com all the time. It's great. I just wanted to chat with some non-Catholics to see their perspective!
Hello san medina, Mary, Ziapueblo, Majo, Pancho, Nivlem, Choudrant, Krylaykra and others,
Are we done with this topic? Looks like it's quite now.
I love catholic.com, let me know what y'all would like to do.
JMJ (Jesus,Mary and Joseph)
John 17:17-23
I'm on catholic.com all the time. I just thought it would be interesting chatting with some non-catholics. However, there are many non-catholics on catholic.com forum. Who...how silent it is on this sight now!
I think Joe was trying to drive at the word, "UNDER their distinctive aspect of images."
Well aside from the fact the CCC categorically put the words "not directed" before and "leading" after the word "under" but let's set them aside to grant Joe some wiggle room.
The word "under" in the CCC which according Joe shows of Catholic idolatry "albeit in a rather obscure way."
Let's use the old reliable dictionary and find out the meaning of the word "Under":
UNDER : 1. beneath or covered by.
So applying this meaning to Joe's interpretation:
The religious worship being done directed "beneath or covered by" the images is directed towards the images by themselves.
Whatever combination you have it will be the same.
Does it sound reasonable to you? does it make sense at all?
Do you think there is a circular and very flawed logic exist?
Who's the person the image is "covering"? or who's "beneath" the mere image on the paper or stone?
Is it referring to, pointing to and going back to the same image and not to which it is supposed to "cover"?
Hmmmm.
No offense intended to Joe but the only article he wrote I agree with is about the Deity of Christ, ok also Holy Trinity, and the rest are saturated with errors.
Joe is a man of science (he's a doctor) so am I (math) but his logical thinking in my opinion is being clouded by prejudice.
Post a Comment