The American Spectator : Bachmann and the Pope

Text Size

Bachmann and the Pope

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 7.21.11 @ 6:08AM

I do not know what President Obama thinks about papal infallibility, but I have my suspicions.

WASHINGTON — It seems Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is under increased scrutiny for her religious views even as she climbs ever higher in the presidential polls. With Tea Party support she is now number two in the Republican polls, though she has only been in the race a short time. The numero uno, former Governor Mitt Romney, is himself the victim of gentler bigotry for his religious views. He is a Mormon. No, I did not say moron. I said Mormon.

What is Bachmann’s transgression? She was until recently a member of a church that opposes homosexuality and gay marriage. It also takes issue with the Roman Catholic papacy. It is the Salem Lutheran Church of Stillwater, Minnesota. And by the way, it is no longer Bachmann’s church. She now attends the evangelical church, Eagle Brook, in another part of Stillwater where she now lives. A close friend, JoAnne Hood, tells the New York Times that the Bachmanns, “are absolutely not against the gays.” “They are just not for marriage” — presumably not for gay marriage. As for their position on the Catholic papacy, Mrs. Hood is mum.

Well, I speak as a Roman Catholic. I do not know what the Salem Lutheran Church’s complaint is, but if it is the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility I think I understand. The debate began in 1517 and got rather bloody. Yet over the last century or so it has become quite civilized. Actually, I would be rather surprised if any Protestant, or for that matter Jew, accepted papal infallibility. But that does not mean I would not vote for a Protestant or a Jew for president.

This sniping at Bachmann for the religious values for her former church is a bit hypocritical. In 2008 we elected as president a man who attended the church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. He remained a member until May 2008, when he resigned under fire. The Rev. Wright regularly spouted racist bilge and assessments of this country that were frankly anti-American. Some of those views were very close to those expressed here and abroad by President Barack Obama. I do not know what President Obama thinks about papal infallibility, but I have my suspicions. My guess is that he is against papal infallibility. He will stick with Jeremiah Wright’s infallibility.

To those who would raise religious issues against Bachmann — or, for that matter, Romney — I shall take my stand with my colleague Seth Lipsky, who I suspect is another skeptic of papal infallibility. He cites the Founding Fathers. Lipsky avers that “The most emphatic sentence in the entire Constitution is the one that says ‘[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’” The author of an indispensable book for navigating the turbulent times in which we live, The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide, Lipsky is an irrefragable judge in such matters. We should pay more attention to that generous and enlightened document, the Constitution.

Bachmann has, and that is why she is a growing force in the presidential race. She and the Tea Party movement recognize that the Constitution posits a blue print for liberty. Obama makes light of the Constitution. He is a progressive and views the constitution as dated. He would look to “experts” to govern us. He favors boards of regulators. They will rescue us from bankers and other Wall Street types, though it appears that earlier regulators and Wall Street types got the economy into its present fix. His regulators will also regulate the healthcare systems if he has his way, though regulators have a way of being bought off by those with the most intense interest in what they regulate — for instance, healthcare. When the dust has settled and Mr. Obama gets his healthcare panels in place, you can be sure that the pharmaceutical industry and other healthcare professions will be there with all kinds of friendly and esoteric advice.

Regulators rarely are effective. They often slow down progress and always impede freedom. Think of friendly fascism. Bachmann and her Tea Partiers put their faith in the checks and balances of the Constitution, its separation of powers, its federalism. That is why she is forging ahead and she and the Tea Partiers are going to be a force to reckon with in this oncoming election.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (348) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kenny| 7.21.11 @ 6:51AM

This Catholic is for Michelle Bachmann.

The wife is, too.

PJ| 7.21.11 @ 9:33AM

I too like Michelle Bachmann. My major concern for her currently is her migraine headaches, which is generally triggered by stress. The presidency is not exactly a low-pressure job.

Yea, I know she takes medication for it. But will she have to "OD" to minimize the pain if she was president?

Delta Zelda| 7.21.11 @ 12:21PM

From what we know now, JFK was on pain killers the entire time he was president. The MSM never emphasized his drug dependency. MSM cuts Rep Bachman because she is a conservative republican women. Such tolerance these liberals display!

canuckistani| 7.21.11 @ 12:57PM

Daily Caller liberal? maybe adolescent con elitists but not liberal. This story was internecene.

We eat our own and have abandoned the 11th commandment.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:29PM

What's this "we" crap? You're not part of any "we" that applies to most of the people who post on this page.

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 6:26PM

Maybe it is consubstanciation rather than transsubstanciation in the eucharist, or opposition the sale of indulgences that is Bachmann's transgretion?

skip| 7.21.11 @ 1:48PM

How about an exalted socialist?

War across the Atlantic.

War across the Pacific.

Healthy as a horse, that one.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 3:14PM

Obama has somehow managed to avoid the job-related stress of being POTUS.

FORE!!!!!!

masly | 7.21.11 @ 11:22PM

The "greatest President of our times, Ronald Reagan." Yes, true. Frank, almost hast thou persuaded me to become a Catholic. ;-)
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:02AM

No self respecting orthodox Lutheran would ever make the move Bachmann has made. She went from the WELS to Willow Creek knock church so out of step with the WELS doctrine that it is hard to believe she ever was committed to an orthodox Lutheran confession. She sounds like a pew sitter to me and whatever her reason for leaving WELS I lost respect for her when she became a member at Eaglebrook. This is no less a move than if she had become Roman.

Publius| 7.21.11 @ 10:25AM

You'd be correct if being Lutheran trumped other aspects of Christian faith. Many of us believe that the Lutheran Church left us before we left it.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:34AM

As an LCMS member I agree with you but moving over to a Arminian cess pool is worse. Find as Orthodox a Lutheran parish as you can and fight the libs and "Church Growthers" from the inside.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:53PM

What is an Arimian cesspool, and church growthers?

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:32PM

Look em up.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 11:07PM

Fine if you don't wish to engage, but it shows a lot about you.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 11:21PM

On second thought, mames~ you're right. I'm not even interested in gobilty-gook anyhow.
I prefer sticking to the Bible, and that's my doctrine. Always has been, and always will be.
God bless.

mames| 7.22.11 @ 11:19AM

Arminian is the view that man chooses God rather than the Biblical view where God seeks out the lost through His Word. Church Growthers are tied into the CG movement which places emphasis on using cultural styles to being people into a church and they are predominantly arminian.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:55PM

mames,

Isn't it sad how there are all these different "views"?
I find it so. You see, when I gave my life to Jesus, He saved me from "views", and gave me the Bible instead. I haven't ever "belonged" to a denomination. I just want to belong to Christ. I don't study other views of which denom. believes which view. I know Catholicism because I was raised in it as a youngster, so I get how it is wrong.. not even biblical at all.

Denominations are are divisions by definition, and they aren't right.
The Bible says that we are to be of the same mind, that there is one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. (Eph. 4:4-6).

So, have you ever considered this, I mean about denominations?
I'm not faulting you, I guess it's just that for me, I've never wanted to be a part of a division!

Mike McLaren| 7.21.11 @ 2:18PM

There is but one Roman Church. How many Lutheran churches are there? How many forms of Lutheran truth's. And how many more times are men within the Luthern Church going redefine what truth is? And how many man made Christian denomination's since Luther (approx 30,000 at last count). Again, there is but one Roman Church that contains the entire truth of the Christian faith.

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 2:36PM

Uh, whatever happened to "...whenever two or more are gathered in My name..."

There's only one Roman Church, right...tell that to the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox, the Coptic Christians, and a lot of others.

Please remember that ALL churches are operated in this world by sinful humans who continuously sin. Priest, Popes, Monsignors, whatever, they all are sinful. This doesn't disqualify them, but you might want to be real careful with that first stone in your hand, Mr. McLaren, I'm betting that you have sinned, too.

Pray, brother, pray.

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:27PM

Dan, you obviously don't recognize (as American Express told us) that "membership has its privileges." One of which is to pretend that all Catholics believe the same things, which they don't by any means. The great diversity and ignorance in the pews is covered by unity in the sacraments, and that is what most Catholics believe in: salvation & sanctification by ceremony. So while Mike wants to wave "truth" around he might want to start facing the truth about salvation by denomination: there is no such thing. He is clearly not in the body and my only disagreement with you, Dan, is why you would address him as "brother."

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:38PM

We'll Call You " Sister Evanston", If That Makes You Feel Better.

Pray, Sister Evanston, Pray

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:52PM

Evanston2:

Good to see you again, and even more well spoken than before concerning the Word of God!

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:54PM

Becoming Catholic would be the BEST thing she could do!

Sammy Begley| 7.21.11 @ 12:04PM

Your logic is too bizarre. Why are you saying that it's okay for one to have extremist views if another (who is admittedly a presidential incumbent) perhaps such extreme views? Indeed, if the problem is religious extremism, as you intone in the above, why are you lowering your standards? Are they, like you suggest Obama's views of the Constitution are, dated? By the standards of the many, the views of Michele Bachman are incompatible with an evolving, democratic society, such as parts of the US and much of the rest of the developed world. Inequality at the will of some boils down to bigotry, and that is a slippery slope too often explored in the annals of history.

Something that has stuck with me is a line from a Member of the UK Parliament for whom I was fortunate enough to have briefly worked, and it regards the insidious injection of religion into (s0-proclaimed secular) politics. Coming from a devout Roman Catholic man, whose children attend Catholic schools, it was impressive. "If anyone tried to do that (to invoke the same religiosity into politics into the halls of Congress) here (House of Commons), he would be laughed out of the Chamber."

In the UK, there is technically a state-sponsored religion, and yet the nonsense that is religion in politics continues to be a dominant force in American politics, where the Founding Fathers wrote first in amendment to their 'generous and enlightened document' that there shall be a separation of church and state (and a freedom of speech/press...). That, like your logic here, baffles me.

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 2:46PM

Exactly which of Michelle Bachmann's views are incompatible with our democratic republic? Your vague character assassination is not acceptable or meaningful here. Have a point besides name calling.

You may have worked for a Member of Parliament in the UK, but this is the United States of America. Our country is founded on the fundamental agreement based on our Constitution. The governed agree to be governed based on the Constitution.

This is NOT a Democracy, and maybe your concept of democracy is evolving, but our Constitution remains in force despite the violence done to it in the last 100 years. It is that basic agreement amongst the citizens that is our strength.

Take your "evolving democracy" back to England, we dismissed the crude predecessor of English democracy 235 years ago.

Don't tread on me...

calvin | 7.21.11 @ 8:06PM

Dan H;
Thanks for your level thinking and clear expression. After some of these linked rants I have been tempted never to peek again.

cuban pete| 7.21.11 @ 3:20PM

I suggest that the "natural aristocrats" that who invented this country would have a problem with "an evolving,democratic society."
We are a republic and our founding document does not need to evolve.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 3:22PM

The fact that you Britons have largely lost your reverence for God is your shame, not ours.

We like our Constitution just fine, thank you. It acknowledges that we are NOT the masters of our destiny as you secularists seem to believe, and that freedom and rights come from God, NOT from the the whims of men and "conventional wisdom".

The U.K. is disintegrating under the weight of it's socialist bureaucracy and politically correct immigration policies. The people who are flooding your shores have NO sympathy for your "enlightened" views on religion.

So do us backwards, unsophisticated rubes a favor...

This time, fight your own damn battles. We're tired of pulling "the Empire" out of the frying pan.

TrueBlue| 7.21.11 @ 3:37PM

There is NO separation of church and state. The only thing the first amendment says regarding the church and religion is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Separation of church and state is bull$%^& that the liberals made up to try and force any kind of religious thought out of politics and schools because religion tends to come with this thing called MORALS and is against the "freedom of sexual expression" and gay rights junk they love to spew. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -- John Adams; October 11, 1798. Yup, sounds like they intended religion to be nowhere in the picture at all...

Who cares what her religion is? It's her actual political actions that concern me, not her relationship with God. If she doesn't agree with the views of the church she attends why should she stay? If you hold a view that is in opposition to the one your religion holds, why would YOU stay?

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:41PM

WHAT extremism? Believing in the Bible is extreme? "I am God; I have not changed." As a Jew, I am sick of these heresey trials; Palin being asked about evolution, et. al.

I have always been proud of the "No religious test" clause of the constitution, the last statement there, before the rules for amending. Marylanders were not so fortunate; until the "Jew bill" was passed, they couldn't even incorporate - no synagogues. And it came BEFORE the first amendment.

It's about time we followed it.

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:10PM

"That, like your logic here, baffles me."

It's not surprising that you should be baffled, Sammy, by the logic displayed here. You don't seem to have much grasp on logic.

" the nonsense that is religion in politics continues to be a dominant force in American politics, where the Founding Fathers wrote first in amendment to their 'generous and enlightened document' that there shall be a separation of church and state..."

The founders never wrote that church and state shall be intrinsically separated. The amendment to the federal constitution to which you refer states that Congress shall not infringe on free exercise of religion, nor shall it create an official national church. For many Americans -- and many of the founders were probably among them -- free exercise of religion involves allowing one's religious sentiments to inform one's views on public policy.

We can discuss whether such sentiments should enter political matters, but the founders never amended their 'generous and enlightened document' to say they shouldn't.

"By the standards of the many, the views of Michele Bachman are incompatible with an evolving, democratic society..."

I do not who "the may" you write of are, but you are engaged here in an argument from authority. And you should know that such arguments have no validity.

As to the view that democratic societies are bound to evolve only in the direction favored by the Left (which is what you imply), that is Leftist claptrap.

And yet you castigate others for their lack of logic. Hmmm....

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 10:00PM

One can accept that the Pope is infallible. But what does it have to with the price of tea in China? business and morality are not compatible.

Patrick| 7.21.11 @ 10:25PM

Your argument is so bad, it's not even wrong.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:03AM

The long knives are out for Our Tea Party Presidential Candidates.
In quick succession the agendists have gone after Michele's migraine attacks & now her ties to this Salem Lutheran Church.

You can see their agenda unfolding. Attacks about Luther's antisemitism & Michele's ties to that antisemitism.
They are gonna try to tar her with comparison's to The Obama/Reverend Jeremiah Wright Connection & The Black Liberation Trinity Church.
The Opposition Knife Wielders are chronically attacking Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul & now they're after Michele.

We Tea Party Patriots are used to these knife attacks & will deal with them.

We are in a Political & Media War.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Elron H.| 7.21.11 @ 10:28AM

ASSOCIATED PRESS.

July 20, 2011.

When asked to comment on the reported anti-Catholic religious beliefs of fellow Representative and Presidential candidate Michelle Bachman, Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) responded "Anti-Catholic? That's absurd. I know Michelle well, and she's not anti-Catholic. But if she isn't, she oughtta' be! Since the high Middle-Low-Late-Dark Ages, the Pope in Rome has been engaged in a vast conspiracy with the Bildabergs, the Free Masons, and George Steinbrenner to enslave humanity and prepare our planet for an invasion by the Micronaut Empire from the 11th dimension. And to all those who think that the "Micronauts" were just a line of children's toys from the 1970's, I say 'Believe that at your own peril!' "

When asked to elaborate on his opinion of Pope Benedict, Paul continued "Benedict, eh? So that's what they're calling 'Yango the Unyielding' nowadays, huh? He's gone by many names since the early-late-middle-high-low-medieval era, but as far as I'm concerned, he'll always be known as Mildred! And "Papal infallibility"? Please...Of course he's infallible. Have you ever known anyone from the hidden empire at the earth's core
to be wrong about anything??? For Pete's sake...Washington is completely out-of-control!!"

The Tea Party is Revolting...Seriously. Do these people take showers??

Crapae Dumbass.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:48PM

I think you're both equalliy revolting. Go tell it to your friends at HuffPo, troll.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:37PM

The Other Serial Screwball Fanatic Israel Firster & Cowardly Poseur Lashes Out At The Tea Party For The Umpteenth Time.

We Tea Party Patriots Will See Ya At The 2012 Elections, Israel Firster Clown.

Carpe Diem.

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 10:02PM

Clint is Jewish, he merely wants to prove he is not biased against Palestinians!

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:46PM

Hey, Clint's praising an "Israel-firster"!

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:47PM

Do Your Homework & Shut Your Uninformed Big Mouth,mzk1

Read Our Tea Party Mission Statement, Asshole mzk1.

It Says Nothing About Israel Or Any Of Those Middle East Food Fighters.

Unlike Screwball Israel Firster Fanatics , We Tea Party Patriots Aren't Giving Our Candidates A Litmus Test On Israel.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

IXLR8| 7.21.11 @ 7:35AM

Mr. Tyrell, it would be helpful to point out that the Pope's infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morality when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra. The Pope's infallibility has been invoked extremely rarely in the Church's 2000 year history, including such declarations as the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, and that Jesus is both true God and true man. Very few Christians of any denomination disagree with these infallible statements.

Ryan| 7.21.11 @ 8:24AM

right on 2/3 there. Protestants don't accept the immaculate conception. Theologically, it is unnecessary to the Gospel and for Christ's work on the Cross to be effective, and has no scriptural foundation.This

Ryan| 7.21.11 @ 8:25AM

This isn't an attack, btw, just correcting.

David T| 7.21.11 @ 9:30AM

Ryan--On the contrary, I would submit that the immaculate conception of Mary was vital to the Gospel and the work of Christ. As Theotokos, Mary was the sinless vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant, who carried the Lord of Glory in her pure and stainless womb. Without Mary, the Second Person of the Trinity would have never become the incarnate Son of God.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 10:00AM

Since Jesus was not concieved OF Mary (only IN her), her sin was irrelavent to His blamelessness. Therefore, there is no need for her to be sinless. Besides, if she were, that means SHE could have died on the cross for us as a blameless sacrifice. The need for Christ arises out of the fact that no one else can be blameless and therefore afford to "pay the debt" of someone else. What you are saying is that Mary was, as a non diety, granted access to Heaven without having to accept Christ's grace... as she wouldn't need it.

While I'm certainly not one who thinks Catholics are of the devil, I do not see how you can mesh this ideology with the rest of scripture that is clear that all men are born from flesh, and therefore, inhereted original sin. Mary would have had to be from a virgin birth, too, in order for her blamelessness to hold into the world of the living. There's no indication she was born from a virgin and as such, she would be tainted just like all men.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:08AM

IN the Magnificat Mary clearly thanks God for "my Savior" that is in her womb. The sinless need no Savior. Mary was a sinful human like the rest of us, period. TO worship her is the lowest form of idolotry.

Citizen Jerry| 7.21.11 @ 10:39AM

Neither Catholics nor Orthodox worship Mary. We REVERE her as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (literally, God bearer).
Any accusation of "Maryolotry" is bogus from the get-go.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:53AM

By the very notion of an immaculate conception you have established her as NOT human for humans are sinful. It is true many Romans, Byzantines and Greeks do not practice worshiping of Mary but their formal theology truly does. She does not sit to act as our intercessor because only one sits for that who is Christ. Protestants understand our grace is imputed not infused over time.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 11:38AM

When I was younger, I always heard that the Catholics "worshiped" Mary. As I got older and had Catholic friends, I found this to be just as untrue as you state it is. They rever her. They do not worship her. To the outside, it is easy to see how these two things look earily similar. But, an honest and good Catholic does not put Mary on par with the Trinity. They do, it seems (and this is where the divide is), put her above other mortals.
If we, as Christians, are ever going to have a converstion across denominational lines, we first have to be honest about what eachother believes. And then realize, that with few exceptions, most of this stuff is not a matter of faith but of theology. And we should remember that Christ calls us to be faithful... not theologians (not to know it, it has it's benifits... but they are all under the benifits of faith).

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:25PM

If one prays to Mary, they're worshipping her.

David T| 7.21.11 @ 1:58PM

Mames--Jesus was Mary's savior, just as he was the savior of all who trust him and obey him. In Mary's case, she was redeemed by "anticipation." The Greek kecharitomene (see "full of grace" in Luke 1:28) is the perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." The perfect tense indicates that Mary had received sanctifying grace before the angel visited her. Catholic doctrine holds that she was saved by the merits of Christ at the moment of her conception. In other words, she was born sinless because she was already saved. God would not allow his Son to be carried in a sin-stained womb.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 4:18PM

Oh but HE did and it was spectacula in spite of it because He is in control.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:34PM

"Catholic doctrine holds that she was saved by the merits of Christ at the moment of her conception. In other words, she was born sinless because she was already saved."

Utterly false and unbiblical. Jesus is the only One ever born sinless.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor. 5:21.

And Jesus is the only Mediator appointed by God:

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:23PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:54PM

Ya Might Wanna Take That Big Freakin' Plank Outta Your Own Religious Sect Eye mames.

"Luther's 1543 book, "On the Jews and their lies" took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. Luther wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that "We are at fault in not slaying them" for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. "

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:42PM

Yes he did and later recanted. Others pointed out to him the misguided anger he spewed and he recanted. Luther was a sinful human and took out his anger on Jewish capitalism which they monopolized because so many misguided Christians saw money as "filthy lucre" and left capitalism to the Jews who understood that involvement in trade was not unGodly. Also the Jews did not kill Christ the sins of the world did that. Christ laid down his life for all and the Jews of his day simply provided a platform. but make no mistake SIN killed Christ. Luther went off half cocked on this one and was willing to admit it.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 1:25PM

"Since Jesus was not concieved OF Mary (only IN her), her sin was irrelavent to His blamelessness."

Amen!

As it is written:

"But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.." Mt. 1:20.

Catholics are not "of the Devil", but the doctrines are.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:17PM

Are you suggesting that Christ isn't human? And if he is human, where did he get his humanity from? Marge, you not trying to ressurect some of the ancient heresies? You wouldn't be the first.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 5:54PM

Adam didn't require a mortal conception to be human... his humanity was bestowed upon him by the breath of God.

Jesus does not need to be born OF Mary to be made flesh. Thus, she does not need to be sinless (which she wasn't).

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 8:21PM

JP,

I reread these posts. I see what you were trying to say after all. I didn't see it at first because I wasn't thinking like that, at all. I mean that Jesus wasn't human because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, as you thought I (or Yelo?) was alluding to.

Of course Jesus was human, and born in the flesh, as it is written.

Yelo said that Jesus didn't have to be born of Mary to be made flesh. Well, no He didn't have to be, but He was, it's how God arranged it. He was born in the flesh, and because He was, was tempted by Sin the same way we are, but He chose never to Sin.

"For we have not a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without Sin." Heb. 4:15.

I believe what I was agreeing to in Yelo's post, was the fact that Mary's sinful nature did not affect whether or not Jesus sinned. Her own Sin was her own.
And the Bible says that we all have a Sin nature, that only being regenerated from above can enable us to overcome. (Jn. 3:3).

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:38PM

JP,

Your post is so convoluted, as usual. Are you really actually asking that question, because if you are, you must ask it to the Angel of God that actually spoke that verse, above.

You love reading things in and assigning to me thoughts that are not mine. My point in quoting God's own Words was to show that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:25PM

Strange, Margie, isn't it, that a God let Catholics with their Satan-spawned doctrines be all their was of Christianity FOR CENTURIES.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 4:48PM

Wrong.
Before Catholicism, there were Christians, Jesus being the first fruit.
The cult of Catholicism, along with its apostate teachings, came later.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 1:20AM

YeloStalyn,

"What you are saying is that Mary was, as a non diety, granted access to Heaven without having to accept Christ's grace... as she wouldn't need it."

Our Lady accepted Christ's Grace when she humbly obeyed God by becoming the Mother of God. She had free will, she could have said no.

Maybe this explanation, which I heard recently, will help:

A man, walking in the woods, falls into quicksand. Another man comes and saves him. The man in the quicksand needed a savior. A woman, walking in the same woods, is stopped by the savior, before she can fall into the quicksand.

Both the man and the woman needed the Savior. The woman (Mary) was stopped before she could fall into the quicksand (sin.) She was protected from falling. She still needed the Savior just as much as the man, who fell, does. As much any person needs Him.

The Catholic Church also teaches that John the Baptist had his original sin washed away when he lept in Elizabeth's womb, and, therefore, was born without original sin.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 10:03AM

It makes more sense... but still doesn't mesh with what the entire rest of the Bible says about all men... that we are all sinners by nature (original sin).

And, again, if Mary... or John now that you bring him into it, were born without sin, they could have served as the sacrifice instead of Jesus, negating the necessity of Him becomming flesh.

David T| 7.22.11 @ 10:30AM

YeloStalyn--You are forgetting one very important detail. Mary and St. John were not divine. Jesus was the God-Man who suffered and died--once for all--for our sins. If He were not God, we'd still be offering lambs as our sacrifice.

As for your point above that Jesus did not need to be born of a woman: Remember that the Church disputed the nature of Christ for four centuries until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which proclaimed the two natures of Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." Had Jesus been translated to this earth in human form, or somehow put here in the manner of Adam, we'd still be arguing whether Christ was human or divine.

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:41PM

Jesus' need not be OF Mary's flesh to be human. He was concieved, created, as human IN her. Just as Adam had no earthly mother, but was fully human by God's own making.

And Jesus' godly nature allowed Him to conquer death and arise again. But it was His sinless nature that allowed Him to be our sacrifice. He is the ONLY person to have been sinless. If He were not, then He wouldn't be the only one able to serve as that sacrifice (the others would have stayed dead... it's a matter of justice, not divinity). What that means is that Mary and John are mortal humans, sinful and fallen, just like you and me. They, we trust with good reason, were saved through their faith in Christ as the Son of God and their Savior. Just like we have to. There is nothing indicating that they were any less mortal and flawed as us. They may have been better than most of us (if not all) but still, compared to the righteousness that is God, were fallen sinners.

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:50PM

YeloStalyn,

You and the rest of the TAS Christian contigent might as well give up on your unending warfare with one another. You're like the Rutans and the Sontarans on Doctor Who.

There is no way to settle this argument because it stems form the very different religious values of Catholics and Protestants. To sum it up in botanical metaphor, Protestants view doctrine as properly growing like a bamboo grove, with the soil always being the Bible -- the culural artifact that functions as their highest religious authority. For Catholics, doctine should grow like on oak -- with the Church and its history as the only trunk. (And yes, you guessed it, the Church is itself the highest religious authority for Catholics.)

Since these views are incompatible and cannot be proven right or wrong based on any evidence, no solution to the argument is possible. So why bother? And more to the point, why waste space on the Specator's site with it?

And yes, I know that Protestants and Catholics are likely to object that God is their highest religious authority. But on that I call bullshit. God isn't dictating their various doctrines to them.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 9:53PM

"God isn't dictating their various doctrines to them."

The Bible IS the doctrine of God.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 8:08PM

YeloStalyn,

By all means, I was not trying to change your mind. I was just trying to show that Catholics do believe that Our Lady did indeed need a Savior, as all men do.

You have admitted that Christ could have assumed His human nature any way He wanted. So, there must have been a reason God chose Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered." - Book of Revelation 11: 19 - 12: 2

The Archangel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit. Also, the Messiah had to be of the bloodline of King David. So, if Christ just manifested Himself in Mary's womb, He wouldn't have been of the Davidic line, would He?

Lastly, Gabriel most likely greeted Mary in Hebrew, with a form of the name of Eve (cha-va, i.e., living. As in Mother of the Living.) "Hail Mary" would then be rendered as Cha-ve Miriam. Cha-ve, i.e., live, as in long live the queen. This is another example of the Virgin Mary as the Second Eve. Eve was created without sin, so why wouldn't Mary also have been?

Gabriel also stated that Mary was "full of grace." This implies that she could not receive any more grace, as she was already full.

I hope this is helpful in seeing the Catholic perspective, YeloStalyn.
God Bless!

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 9:12PM

"Gabriel also stated that Mary was "full of grace." This implies that she could not receive any more grace, as she was already full."

Nick, I just had to chuckle when I read this. If this were the case, then the Bible would be untrue.

"..And from His fulness have we all received, grace upon grace." Jn. 1:16.

How do you know when He stops giving His Grace, or that it can be even measured?
We do not.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 11:50PM

Margie,

In your opinion, what did the Archangel Gabriel mean when he said "full of grace"?

God's Grace is limitless. It is all of us who reject His Graces, constantly.

The Virgin Mary never rejected any of His Graces. Because God created her without original sin, so that she could be the New Ark of the New Covenant.

I hope that better explains the Church's teaching.
God Bless!

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 4:10PM

Nick,

Nowhere in the Bible (God's own Words) does it tell us that Mary was "created without Sin."

Try and cite where He says this!

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 8:01PM

Margie,

"Nowhere in the Bible (God's own Words) does it tell us that Mary was 'created without Sin.'"

Show me where in the Bible it says we are forbidden to baptize infants?

As I previously stated, I believe that the Archangel Gabriel's words "full of grace" imply that Our Lady was without sin. As the New Ark of the New Covenant, Mary would have been perfect, as the old Ark tried to be.

The Bible doesn't tell us who wrote the Gospels, either, remember? You do believe it was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, don't you? Why? The Bible doesn't tell you who wrote them. Or, the Letter to the Hebrews, for that matter.

God Bless!

p.s. I almost forgot. I did finally respond to your comment, where you asked why I hadn't answered you, in that other thread. Again, I'm sorry I missed it. You'll have to scroll up a little bit. Me and Rich D. had a few comments after I posted. Here is the link:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_574092

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 7:57PM

"Our Lady accepted Christ's Grace when she humbly obeyed God by becoming the Mother of God. She had free will, she could have said no."

Actually Nick, the Bible says that God had already found favor with her, and that is why He chose her.

"And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His Name Jesus." Lk. 1:30 & 31.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 8:06PM

Nick, I love you as a brother, but this is completely unbiblical:

"The Catholic Church also teaches that John the Baptist had his original sin washed away when he lept in Elizabeth's womb, and, therefore, was born without original sin."

The Catholic church may teach it, but it isn't the truth.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that John the Baptist was born without the sin nature that we are all born with.
Even Jesus had a Sin nature, since He was born in the flesh, but chose not to sin. He's the only one ever in the history of Man not to, and it's the whole reason He was able to become the Sacrificial Lamb.

"For we have not a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without Sin." Heb. 4:15.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 8:14PM

Margie,

But, the question was whether, or not, Our Lady was created without original sin. She was not.

John the Baptist was created with the stain of original sin on his soul. It was washed away when he "lept in [Elizabeth's] womb" when he was in the presence of Christ.

Catholics agree that Christ had the human nature to be tempted, but, are you claiming that He had the stain of original sin on His Soul?

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 8:48PM

Catholicism teaches what you are saying, but the Bible teaches otherwise.

"..since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Rom. 3:23.

As always, when God says all, He means all, contrary to Catholicism's teaching.

And again, as to John the Baptist, what you say is completely unbiblical.
It does not say anywhere in the Bible that his sin was removed when he leapt in the womb.

It does say that he leapt for joy, that's it.

As to Jesus and the fact that the Bible says He was in the flesh, therefore tempted in every way as we are? Well, that is what it says.
(See above, Heb. 4:15).

"For the law being powerless, in that it
was weak through the flesh, God sending
His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and concerning sin, condemned sin in the
flesh.." Rom. 8:3.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 11:41PM

Margie,

I love you like a sister, but (monkey!), I believe you are being selective as to which teachings of God, according to Scripture, you are obeying:

"Then Jesus said to them: 'Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever.'" - John 6: 53-58

Now, I know that you believe that Christ meant this figuratively, but, to paraphrase you, when Jesus says "you must eat My flesh and drink My blood," He means that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood, contrary to what most non-Catholics teach.

So, you may use Saint Paul's words, inspired by the Holy Spirit, as a proof-text to imply that he was giving a teaching about the Virgin Mary being conceived with original sin (even though she is not mentioned.)

But, I may believe that Paul was speaking generally, or figuratively, even though he didn't specifically add a disclaimer, in Romans 3, that "all" didn't include Our Lady, and still remain Biblical. Just as you do, with John 6.

You see, we both believe that the Scriptures are literal in some places, and, figurative in others. We just disagree about which ones.

God Bless!

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 2:11AM

"This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead."

Exactly. Manna was physical food, and physical men still had to die.

He is specifically stating that He is NOT referring to eating physically.

It could not be more clear.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 2:56AM

Margie,

"He is specifically stating that He is NOT referring to eating physically."

If Christ is "specifically stating" this, then why did He say that "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"? Why does He say that you must eat His flesh SIX times, from v. 51 to v. 58?

It was the Jews who said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v. 52) They took Christ literally, and did not believe Him. Did Christ say to the Jews, "No, don't take me literally." No, He did not.

He had several chances to clarify, but refused. Even when His disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (v. 60) Did Christ say to them, "I don't mean physically"? No, He did not.

And, when the many disciples abandoned Him (v. 66), did He try to get them back by repeating "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate and died." No, He did not.

If "[i]t could not be more clear," as you state, why did Christ let His followers leave?

Also, why do Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans have teachings, although not the same, that the Eucharist is actually Christ's Body and Blood, if it is so clear?

Boy, I sure went off on a tangent, didn't I? I only used John 6 as an example of how we both see the same Scripture through different eyes. You see it figuratively, while I see it literally, based on what Christ said.

Just as you see Romans 3 literally, while I see Paul's words as a generalization, as he was not teaching about Our Lady.
God Bless!

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 4:04PM

"If Christ is "specifically stating" this, then why did He say that "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"? Why does He say that you must eat His flesh SIX times, from v. 51 to v. 58?"

Well then, if you want to take this literally, you are free to believe a lie.
You would also be committing cannibalism, and promoting the perversion that Christ comes bodily out of heaven for you to eat Him every time you partake in Communion!

You would also have to believe, if you choose to take it literally, that you are eating the New Covenant as well, when He says this:

"And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood." Lk. 22:20.

You've been utterly hoodwinked, Nick.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 4:08PM

Also Nick,

When Jesus says "I am the Bread of Life" in Jn. 6:35, are you willing to say that He walks around as a loaf of bread?

Yet you do not see how utterly preposterous this is?

The truth is that Jesus died on the cross to set us free from Religion like this, that you follow.
Such perversions of God's Word!

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 7:46PM

Margie,

"Well then, if you want to take this literally, you are free to believe a lie."

Couldn't I say the same to you, regarding Romans 3: 23?

Also, it is not cannibalism, because it is not Christ's earthly, human body that we eat. It is His resurrected Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that we consume. So, yes, we eat the "New Covenant", Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist.

Again, it was the Jews that said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat." Christ didn't correct them by saying, "I mean this symbolically." And, it was Judas who was the first to refuse to believe in Transubstantiation. (See John 6: 70-71)

God Bless!

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 1:44AM

Margie,

"As to Jesus and the fact that the Bible says He was in the flesh, therefore tempted in every way as we are? Well, that is what it says.
(See above, Heb. 4:15)."

Being tempted is not a sin. Saint Paul, in Hebrews 4, says that Christ was sinless.

I'm still confused. Are you saying that Christ was created with sin on His Soul, or a sinful nature, or original sin, or whatever you would like to call it, like all men since Adam and Eve?

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 2:06AM

Nick,

I didn't say temptation was sin, and neither does the Bible.
I quoted what the Bible actually says, above. It says in Romans 8:3 that God sent Him, Jesus, "in the likeness of sinful flesh".. I don't know how that can be read any other way but what it actually says.

It says that though He was in the flesh He never committed sin, in Hebrews 4:15.

How is that confusing?

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 3:17AM

Margie,

I'm sorry for my confusion. And, I didn't mean to imply that you claimed temptation was a sin. I couldn't remember if you believed in the concept of original sin, or not.

I guess my confusion originated with this previous statement of yours, from 7.22.11 @ 8:06PM:

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that John the Baptist was born without the sin nature that we are all born with.
Even Jesus had a Sin nature, since He was born in the flesh, but chose not to sin."

What is Christ's "Sin nature"?
Is it the same as the "sin nature that we are all born with." Which I took to be the same as Original Sin, which was a result of Adam and Eve's fall.

Again, I apologize for my confusion, and, not being more clear in my questions.
God Bless!

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 4:00PM

Nick,

The Bible (God's own Words) say that Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh in Rom. 8:3.

The Bible explains what that is in Eph. 4:22, when God refers to the old nature,

"Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts.."

In the original Greek it says (adding vs. 23 & 24 to show the rest).

"..for you to put off the old man, as regards
the former behavior, the one being
corrupted according to the deceitful lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your
mind, and to put on the new man, the one
being created according to God in righteousness
and holiness of truth." Eph. 4:22-24.

The Bible says Jesus was born in the same sinful flesh we were, so He was tempted as we are, yet He never sinned.

"For we have not a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.

How's that?

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 7:36PM

Margie,

"How's that?"

Still a little vague, to me, at least.

"The Bible (God's own Words) say that Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh in Rom. 8:3."

Yes, but what does that mean to you, "born in the likeness of sinful flesh"?

"..for you to put off the old man [...]."

So, Christ's "Sin nature" is the "old man" that we must "put off"?

Are you trying not to sound like the doctrine of Original Sin? Don't worry, I'm not trying to have a "Gotcha" moment. I'm just trying to understand your terminology.

I'm sorry that I'm having such a hard time understanding what you're saying. Sometimes, it's like busting through a brick wall, to get me to comprehend something.
God Bless!

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:56PM

You are one step away from an ancient heresy. Where did Jesus get His human flesh and nature from if not the Blessed Virgin? Or are you in that camp of heretics who declare that the humanity of Jesus was not really real, but just an illusion for the sake of mankind?

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:45PM

Where did Adam get his humanity? By the hand of God Himself. I trust that He didn't forget how to make us when He formed the human Christ. We accept that He created out of the ether (for lack of a better term) the male input needed to form a full child to mix with Mary's female flesh to form the baby. Why, then, could he not also form the female side as well, and simply use Mary as a surrogate? Nothing about that takes away from how great and blessed Mary was. But it does show there's not a necissity for her to be one of three people who ever lived sinless (counter to all other accounts in the Bible where Christ was the only one who did this).

David T| 7.22.11 @ 3:19PM

What you are suggesting is heresy. As the Apostles' Creed says, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Mary was not a surrogate mother. Jesus was not some alien seed that was planted in Mary's womb and incubated there for nine months. God did not "give" Jesus a human nature. Jesus assumed his human nature from his mother Mary, who was saved from the taint of original sin at her immaculate conception. To make Mary less than what the Catholic Church teaches is to make Jesus less than what he was: our Savior, as perfect in his humanity as he was in his deity.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 12:07PM

The "immaculate conception" is yet another made-up Catholic doctrine.

The evidence backing up the claim that Mary was "sinless" is non-existent. It's not based on any facts whatsoever, it's merely assumed.

In fact, we really don't know that much about Mary at all.

Was she special? It's nice to assume that she was, since God chose her to raise His Son. And there's nothing in scripture to suggest that she wasn't a decent and righteous woman.

But maybe that's the point? Maybe by bringing His Son to earth in the body of a decent, humble, ordinary woman - as opposed to one with some magical "sinless" force - God was telling us that he loves us all, and that we can ALL be saved?

Just a thought...

Additionally, if one explores the rationale behind the perceived need for Mary to be "sinless" and for her womb - a simple, bodily organ, really - to be "pure and stainless", one will find more than a little bit of misogyny.

What a shock...

canuckistani| 7.21.11 @ 1:24PM

"The evidence backing up the claim that Mary was "sinless" is non-existent. It's not based on any facts whatsoever, it's merely assumed."

As opposed to everything else that is derived from faith as fact?

Witnessing one group trying to substantiate their mysticisms versus another's is childish and has caused enormous pain and suffering for thousands of years.

Facts? The Roman Catholic church is the only link to Saint Peter that has been unbroken. Matthew 16:17-20

Facts: The traditonal protestant churches are dead or dying. The evangelical churches are beginning to collapse under their audacity and alignment with false idols, like the admissions of gay clergy, lessening the word "sin" and turning a blind eye to spectacularly evil actors like Hagee and Bickle. One could see the return of the Universal Church.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:34PM

"As opposed to everything else that is derived from faith as fact?"

Ummm...Yes.

FACT:

The Bible is the most thoroughly researched and scrutinized document from antiquity that exists, Craplakistani. It is consequently the MOST fact-checked historical document from that period, and those facts stand-up to scrutiny...unlike other religions who claim that the basis of their entire faith is a miracle, and brutally punish (including death) anyone who questions it.

People have been trying to disprove the TRUTH found in the Bible for over 2,000 years, and not one has succeeded. And many of them were far smarter and more savvy than you.

Here's a question for you:

Was there a Roman Empire?

If you answer "yes", please explain why you believe that.

Go ahead...I'm dying to see the answer...

David C| 7.22.11 @ 4:04PM

"The Bible is the most thoroughly researched and scrutinized document from antiquity that exists, Craplakistani. It is consequently the MOST fact-checked historical document from that period, and those facts stand-up to scrutiny...unlike other religions who claim that the basis of their entire faith is a miracle, and brutally punish (including death) anyone who questions it."

Okay, high-and-mighty Doctor Right. While you're waiting for answers from canuckistani perhaps you can answer this about the most verified bit of writing from antiquity: Where is the evidence that the dead came back to life and walked out of their tombs all over Jerusalem -- as the Bible claims happened on the day Jesus supposedly walked out of his tomb?

Come on, oh mighty physician of truth, tell us how this is verified history as opposed to a miraculous claim that the faithful are supposed to just accept?

We are all dying to get your answer, so don't keep us waiting.

Doctor Right| 7.22.11 @ 5:40PM

I'd be happy to explain it, but it would be a long answer, and it would probably be wasted on you.

As the Bible says, "Only the fools believes in his heart that there is no God."

Once one posits the obvious existence of God (look around you...and if you see nothing but cold, random evolution, then your scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate), then there are no limits to his mastery over the physical realm.

In other words, God created the entire universe...and you actually think it would be hard for him to make the dead rise???

Additionally, you need to understand what the Bible says, as well as a little bit of history, and then ask yourself if men would willingly die for something they knew was a lie??

Only one of the Apostles (John?) died a natural death. Many of them were put to death in horrible ways, including having the skin flayed from his body...for a lie??? Hardly...

Those men were willing to suffer because they believed in what they were doing AND because they knew and saw Christ personally, and were witnesses to His life and His miracles. That witnessing helped them endure the unendurable.

And in doing so, those 12 men (plus Paul, of course, who came after the Resurrection) changed the course of the entire world.

So again...once you understand that God created the Universe, and that His son was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and was resurrected and now exists in heaven...

...Then asking how some dead folks came back to life seems a tad underwhelming.

So YES...Again...

The Bible is the most thoroughly researched and scrutinized document from antiquity that exists. It is consequently the MOST fact-checked historical document from that period, and those facts stand-up to scrutiny...unlike other religions who claim that the basis of their entire faith is a miracle, and brutally punish (including death) anyone who questions it.

Don't like the answer? Then don't ask the question.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 11:06PM

Excellent defense of the Faith, Doctor Right. Well done.

By the way, did you notice that you made an appeal to tradition (the Apostle's painful deaths) when you made this defense?

Again, great job. I mean this sincerely.
God Bless!

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:57PM

"As opposed to everything else that is derived from faith as fact?

"Witnessing one group trying to substantiate their mysticisms versus another's is childish and has caused enormous pain and suffering for thousands of years."

You were on the right track with the first paragraph, canuckistani, but strayed badly on the second.

A mysticism is based on actual sprititual experience. We cannot fairly call an argument over the meaning of a centuries-old story to be a mysticism.

What is happening here on the Spectator's comment board (as usual when religion is mentioned) is argument over religious dogma. No discussion about one mystic's experience as opposed to another is occuring.

Dan Mathewson| 7.21.11 @ 1:38PM

Well, if we take the argument that we are created in th Image and Likeness of God, and God being All Powerfull, then I believe that God when He created Mary, knowing that she would carry Him in the womb, He in His infinite Wisdom kept her free from sin.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 2:49PM

If God were willing to make man sinless... which you imply He did with Mary... why not make all men sinless as His will is that none should parish? If God is both just and consistant, why should all men, save one, parish without accepting Jesus? And why do we need Jesus when Mary also died sinless and blameless? THAT is what is most important about Jesus... not that He is of God (which is important, don't get me wrong) but that He was blameless and therefore able to stand in our stead in judgement. If Mary meets the same criteria... Jesus serves no purpose.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 3:24PM

Where did you get the idea that God "made men sinless"??

He did NO such thing.

At the cross, Christ atoned for all of our sins. Through faith in Christ, we can all be saved.

That is NOT the same thing as "making men sinless".

No one is sinless.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 5:56PM

Dr. Right... was your comment directed at me? If so, I would suggest re-reading what I posted and you would find we agree whole heartedly.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:24PM

There was a simple question that bothered Catholic theologians since the 1st Century. If Christ was blameless, not tainted by sin, and if God is perfection, how could God allow His Son to be put into a sinful vessel (ie a human)? If God is the same God who demanded perfection in the construction of his Ark (no human hands outside the high priest could touch it lest they die), and His Temple, why would he allow His Son to be put into one (Jewish theologians made this point during the early Middle Ages)?

If Mary was marked with Sin, then why would God chose her? Her blood became Christ's blood, for Christ would draw His Humanity from her and her alone.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 5:59PM

Where did Adam get his humanity? His mom? Didn't think so.

Plus, Jesus' body is his vessel... it is blameless. Mary is not. She simply birthed Him, in His vessel of His perfect human self, into the world. Her blood is not necissary for Him to be. To say that he needs her mortal being to become flesh but DOESN'T need that of His earthly fathers is to pick and choose which part of psysiology you want to apply to a miracle so that it fits your idea of Mary being sinless. It's much more believable, consistant, and scripturally sound to accept that His entire being was created by God and simply placed in her womb. To say that he can't touch her because she has sin, therefore she must be sinless, is saying He couldn't shake someone's hand either... after all... He would be touching the sinful.

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 6:52PM

acording to the gospel of mark, jesus was just a carpenter who went to john the babtist at the jordan river, where the in the form of a whitre dove spirit of god possessed him and led him about contesting with unclean spirits for a while until he ended up on a cross, and "gave up the spirit"

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:48PM

"If Christ was blameless, not tainted by sin, and if God is perfection, how could God allow His Son to be put into a sinful vessel (ie a human)?"

JP,

You actually don't know why? Sorely you must be born anew, and then you will have eyes to see.

Jesus became the Sacrificial Lamb and took on the Sin of the World, so that we could see Heaven.

Jn. 3:16.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:49PM

Sorry, meant to say surely, not sorely.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 11:01PM

"If Mary was marked with Sin, then why would God chose her?"

Why does He choose any of us?

Love, pure love, JP.

Jn. 3:16.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 10:39AM

"...it would be helpful to point out that the Pope's infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morality when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra."

This is nothing but a TOTAL rationalization put forth by Catholics to justify this absurd doctrine.

Other than matters of "faith and morality", what else is a Pope SUPPOSED to talk about???

I don't think anyone cares much about his opinions on the weather, or whether the Yankees can win another series this year.

And if Popes are infallible when speaking on matters of "faith and morality", then WHY do they so often throughout history change course from one Pope to the next???

Anytime this is pointed out, Catholics reflexively use the "faith and morality" clause to try and explain away the inconsistencies.

Seriously...you have to tie yourself in knots and check logic at the door to believe this stuff.

Dan Mathewson| 7.21.11 @ 1:41PM

What examples do you have of successive popes changing course. When it comes to teaching the Truths of the faith they have been consistent from St.Peter to Pope Benedict XVI.

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:58PM

Why have you not responded to the challenge. Show us one change that was made in doctrine, reversing something that the Church previously taught as de fide teaching (doctrine to be obeyed by all the faithful).

As a Protestant, I found no "inconsistencies". They were all in the chaos called Protestantism.

So I converted.

Steve B | 7.21.11 @ 7:56AM

We've had indications recently that the hard left is entirely willing to employ, not only lies, slander, etc but physical thugishness.

Interesting times we live in, no?

Walking Horse| 7.21.11 @ 8:41AM

This tactic has been widely employed in the past. The only substantive difference here is that a lot of the thugs wear purple shirts.

TennesseeVolunteer| 7.21.11 @ 8:28AM

Rush has been right about this. They attack the people they fear the most.
Bachmann and Alan West seem to be getting a lot of attention from the MSM and character assassins like Wasserman-Schultz.
I love it because we then know who they really don't want. Of course, when Sarah and Perry declare, all hell will break loose...should be fun!

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 1:00PM

I don't mind Sara and Perry declaring, as long as they declare that they will no longer declare war upon innocent nations for the sake of the military/industrial complex and the promotion of the Capitalist Empire.

Ryan| 7.21.11 @ 8:29AM

What are the papal views of that specific Lutheran church? I didn't see anything highly outspoken on their website, so I'm not sure if they're somehow outspoken anti-Catholics or if the original article simply fuses standard Lutheran positions on Catholicism with Bachmann.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 8:39AM

"Bachmann has been called upon to answer for her Church’s philosophy in the past, including during her run for Representative in 2006. She said at the time, “It’s abhorrent, it’s religious bigotry. I love Catholics. I’m a Christian, and my church does not believe that the pope is the antichrist, that’s absolutely false.”

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:14AM

Sorry but the Lutheran confession clearly teach that Roman theology is anti christian, not necessarily THE anti Christ which is a figment of millenialist doctrine. Apparently she is not familiar with Luther's treatise on the pope. This only confirms my view that she left to go to a heterodox church far too easily. I like her political stance but would never go to her for doctrinal guidance.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 11:40AM

Good thing she's running for POTUS and not POPE then, huh?

I think we need to remember that. It's only few and far between (Obama being one) where one's church history has any real merit in the public debate of politics.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 1:29PM

Christians do not have to belong to ANY denominational church to serve God.

It's Christ we are serving, not doctrine.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:36PM

Clint serves Men in Funny Hats...

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:17PM

Dr.Reich Services Goats In Funny Hats...

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 10:55PM

..who serve the Prince of Darkness.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:57PM

We need to stop worrying about doctrine when talking politics. This is why I don't care if someone believes Jews go to hell - as long as they don't try to stop me or help me get there. I don't want my rabbi to be censored; why should I censor a priest or minister? In the public square -that's where we should avoid attacking each other's religion. In a religious environment, as long as it doesn't lead to violence, the sky's the limit (at least).

It's only the religious left, all of whom basically believe the same thing, who try to force their doctrines of "everybody has the truth" on everyone.

No more heresy trials!

RJ| 7.21.11 @ 8:32AM

Obama-Mao is doing just fine in destroying the "Imperialist USA" via a number of ways. He has no other game plan, period! The most important question (for me) is: When might the majority of voting Americans wake up to this intended destruction? I have my doubting fears. This metrosexual's Praetorian Guard...our major media outlets, do their very best to protect him and to promote his goals, while the democratic party sings in chorus his praises and follows his orders at every chance. There are too many RINOs in the republican party for "dramatic" confrontations and realistic policy changes at this time.

A long road ahead awaits us...the new American Debt Slaves...Whitey gets his!

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 8:59AM

--Great piece!

BTW, speaking of the LONG engineered moral collapse of the West---

DO CHECK OUT this latest item on youtube:

------------ALAN WATT and Brian Gerrish-----------
(radio interview)

A superb 2 hour interview. SUPERB

Indispensible in this the 11th hour of POST America. Really, truly.

-------------------------------Send it to everyone!

W| 7.21.11 @ 9:06AM

Bachman's view of papal infallibilty on catholic doctrine is not relevant. She believes in a strong defense and reducing taxes and the size of government. She does not believe the government is infallible. Obama and the lefty liberals on this site do believe the government is infallible in that it knows how to run our lives and what is best for us.
The issue here should be the candidates' views on the supposed infallibility of the government and not the Pope. Another distraction.

MOS was 71331| 7.21.11 @ 9:15AM

I believe 0bama would favor papal infallibility if he were made Pope after the death or resignation of the present incumbent.

C Smith| 7.21.11 @ 9:27AM

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Other Holocaust

The image of an endless line before St. Peter’s Basilica this last spring was etched in the minds of those who watched around the world. However, few noticed an adjacent building, now euphemistically called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was previously the infamous Palace of the Inquisition where our “heretical” brothers and sisters clothed in rags, swarming with vermin, but refusing to deny His Word suffered tortures born of the abyss. From this command post , the Popes coordinated the inquisitions of Europe. In a world gone mad with papal interrogation, with believers disenfranchised of worldly possessions and left to wonder in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth, with those refusing to deny Him enduring torment, sword, and flame, or watching those they love endure the same, it was not unreasonable to identify “the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus” as a contemporary fulfillment of Revelation 17.

In 1543, the archbishop of St. Andrews made a visitation into various parts of his diocese, where several persons were informed against … for heresy. … Helen Stark was accused of not having accustomed herself to pray to the Virgin Mary, more especially during the time she was in childbed. On … respective accusations they were all found guilty, and immediately received sentence of death; the four men … to be hanged; James Raveleson to be burnt; and the woman, with her sucking infant, to be put into a sack and drowned. … The martyrs were carried by a great band of armed men (for they feared rebellion in the town except they had their men of war) to the place of execution, which was common to all thieves, and that to make their cause appear more odious to the people. Every one comforting another, and assuring themselves that they should sup together in the Kingdom of Heaven that night, they commended themselves to God, and died constantly in the Lord. The woman desired earnestly to die with her husband, but she was not suffered; yet, following him to the place of execution, she gave him comfort, exhorting him to perseverance and patience for Christ’s sake, and, parting from him with a kiss, said, ‘Husband, rejoice, for we have lived together many joyful days; but this day, in which we must die, ought to be most joyful unto us both, because we must have joy forever; therefore I will not bid you good night, for we shall suddenly meet with joy in the Kingdom of Heaven.’ The woman, after that, was taken to a place to be drowned, and albeit she had a child sucking on her breast, yet this moved nothing in the unmerciful hearts of the enemies. So, after she had commended her children to the neighbors of the town for God’s sake, and the sucking bairn was given to the nurse, she sealed up the truth by her death (John Foxe, William Byron Forbush ed., Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, XV).

The endless line before St. Peter’s Basilica this last spring consisted of many who had “been fooled into thinking that if they take communion they … are saved, if they go to mass they are saved. And my friend, THEY ARE LOST! … But let us never forget that if it could happen at Thyatira it could happen here. Let’s never bring paganism into our midst.” (The Valley Church).

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.com/search?q=helen

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 9:59AM

Uh Oh !

The Usual Anti-Catholic Pavlovian Slobbering Attack Dogs Are In The Building.

"As soon as Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was ousted from power on July 25, 1943, Adolf Hitler began hatching a plan to kidnap Pope Pius XII and plunder the Vatican. Clearly, the Fuehrer thought, the "Jew-loving" pope had encouraged King Victor Emanuel II and some rival fascist leaders to overthrow his Italian puppet.

The following day Hitler called for an urgent meeting of his military leaders. They must liberate Mussolini and return him to power, he cried. And "we must occupy Rome" and "destroy the Vatican's power, capture the pope, and say that we are protecting him." The pope might even have to be killed."

Pope Testiculus II| 7.21.11 @ 10:15AM

Did you ever notice that my buddy Pope John Paul "the Deuce" sounded a lot like Bela Lugosi?

W| 7.21.11 @ 12:33PM

Welcome to the usual Ku Klax Klan members with their usual drivel. With the problems we have,these morons are fixated on the Catholic Church. And the media attacking Bachman on her church membership is hoping to appeal to these KKK members.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 10:54PM

Moron,

That was the subject. Get real.

W| 7.21.11 @ 11:58PM

Mullah Margie, the anti catholic bigot, and sole judge of the bible. Dont you have a KKK rally or cross burning to attend?

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:39AM

Papal Inquisitor without the mind of Christ,

I do not subscribe to the KKK, only to the Word of God, for which you hate me. You would burn me alive, at the stake if only you could be joined by your other Catholic friends here who hate Christians like you do~ for then you could enjoy it the more.

You not only despise the very Word of God, but you despise yourself while doing so. Your hope is to breath your last, and you have no hope after that, but only Hell.

Repent, you liar and promoter of falsehoods, before you have no chance left on this earth.

Your Judge awaits you.. it is Him Whom I serve, not the Pope, or any other man who claims to be God on earth.

W| 7.22.11 @ 8:39AM

You are sick, go see a shrink

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:44PM

Since Jesus is the Great Physician, and came save the sick, I guess you are leaving yourself out?

Too good for Jesus?

W| 7.22.11 @ 7:08PM

You are delusional/paranoid. get help

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 7:53PM

Get smart, get saved.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 10:18AM

Now, The Rest Of The Story.
Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic White Trash Bigot Poseur Smith.

"King Henry VIII is responsible for the deaths of over 70,000 Catholics including hundreds of priests and Bishops.

Queen Elizabeth I , had thousands of Catholics put to death in England. She ordered that Catholic Mary Queen of Scots be executed in 1587. She had thousands more killed in Ireland.

Oliver Cromwell is responsible for starting the English civil war and the subsequent beheading of Catholic King Charles I, and for the killing of thousands of Catholics in that war of 1642-1649.

The Protestant English redcoats were also responsible for confiscating the food from the Irish people and for leaving them only with potatoes which were blighted and unfit to eat. In the mid 19th century this caused the deaths by starvation of an estimated 1-1.5 million Irish Catholics, and the emigration of about 2 million more. It was a case of either leave the country or die of starvation."

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:34PM

Yep, interesting things happen when you mix church & state. I wonder who started that? And which church still does so today? Hmmmm........

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:00PM

Who started that? Every religion since day one. Pontifex Mamximus was originally the title of the Roman emperor.

This is embarrassing. I'm agreeing with Clint about something.

Evanston2| 7.22.11 @ 5:16PM

mzk1, Agreed insofar as every religion except true Christianity mixes church & state. Our Lord established the separation of church & state, and Paul and Peter provided more detail. Clint's examples are from monarchs that learned persecution first hand from "the church" (Henry VIII, Elizabeth), periods where believing Protestants (Cromwell) were evidently totally responsible for the conflict (no, couldn't be the tyrannical ambitions of "the church" or Charles I -- nah!), and total attribution of calamity to religious motives (the potato blight). At least for once Clint actually set forth a thesis and tried to support it with an argument.

Kevin Dunn| 7.22.11 @ 9:04AM

This is filled with errors.
Queen Elizabeth did not kill thousands of English Catholics.

Charles I was not a Catholic.

The Irish potato famine was caused by potato blight, a plant disease accidently imported from America. The English Government shipped food to Ireland but there were many bureaaucratiuc foul-ups as the technology of famine-relief had not been developed and the Irish had no way of preparing the grains they were sent. The English made mistakes during the Irish famine but did try its best

RCV| 7.23.11 @ 10:44PM

That defense of the English government and the famine is pure nonsense. Ireland grew enough food even during the potato famine to feed the population, but the English Corn laws required its export to England.

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 6:56PM

or the murder?

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 12:54AM

C. Smith,

The Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon. Jerusalem was repeatedly referred to as a whore, prostitute, and Babylon in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament books.

"Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns."

The woman, i.e., the whore, is Jerusalem. The scarlet beast with seven heads is the Herodian dynasty. Herod was an Edomite. Edom is Hebrew for red. Herod's line received its power from the Roman emperors, the ten horns.

As far as the seven mountains that the woman sits on, here are the key verses:

"Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

The seven mountains are seven kings. The seven kings are the Herodian kings, starting with Herod the Great. The ten horns are ten kings. The ten kings are the ten Roman emperors, starting with Augustus.

Firs, the Herodians persecuted the Christians. Then the Romans persecuted them. The Herodians also corrupted the Temple worship, in Jerusalem.

Also, Vatican hill is not one of the Seven Hills of Rome. And, Rome did not completely burn down. But, Jerusalem did. The Book of Revelation describes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Just as Christ did in Matthew 24, also known as the Little Apocalypse.

"Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."

Hope this clears up this old calumny against the Catholic Church, C. Smith.
God Bless!

Ryan| 7.22.11 @ 9:54AM

Maybe.

Ascribing definitive examples to Revelation is dicey, at best.

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 8:28PM

Ryan,

Would you then explain how the Catholic Church can be the Whore of Babylon if Vatican hill isn't even one of the Seven Hills of Rome?

Or, how this prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in A.D. 70? When the third verse of chapter one states:

"Blessed is he that reads and hears the words of this prophecy: and keeps those things which are written in it. For the time is at hand." - Book of Revelation 1: 3

The Book of Revelation also ends with Christ stating:

"He that gives testimony of these things, says: Surely, I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." - Rev. 22: 20

I am not claiming these are definitive, Saint John did, when he said these events were at hand. Just as Christ had predicted in Matthew 24.

patroness| 7.21.11 @ 9:31AM

Bachmann believes in that great shining city on the hill in more ways than one:) "You are the light of the world." Godspeed!

David| 7.21.11 @ 9:31AM

I'd rather have Palin

David T| 7.21.11 @ 9:44AM

Mr. Tyrrell--I believe Mrs. Bachmann is forging ahead, not "foraging ahead" (unless, of course, she's trying to get a head start on lunch)

Hillel| 7.21.11 @ 9:51AM

If you recall Barry Goldwater's slogan was "in you're heart you know he's right." At Vatican Two some of the Americans wore Martin Luther T-shirts with the slogan "In your heart you know he's right." The council decided that Lutherans (and by extension-protestants) were separated Bretheran not heretics.

Timothy| 7.21.11 @ 9:55AM

Mr. Terrell, I wouldn't just assume the issue is papal infallibility. I know there are still some Protestants out there who teach that the Pope is an anti-Christ or some such nonsense. As a Catholic, if Bachmann's issue is infallibility, no problem. However, I could never in good conscience vote for someone who thinks the Pope is an anti-Christ. Thank you.

Appleby| 7.21.11 @ 10:02AM

What were the views of JFK, RFK and Teddy-O on papal infallability? They were Catholics, right? Anybody ever ask them what they thought?

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:20AM

Nobody asked because they were too busy out whoring around and generally getting in trouble to be concerned about the "old lady's religion".

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:00PM

Worry about your own religion old lady, mames.

"He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away."

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)"

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:20AM

Nobody asked because they were too busy out whoring around and generally getting in trouble to be concerned about the "old lady's religion".

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:02PM

Ya already said that.

Ya must be gettin' old, lady.

Delta Zelda| 7.21.11 @ 1:03PM

They were all too busy being adulterers and a murderer to burden their brains with anything that serious.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 9:57AM

"Do you understand you've now had generations
of young women trained to destroy their offspring?
Do you understand what that means?
--What that's done to your society? --What it will
do? ---What this means?"
-ALAN WATT

----------------------------DO YOU?

Appleby| 7.21.11 @ 10:04AM

Do you understand that there are two generations of young men who think that sex and pregnancy have nothing to do with each other -- that if a woman gets pregnant it's "her problem"? That in fact, two generations of young males believe that NOTHING is their fault, their doing, or their problem?

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:02PM

So? Whom do you think are the primary advocates of abortion?

41% illegitamacy. THAT's scary.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 10:05AM

"Papal infallibility"!

What a neat-o concept! Total, absolute fiction...But clever, nonetheless.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 10:27AM

Uh Oh !
Now, American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich Is In The Building Too.
Our Tea Party Presidential Candidate Michele Disavows Your Personal Anti-Catholic Bigotry, Punk.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates

Carpe Diem.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 10:29AM

...Like a moth to flame...

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 11:01AM

Nut Bag Anti-Catholic Dr. Reich's Opinion Is Poop From The Horse's Ass Himself.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 12:09PM

..Still obsessed with the lower regions of the alimentary canal, eh, Clinton?

Purple Lips| 7.21.11 @ 12:39PM

Actually, Martin Luther had a serious anal fixation. Look it up!

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:37PM

Are you claiming that Luther was gay, or exceedingly meticulous?

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:36PM

Yes, and is this why certain Lips are Purple?

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:05PM

Apparently, You're Still A Faggot, Dr.Reich.

As Well As A Worldclass Horse's Ass.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 10:13AM

Folks who get all bent out of shape when the phrase "anti-Christ" is associated with the Papacy need to stop watching re-runs of "The Exorcist" on late-night TV.

"Anti-Christ" does NOT by design mean the reincarnation of Satan himself (or his son from "Rosemary's Baby") walking the earth and spreading evil.

It means, literally, one that practices and spreads doctrine that is in opposition to that which Christ taught, and which is available to use through ONLY ONE source: The Bible.

Much of Catholic Doctrine - take "Papal Infallibility", for example - is in opposition to scripture, and completely without justification except in the minds of the men who created it for their own purposes.

The term "anti-Christ" has become associated with demons, goblins, ghouls, and Gregory Peck since the 60's and 70's, and that's unfortunate, because it dilutes the meaning and intent of the phrase to the point that people get offended by it for all the wrong reasons, and as a result, it loses it's impact.

Then again, maybe the smartest thing Satan ever did was to convince people he really didn't exist...

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:25AM

Exactly! Roman doctrine is anti christian as are the teachings of many other religions. Christianity is narrow and exclusive, only those who trust in Christ will be saved. As Christ said; " I am THE way, THE truth and THE life, no one comes to the Father but through me. Anything else is against Christ and therefore anti Christ.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 12:33PM

Yes, Christ died for the Chosen Few. I suppose Heaven will be kinda lonely with only Dr Right and Marge occupying it. My only problem is why did Chirst die in order to only save a handful of people from the US 2000 years after his ressurection?

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:41PM

Christ died to save ALL people.

2,000 years has nothing to do with it. In fact, it's quite irrelevant.

To the Lord "A day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years is like a day."

As to your insinuation that somehow I'll be the only one in Heaven (with Marge), I'm not sure where you got that idea.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:13PM

But that isn't what mames said. Only a Chosen Few will get there. And I'm assuming he believes he is one of the Chosen. Since most Christians today (of the American Fundementalist or litteralist kind) have serious bones to pick with ealrier confessions, we can assume those people (Lutherans, Calvinists, AnaBaptists, Hugeonots, Quakers, Puritans, Presbyterians, etc..) are in the same boat as the RCs. Therefore only a small elite group of Christians who possess gnostic insider info get in...

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 7:22PM

not to mention the nestorians, arianists, monadists, albagenses, gnostics

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:06PM

"For many are called, but few are chosen." Mt. 22:14.

It is the Word of God.

Each one has to examine him or her self to see whether they are holding to the faith.. and I wish you would quit trying to make me out to be something that I'm not.

I know I'm not worthy of God's mercy and Grace, and yet He still shows me His love.
I hope you make it to Heaven, JP. I hope everyone does, but Jesus tells us that the way is narrow and hard that leads to Life, and those that find it are few. (Mt. 7:14).

Yet, Jesus provides the Way, and when we choose to obey His Words, He promises to save us.. the Bible is filed with His blessed promises.. to those who seek Him~ His way.

Doctrines matter. And I only ever wanted to show the actual Words of God here. They do not agree with Catholicism, and that's just a fact.

Jesus says that unless we are faithful to His Word, then we can't be faithful to God.

I don't hate anyone~ but I do hate false doctrine. You can say what you wish, but God knows my heart.

Christians are called to denounce false doctrine whenever we see it, and take no part in it. And for that we receive scorn and rejection. That's OK~ I know Whom I serve.

Ryan| 7.22.11 @ 10:02AM

Actually, there's an interesting point to be made here about the promise made to Abraham about the number of his children. Certainly there is a limited number, but that "few" is going to include a whole lot more than we realize. We will be surprised at who is in heaven...and who isn't.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 7:49PM

So true. When you try and think about the myriad of people that have ever existed on the face of the earth, "few" looks to be "many", but still, He does say few.. so in relation to the myriad, it must be few, and is few in His eyes.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:45PM

not what I said at all. Those who trust in Christ are saved many reject Him even though He desires their salvation.

Dan Mathewson| 7.21.11 @ 1:50PM

Reminds me of the joke; The pope dies and goes to heaven where he is greeted by Jesus. Jesus is showing the pope around pointing out the many mansions and the streets paved with gold. Eventually they come upon a wall that stretches as far as the eye can see. The pope asks, "Lord, I thought that in heaven you can go where ever one wants. Why is this wall here." To which Jesus replies, "Shh, it's for the Seventh Day Adventists. They think they're the only ones here."

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 10:33AM

HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-...um, what? Oh yeah...

HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!

...Clint! (snort...giggle...bazzzzzzisssttt!!!!!)

HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 10:54AM

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

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

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 12:11PM

You're tasking those quotes COMPLETELY out of context.

That's because like most Catholics, you've never been tasked with critically reading and studying scripture.

And that's because Father O-Flaherty, when he isn't half-in-the-bag, doesn't want you to study scripture, or you might see the inherent contradictions to Catholic Doctrine.

...Sorry 'bout all the big words...

Purple Lips| 7.21.11 @ 12:41PM

Contexts? Protestants believe in the actual, uncontextual, litteralness of scriptures. But, really who cares? There are currently hundreds of thousands of Protestant inperpretations of the Canon. The RCC has one.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:46PM

True and untrue.

Jesus often spoke in parables. These parables most certainly had a context.

Context also applies to original language(s) used to write the books of the Bible, be it Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc. One must apply caution when interpreting those words to ensure their proper context.

The Bible used by many RCC congregations is NOT drastically different from the one used by other denominations, or the Church that I attend (with the major exception of the Apocrypha, which Catholics believe belongs in the Canon, while others do not).

The problem is that Catholics read a passage and deduce a meaning from it that is often:

1. Totally different from what it actually means
2. Contradictory to other passages
3. Incomplete (meaning they don't look at what comes before that passage, or what comes after it, to add clarity)

In short...that's called "CONTEXT".

Hope that helps.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:09PM

Read the official Catholic Concordance and Commentary. It contains tens of thousands of footnoted pages with full biblography. Then get back.

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:41PM

JP, how many Catholics read the Bible for guidance? That's what the Magisterium is for, right? So you can endlessly point to documents regarding "what Catholics believe" and those of us who grew up in "the Church" know what they really believe: Bible optional. Salvation through sacrament and works. Keep your membership card handy for when St. Peter checks it at The Gates.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 3:53PM

Actually the subject "upon this Rock" refers to Peter's confession not Peter himself. In other words Christ would build his church upon the Rock confessed by Peter which is Christ himself.

RCV| 7.21.11 @ 7:14PM

...now that's a stretch interpretation if ever I've heard one.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:46PM

no just a direct understanding of the text and basic hermanutics.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 10:57AM

Uh Oh !

The Obsessed Fixated Zany Crazed Conflicted Anti-Catholic White Trash Bigot Dr. Reich Slides Into A Maniacal Laughing Episode.

Attendants !

Bring The Net & A Syringe Of Thorazine For Dr.Reich.

Purple Lips| 7.21.11 @ 12:35PM

Of course we have some 165,000 popes, not just one. I think every Protestant believes his/her pastor is infallible

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:53PM

Where did you get such a bizarre, uninformed, and utterly incorrect idea??

First of all, not all Churches have a "pastor". The one I attend doesn't.

In fact, we don't have a Reverend, or a Priest, or a Monsignor, or a Bishop (although we do have Elders, which is what the word Bishop actually means).

We have a Preacher...But we call him by his first name. We don't call him "Preacher Smith".

And our Elders are not called "Elder Jones" or "Elder Jackson", or whatever. We also call them by their first names, except for the children, who call them "Mr."

And as far as "infallibility" goes...you've got to be kidding me! We have frequent, lengthy discussions (and occasional disagreements) about scripture. Not everyone is on the same page, but at least we do study and discuss it in order to learn...

...Unlike other denominations, where the Clergy tell total falsehoods to the Congregation, and then say "Trust us" with a wink and a smile.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:07PM

If you don't believe what your pastor preaches is infallible, why listen to him? Or do you decide what is true and what isn't by floor vote?

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:45PM

JP, the Bible is actually quite clear. But go ahead, trust in "the holy men of the cloth" to tell you what to do and when, if ever, to think. 2 Tim 4:3 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:44AM

The Bible is infallible, human beings are not. JP knows that.

cuban pete| 7.21.11 @ 4:07PM

I'll check with Keyser Soze.

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:48PM

You haven't got the guts or the intellectual ability to come here

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/index.php

and actually debate with Catholics, do you. Just like your hero, Jack Chick, you make accusations with out any substance so that your mind numbed followers can salivate on their shoes every time you speak. In short, we would hand yer ass to you, from scripture!!!!

Every Catholic teaching is in the scriptures. Thousands of us -- yea, millions of us -- who are converts, have found this to be so.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 1:35AM

Mr. Hara,

From one Catholic to another, would Christ say such things?

We are supposed to defend the Faith. We are not trying to win arguments. Share the Gospel of Christ, with charity.
God Bless!

Edward Hara| 7.26.11 @ 12:58PM

I have very little patience with heretics who have a know it all attitude. If you think Jesus wouldn't talk this way, please read Matthew 23. He did not spare the horses in His rather nasty descriptions of the Pharisees.

Yeah, I could be more polite. But regardless of my language, the fact remains that we get very few people coming into our forum to debate us because most Protestants can't stand the Truth. It defeats them every time.

You remember to pray for me.

Thanks

Evanston2| 7.23.11 @ 4:24PM

Edward, thanks for the link. Regarding Chick publications, I haven't seen anyone here (on this thread) promoting them. Even if someone were, does Chick have the same status as the Council of Trent? Where Protestants have all been anathematized? I've read that Trent, like all Councils, has "ex cathedra" status and since it hasn't been specifically renounced then it still holds, right? Please correct me as necessary. I mention this because while some Protestants may speculate that Roman Catholicism "fits the bill" of the Whore of Babylon, etc. this is hardly a cardinal doctrine. Conversely, ex cathedra teachings are of the highest sort and salvation/sanctification by "the church" (simplified in the concept of "the keys") could hardly be more central to what constitutes Christianity. So returning to the original Bachmann situation, she belonged to a church that rejected Rome and this offends your sensibilities...but you stand with Rome in the notion that God is in your hip pocket. Good luck with that. Needs some 'splainin'. One final note: Chick uses pictures to teach, much like stations of the cross, iconography and other church art. Catholics have pointed out to me that "intellectual ability" (using your words) is unimportant, and so it is, and that literacy is unimportant too because the Magisterium in its wisdom can simplify teachings to the essentials in graphic form, ceremonies and short homilies. Chick is communicating at this same level: I am not endorsing his teachings but for you to object to his methods as unsophisticated ignores the way the vast majority of Catholics worldwide have been instructed throughout history and are to this day.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 7:21PM

Evanston2,

Ex cathedra means from the chair. As in from the chair of Saint Peter.

Church councils cannot make ex cathedra statements. Only the Holy Father can.

A Church council is infallible when the bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Perhaps this is what you meant?

Evanston2| 7.24.11 @ 9:22PM

Nick, yes, I meant "infallible." Thanks for the correction, although I already knew the difference, however slight -- doesn't the Pope endorse the Council results? In that respect you could actually tell me something new, please provide a link if practicable.

Nick| 7.25.11 @ 1:57AM

Evanston2,

I figured that you knew the difference.

I'm not an expert on Church councils. But, I do know that they are not all considered infallible or in communion with the Pope.

The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 360's) was a regional council that was not endorsed by the Holy Father. The list of the Canon of the New Testament, in Canon 60, omits the Book of Revelation. Although, the authenticity of Canon 60 is disputed.

I wish I could be of more help. I can only say that not all Church councils, throughout history, have been infallible, and this is why the Pope would not endorse them. And, that this is different from an ex cathedra statement from the Pope, e.g., the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into Heaven.

It is a very difficult question to answer thoroughly in a blog comment. I'll do some research to see if I can find a link that will better explain this subject. Or, ask Stuart Koehl, the next time you run across him, I'm sure he knows.

Sorry I couldn't answer your question fully.
God Bless!

p.s. I also forgot to apologize for any acrimony I caused in any of our previous discussions. This was my fault, entirely. Please forgive me.

Petronius| 7.21.11 @ 10:15AM

When Obama departs this life, he'll spit in St Peter's face, break the pearly gates off their hinges, attack the celestial throne and excoriate the Almighty thus. "Hey cracka! Get outa MY seat!!"
A candidate's religion has always been a factor for voters to consider. But the Liberal sees God in himself: the State, His Church, and Government, His Sacrament. He also has only One Commandment. I am God. All others will be kept separate.
The persecutions have only just begun. Ask the Branch Dividians. They'll tell you.

David W| 7.21.11 @ 10:22AM

I will love to watch Chris Mathews or one of the others grill Ms. Bachmann on her previous church membership. Then she can call out the MSM for being absolute hyprocrits for not doing the same for Obama.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:26AM

amen

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 7:41PM

Amen - and the only point that matters in this whole ridiculous discussion everyone is having here! The harm being done to ourselves is alarming -- discuss politics, not religion! All these denominations have one root - the Bible. Read it yourselves and follow its dictates. And remember that Christ said to love one another - the most difficult of all commandments! We are sure proving it today...

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:13PM

Love is telling the truth to the wandering lost, so that they might hear the Words of God, and believe.

Vern Crisler | 7.21.11 @ 10:36AM

Do we have to say it again? The Constitution is a check on the FEDERAL government. The FEDERAL government cannot make a law regarding an establishment of religion. What people do in the voting booth is their own business. If they don't like a candidate because of his religion, that's their right, bigoted or not. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:04PM

It's good advice.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:06PM

I mean the constitution is.

No more heresy trials. Not about evolution, or Leviticus, or the Pope, or whatever.

Bob| 7.21.11 @ 10:41AM

Another day another geography gaffe from Migraine Michele. The Vatican is located in Little Italy, Baltimore. Isn't that the birthplace of Nancy Pelosi? Correct me if I'm wrong.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:06PM

Baltimore is the Primal See of the Church in North America.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 8:23PM

There are older Roman Catholic Dioceses in Canada & Mexico.

Petronius| 7.22.11 @ 10:51AM

In 1634 Maryland was given Royal Charter as an Catholic Colony. As to being the first Catholic See in what is now the U.S. St Augustine Florida trumps that, anti dating St. Mary's Citie by almost 70 years from 1565. The Colony of Quebec in New France was a Jesuit Province from the late 1620's. Alta California was Franciscan.
And Oliver Cromwell did not start the English Civil Warre single handed. King Charles bankrupted His Kingdom: not unlike certain contemporaries at what was His erstwhile Royal Colony of Virginia.

Anommynous| 7.21.11 @ 11:18AM

I think the uproar isn't so much that her former church doesn't accept papal infallibility, but that there are reports that her former church labeled the Pope as an anti-Christ. I don't know how accurate that report is, and I have also read some people claiming that it's a nuanced definition of anti-Christ and similar spin. If that is true, even if it's a "nuanced" definition of anti-Christ, then as a Catholic I do find such rhetoric to be inflammatory and provocative. I don't necessarily hold it against Bachmann or ascribe to her such opinions, but I do wish that Protestants and Catholics could respect each other's differences and band together in common interest to confront creeping secularism, which I consider to be a greater evil than any doctrinal differences between Christian sects.

As for Bachmann, I suspect that I would vote for her over O and I prefer her over the squishy Romney, but I would still rather to vote for a good, conservative governor like Palin or Perry. I don't want to look to the legislature again for our next President. Or maybe a general like Petraeus, but alas that's a pipe dream. Why don't generals run anymore, anyway?

JP| 7.21.11 @ 12:28PM

Heck, Marge who posts here anytime the subject of the RCC comes up here, has similar views. The RCC in thier view is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Jack Chick still sells millions of his little comic books to churches all over the nation.

So, what's the story here?

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 1:35PM

I post here not just when the subject arises of Catholicism, so that's a blatant lie.
But then Catholics seem to be allowed to lie, slander and abuse Christians whenever they see fit.
Like the Leftists~ you get to spew your filth and perversion toward Bible believing Christians~ and it's completely acceptable.
Case in point: Your faithful slime bag pal Clint.

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:57PM

Don't sweat it, Margie...

The Catholic Mutual Back-Slapping and Protection Society is always in full-force on this page, ever ready to right any perceived slight or criticism with their own special brand of collective group-think.

In that way, they ARE similar to the Left...

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:13PM

Uh Oh !
The Meeting Of The Lapsed Catholic/ Anti-Catholic Conflicted Ax Grinders Of American Spectator Has Come To Order.

Their First Fixated Developmentally Arrested Zany Crazed Ranter, Will Be Dr.Reich.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:06PM

Am I wrong Marge? You and DR Right have a long history here, and your posts are archived. All I stated was a few simple facts. I can dig up your past rants

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:48PM

JP, are you saying that Marge and/or Dr. Right specifically have said the "RCC in thier view is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Anti-Christ" or recommended Jack Chick publications?

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:25PM

Rumor Has It, That Evanston's Old Lady Is The Whore Of Babylon.

That's What The Swabbies Of Fifth Fleet Tell Us.

Just Sayin'.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:20PM

JP,

Go ahead, darlin'. Find my posts~ all of them. What I said was Catholicism is the whore of Babylon. Babylon is a figure for false Religion in the Bible~ and yes, it is the truth.

ALL Christians know that Catholicism is a false Religion.

What I have always said as well though, is that individuals who are Catholic may not know any better, and are sincere in believing in Jesus.

But when one is regenerated from above, and comes to the knowledge of the Truth that is in Christ, they must denounce this Religion with its false doctrines.

But I never said that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. That's because he hasn't been revealed. I don't know who he is.

Do you?

Perhaps you think it's me! LOL.

Anommynous| 7.22.11 @ 4:58PM

"ALL Christians know that Catholicism is a false Religion."

Which means that you don't consider Catholics to be Christians. How disgusting.

Evanston2| 7.22.11 @ 5:23PM

Anommynous, Until Vatican II it was the official position of "the Church" (per the Council of Trent, which anathematized all non-Catholics) that pretty much everyone else is going to Hell. And neither Vatican II nor any other edict has specifically recanted Trent: I believe it still holds (as do all other church Councils) as ex Cathedra. So, Marge's opinion is "disgusting?" What, then, is the proper adjective for the official position of Rome?

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 1:21AM

Evanston2,

"Until Vatican II it was the official position of 'the Church' (per the Council of Trent, which anathematized all non-Catholics) that pretty much everyone else is going to Hell."

This is not true.

One had to be a Catholic to be anathematized, as it was a formal excommunication from the Sacraments of the Church.

Any Catholic who promoted heresy, e.g., Luther, was anathematized, i.e., excommunicated. Any non-Catholic, who became a member of a Protestant denomination, could not be excommunicated, as they were not Catholic to begin with.

This goes for the First Vatican Council, as well.

Hope that clears this up.
God Bless!

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 1:31AM

Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 846-848:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"'Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.'

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.'

"'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'"

I removed the footnotes. You can find them here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/.....a9p3.htm#I

Evanston2| 7.23.11 @ 4:49PM

Nick, with respect I believe you are distorting Trent. "s. 13. Can. 11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema." This means that any Protestant who ever concurs with Sola Fide cannot belong to the Roman church, whether he/she was a member beforehand or not.
Also, in these quotes are the words "Catholic Church" and "the Church" synonymous? If so, then the key phrase is "through no fault of their own." Please define. Without further explanation, these quotes merely affirm that Rome believes it has special status to reject others (now is when you should re-read the quote I provided from Trent). As I've said to you in the past, it doesn't bother me at all that Rome has its standards -- it should. It's when folks like "Anommynous" say that it is "disgusting" that other churches/persons could possibly disagree with Rome they show their hypocrisy. When they ignore (as you do) the torture, burnings and murder that Rome used against those outside "the Church" (whether anathematized or not baptized etc. at all) but instead focus on all sorts of (what you may deem to be) "generous" if/then clauses that the word "disgusting" hits its true meaning. If Rome had the power we would still be chanting in Latin, literally going through motions as an advertised means of salvation, and living in fear of the church/state nexus. That Rome (post Vatican II) has backed off due to political weakness is conveniently ignored. Are Catholics in The Body? It's certainly possible that some are, I believe my great aunt the nun is. But most "good Catholics" like I knew growing up believe salvation by membership and ceremony and are quite proud of the generosity of "the Church" in allowing an occasional Protestant to be OK with St. Peter. The question of 'what Catholics believe' -- whether in the pews or in a catechism that is soon forgotten after CCD -- is captured in Rome's (and your) position regarding the Eucharist vs. communion. You think you own Christ and can issue him out in nice sacrificial chunks and that all other churches (except the Orthodox) do not. Again, the massive bias and blind hypocrisy here is staggering.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 7:12PM

Evanston2,

Thank you, for your response.

"This means that any Protestant who ever concurs with Sola Fide cannot belong to the Roman church, whether he/she was a member beforehand or not."

No, it does not. You have to be a Catholic to be anathema. It is a formal excommunication ceremony. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, I would say that most were Catholic, excluding any pagans, like the American Indians, or atheists, of course.

But, within a generation, or two, those who belonged to Protestant denominations were not Catholic, and therefore, could not be excommunicated.

These would be "[t]hose who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church [...]." Along with all people who had not had the Gospel preached to them at that time, e.g. American Indians, Japanese, Samoans, etc.

Anyone who has not heard the Truth of Christ, "but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

I am not speaking for Anonymous. He can defend himself.

As far as the Inquisition goes, it was the secular authorities who executed people for heresy, not "Rome." The Inquisition was a response to injustices and to reign in the secular authority's abuse of power.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

Evanston2| 7.24.11 @ 9:42PM

Nick, you have a habit of making distinctions that in practice do not make a difference. I repeat, Trent effectively excludes all who believe in Sola Fide from "the church" and you just said as much. My sloppiness regarding ex cathedra vs. infallible, mentioned elsewhere here is also a distinction without a difference if the pope endorses the results of church Councils (which I presume he does -- again, if you care to answer please provide a link).
Your definition of "through no fault of their own" definitely supports my initial statement that Trent consigns all Protestants to hell and I repeat that Rome is free to have such a view. It's just the monumental hypocrisy of Catholic reaction to Bachmann's former church that is truly amazing. Regarding the inquisition, if the name of "the Church" was invoked in gross error then most assuredly the "secular authorities" responsible for the "abuse of power" would have been reprimanded and possibly even excommunicated. Your pattern holds: you don't deal with the main and plain points of an argument and make trivial points to obfuscate the issues in question. My goal here, as always, is not to change your mind at all. It is to hold your teachings up to the light so you can see the hypocrisy of folks like "Anommynous" (his/her spelling, not mine) and many other Catholics in this thread. Your failure to condemn this, and to continue to embrace Trent, is telling.

Nick| 7.25.11 @ 1:29AM

Evanston2,

"Nick, you have a habit of making distinctions that in practice do not make a difference."

When discussing theology, terms and nomenclature are very important. Or, else, misunderstandings soon arise.

"I repeat, Trent effectively excludes all who believe in Sola Fide from "the church" and you just said as much."

Yes, because Sole Fide is not a Catholic teaching. To be a Catholic, you have believe what She teaches. Examples like John Kerry, The Swimmer Kennedy, and San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi, not withstanding. (I wish all CINOs were anathematized, but, then again, I'm not the Pope, or, their bishop, am I?)

Isn't the Catholic Church allowed to say who, and who is not, in communion with Her? I don't see how this is controversial.

"Your definition of 'through no fault of their own' definitely supports my initial statement [...]."

I don't see how it supports your statement. Protestants who have been raised Protestant their whole lives have not been exposed to the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the Catholic Church teaches the Gospel. So, it is not their fault that they don't know the full Truth.

This goes for anyone not exposed to the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Church. Past, present, and future.

Now, if a Protestant is exposed to the Truth, and the Holy Spirit calls them home to the Church, and they become Catholic, and they later decide to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church and leave? Then they risk condemning their souls to Hell.

For an act to be a mortal sin, one has to know it is wrong, deliberate about it, and decide to do it anyway. If someone doesn't know he is doing wrong, he can't be held accountable for his actions.

"My goal here, as always, is not to change your mind at all."

Feel free to try, I have a very open mind. But, your points must be accurate to be convincing.

"It is to hold your teachings up to the light so you can see the hypocrisy of folks like [...]."

When did it become my job to defend everything that every Catholic, who posts here, writes? Also, I have asked fellow Catholics to be more charitable in their comments, just ask Margie, whom I have defended many times, by the way.

"Your failure to condemn this, and to continue to embrace Trent, is telling."

Yes, I embrace the Council of Trent, because I'm a Catholic, and it happens to speak the truth. I've defended your charge twice. Your understanding of the term anathema is incorrect, as is your belief that the Catholic Church condemns Protestants to hell.

You seem to refuse to take my word for it, so, here is the lengthy entry for anathema from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

p.s. My only problem with anyone who calls the Holy Father the anti-Christ is that it is ignorant and doesn't move the discussion any further along. But, I don't let it bother me, I have a very thick skin. You have to, if you want to be a professed Christian in today's world, don't you?
God Bless!

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 7:05PM

It doesn't matter what I say or think, it only matters what God actually says, right?

He says that in order to a disciple, if that's what you're interested in being~ then you must obey His very Words.

His Words are found in the Bible.
Catholicism's doctrines are far from Biblical.
Religious, yes, but not biblical.
God doesn't want us to be Religious, He wants a relationship with us through His Spirit~

Catholicism teaches that you are saved by following their Religion~ the Bible teaches that we are saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.

One teaches works, while Jesus teaches Grace and forgiveness through Himself directly. There is no other way, but through Him.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

I don't make the rules.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 1:07AM

Margie,

"One teaches works, while Jesus teaches Grace and forgiveness through Himself directly."

Didn't Christ give the 12 Apostles the power to forgive sins?

"When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." - John 20: 22-23

Saint Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ.

"Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you sake in the presence of Christ." - 2 Cor. 2: 10

Christ didn't have any qualms conferring His authority onto mere mortal men. He did exactly this, when He gave the 70/72? disciples the power to heal and cast out demons. (Christ also said those who heard the 72, heard Christ.)

"He that hears you hears me: and he that despises you despises me: and he that despises me despises him that sent me. And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in your name. And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven. Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you." Luke 10: 16-19

Why did Christ give the Apostles the power to forgive sins if the church (assembly) were to go directly to Him for forgiveness?
God Bless!

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 1:52AM

And who forgave their sins, Nick?

I am talking about Salvation, here.

The Bible says that Salvation is through Jesus Christ, that it is the gift of God, and by His Grace through faith in Christ.

"And there is Salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us,even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in the Heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast." Eph.

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Rom. 11:6.

What you're talking about is something entirely different. It's if you are saying that Jesus Himself is not necessary for our Salvation.. that there is not a relationship we have with Him through the Spirit.

This is cold Religion, spiritless and dead, that teaches such a thing. That is why it is written that such teachings only hold the form of Religion, but deny the Power of it. (2 Tim. 3:5).

You cannot have Christianity apart from Christ.

God bless you as well.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 2:16AM

Margie,

"The Bible says that Salvation is through Jesus Christ, that it is the gift of God, and by His Grace through faith in Christ."

I never claimed otherwise. Of course, God does the forgiving. Where did I claim that He didn't? The question is how?

"It's if you are saying that Jesus Himself is not necessary for our Salvation.. that there is not a relationship we have with Him through the Spirit."

I don't see how you get that from what I wrote.

I was only stating the fact that Christ transferred His power to forgive sins to the Apostles, as He had previously, with His other powers. I did this with quotes from the Scriptures, not from religion. Christ used men to carry out His salvific works, as well as perform signs.

So, I ask again, why did Christ give the Apostles the power to forgive sins, if Christians were to go to Him directly to be forgiven?

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 3:09PM

First you say you agree, that Jesus is the source of Salvation, and then you turn it around and ask why is He necessary for Salvation.

The New Testament is all about Jesus as Lord and Saviour, so I really think you might need to read it!

Ah, now I see where you're coming from! The whole "transference" thing. You are doing this in order to justify the Pope's "power to forgive sins!"

LOL.

Nick, sorry~ but Jesus Christ is the only One who forgive, cleanse, justify and sanctify anyone!

HE is Lord, and only Him!

Yes, if someone asks us to forgive them, they are forgiven.
But each person must repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written, for their own Salvation:

"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38.

"And there is Salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

Thank God for the Bible!
No, Nick~ there is no "transference" to ANY man, including the "Pope" for the forgiveness of our sins unto Salvation.

You are probably not satisfied with this though, I bet!! :^)

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 6:54PM

Margie,

After all this time, you still think I'm trying to trick you?

All I did was see a statement of yours that I thought was contradicted by Christ's own words. Just like the assertion that Christ is to be our sole Mediator, but, Saint Paul asked other Christians to pray for himself and for pagans.

Don't you have any explanation as to why Christ gave the Apostles (transferred) the power to forgive sins, in John 20?

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 10:52PM

Nick...

How can the Words of God contradict each other, for that is what I quote.

Again, Jesus, according to the Bible, is the only Mediator between God and Man for Salvation.

Each Christian can forgive another~ and it will be forgiven, but Salvation~ as it is written~ comes from Christ Himself.

As a matter of fact, you remind me of another Scripture:

"I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you, nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince." Ps. 82:6 & 7.

Men are finite, if we forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, yes. But we still dies like men, and fall like any prince.

Salvation itself belongs to Christ Jesus, though~ the Lamb of God~ who takes away the Sin of the World. (Jn. 1:29).

Scott Lahti| 7.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Recommended viewing for those, like me, who can't wait for the now all-but-inevitable Bachmann Administration, from whose advent I hope to cover her every move after applying for my Star-Spangled press pass from my new home in Pyongyang:

The Stepford Wives
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Plan 9 From Outer Space
Dawn of the Dead
Triumph of the Will
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Miss America Pageant
Duck Soup

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:09PM

Lessee, Stepford wives is left-wing propaganda.

Oh, and a Nazi movie! How clever! And how exactly opposite Bachmann.

RCV| 7.21.11 @ 7:11PM

And for Mr. Bachmann, "La Cage Aux Folles"

Scott Lahti| 7.21.11 @ 11:39AM

"Michele, ma belle" - these are words that go together?

Hell.

WilliamR| 7.21.11 @ 12:09PM

Michele Bachmann Should Not 'Get a Pass' on Past Membership in Anti-Catholic Church

http://www.catholic.org/nation.....p?id=42078

I find it hard to believe that the Bachmann's didn't know about their Church's rather pathetic views on the Pope. This will hurt her if she wins Iowa. It will become a very a very big story.

JP| 7.21.11 @ 12:25PM

I'm a Roman Catholic, and while I wouldn't in any ways subscribe to that particular Lutheran parish, I don't find it exactly "fringe". There are plenty of Protestants who cannot stand the RCC. But that doesn't make them any less American. As a matter of fact, most of the Baptists I knew growing up had similiar views.

This is essientially the Left's way of applying Alinsky tactics. The MSM who pretty much gave Obama a pass on Rev Wright (who "damned" this nation from his pulput) now has problems with Bachman?

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 12:52PM

Far too often, Baptists and Catholics don't sit down and discuss the differences enough to realize they they each often have false views of the other. I found myself with a whole new take on Catholics after having several long sit downs with a good friend of mine. In the end, I found out they don't sacrifice kids and drink their blood, and he found out that we don't dance naked in the moon light. We certainly are different... and often in the same areas we thought we were different before talking about it. Just maybe not as different as we thought. Some of it is still big divide stuff... but most of that stuff is also ancillary to the core faith we both have as Christians. It's in the realm of "good and fun to talk about... but not worth dividing the Bride of Christ over". Afterall... the only thing require to be part of the universal body of Christians is to Believe, Repent, and Confess. Papal infalability doesn't affect that.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 4:14PM

Why do Baptists not believe in premarital sex?

It might lead to dancing!

A benedictine Monk once said that Baptists (free will) and Catholics have a lot of the same doctrines in common but use different language to describe them. Central to his theroy is the emphasis on "experience" that both denominations have. Bill Hybels and his arminian tribe have recently discovered how accurate the monk was as Hybels has rediscovered the "mystical" aspects of faith, not Christian faith but Roman faith. Given the foundation for this kind of mysticism Hybels would be right at home with some Hindu, Buddhist and Sikhs.

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 6:04PM

That's funny!
In college (a private Baptist univeristy) we weren't allowed to dance. EVERY rank and file Baptist thinks this is a very silly tennant of the Baptist Faith and Message... but the old guys in charge still write the checks. So... in college different groups would hold, off campus off course!, "functions" where you would go and "function." And I'm sure some people went so far as to get their FUNKtion on, too.

Go figure.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 6:10PM

So, I'm Jewish, and we actually don't allow mixed dancing.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:34PM

"Afterall... the only thing require to be part of the universal body of Christians is to Believe, Repent, and Confess."

Not true. We are commanded by Jesus to continue in His Word, thus proving to be His disciples.

A Christian cannot be a Catholic and abide by its false doctrines. It dishonors Christ to do so.

"Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in Him, "If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." Jn. 8:31 & 32.

"..what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 Cor. 6:14.

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:06AM

Not true. We are commanded by Jesus to continue in His Word, thus proving to be His disciples."

A continuance would be the result of true acceptance. It is after salvation, and because of it. I wouldn't say it's prior or even a part of salvation.

You can't continue following Him until after you start. And to start, to become a Christian, requires the three things I stated... belief, repentance, and confession.

Not to rub you the wrong way, Margie... because I agree with just about everything you post on the subject... but the act of continuing one's "education" (for lack of a better word) in Christ is a work that yields fruits that we may be known by (a better understanding of the Bible for example). It is not part of becoming a Christian... just part of being one.

Does that make sense?

And if I'm totally missing something, by all means lay it on me. Iron sharpens iron... right?

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:28AM

Yelo,

Yes, of course it makes sense. None of us can do anything apart from Jesus, and the power of His Holy Spirit living inside of us.

I was actually speaking to the point of whether one listens to what is written in the Bible~ or in the doctrines of men that don't agree with the Bible. And that's what Jesus is telling us~ that unless we continue in HIS WORD~ we cannot be His disciples.

His Words are in the Bible, yet so many think they can believe whatever they want and call themselves Christian.

In other words, He has set the standard for being His disciple.

See what I mean?
God bless.

Ryan| 7.22.11 @ 10:06AM

So, in your terminology, every person who believes in the concept of the Trinity is not a disciple of Christ?

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:07PM

So Ryan,

in your brain that is what you saw in what I wrote?
LOL.

Ryan| 7.25.11 @ 10:33AM

You've yet to answer the question with a yes-or-no in any thread. So far that I can tell, you believe that:
A. The idea of the Trinity is unscriptural.
B. Anyone who believes something unscriptural is unsaved.

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 10:07AM

In that, we agree... in what it means to BE a Christian (not the same as BECOMING one) We may not always understand, or follow exactly due to ignorance. But a longing heart that is willing to follow the truth where ever it leads once revealed is the mark of a Christian.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:06PM

Well said. And Jesus never leads us to false Religion, but to His Word.

"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.

Vern Crisler | 7.21.11 @ 10:31PM

Unfortunately, the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the merits of Christ's righteousness imputed to us is not a small or trivial doctrine. It has always divided Catholics and Protestants and always will. Everything else is small potatoes in comparison with THAT issue.

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:07AM

That is very true. And unfortunate. The more I talk to Catholics about this, the smaller the divide seems... but at the end of the day it is still a great chasm.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:21AM

If a Religion tells you that you are saved by baptism and works and sacraments and prayers by rote, among other things, and the Bible says that we are saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus, who should we believe?

God's Word~ or the Religion?

"For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8 & 9.

mames| 7.21.11 @ 4:02PM

The condemnation of Catholic doctrine is just that, against the doctrine not the individuals in the Roman church. There are Christians in every denomination often in spite of the doctrine of the church body they connect themselves to. It is however the responsibility of every Christian to know God's Word and there are never any excuses that our Lord will accept to abdicate that duty. Taking doctrine from men no matter how well intentioned is in direct conflict with Christs urging to follow him alone.

Doug| 7.21.11 @ 12:26PM

As a Protestant I'd suggest the Papal fallicy-related issue is more around where one looks for 'final authority' on doctrinal matters.

I think for our Dear President that he's just jealous and doesn't like the competition. :)

J Lemont| 7.21.11 @ 12:31PM

Papal infallibility isn't the primary reason the WELS (along with other Christian denominations) calls the Catholic papacy antichrist. Lutherans (conservative ones, anyway) find many parallels between the rise of antichrist (described in 2 Thessalonians 2) and the historical rise of the Roman papacy, which claims for itself doctrinal infallibility and ultimate authority for those who seek salvation.
Teachings like this one (from the papal bull Unam Sanctam of 1302) are much more troublesome:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Where the Bible states that "there is God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," Unam Sanctam states that we must yet become subject to the pope. In Luther's view, with teachings such as this, the Roman papacy was setting itself up in place of (anti-) Christ.

In ancient Greek (of the New Testament), the prefix 'anti-' had the connotation "instead of, in place of", rather than simply "against". Thanks to Hollywood, the contemporary view of "antichrist" is a horror-show-Satan-on-earth type of figure. The New Testament implies that "antichrist" is something more subtle: a spirit, attitude, and eventually office that would try to take the place of Christ. Luther (and Lutherans) did not identify antichrist as a specific pope (although some popes certainly came close to the Hollywood stereotype), but rather as the overall office and attitude of the papacy, which gradually came to make itself the intercessor between humanity and Christ, replacing Christ as the intercessor between God and humanity.

St Reformed| 7.21.11 @ 6:22PM

Thank you---very enlightening! This also helps to explain the existence of several "anti-popes" in the history of Catholicism.
And just for the record:
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) communications director Joel Hochmuth stated: “Some people have this vision of a little devil running around with horns and red pointy ears. Luther was clear that by ‘Antichrist’ [he meant] anybody who puts himself up in place of Christ. Luther never bought the idea of the Pope being God’s voice in today’s world. He believed Scripture is God’s word.” [The belief that the Pope is the Antichrist] “has never been one of our driving principles.”

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 7:50PM

Luther did, however did accept the judgement of Constantine in selecting a canon at the synod of Nicea that could be used as a basis for a state religion as the revealed word of God and thus infalible--throw out all those gospels that would not support the empire.

tim mccarthy| 7.21.11 @ 12:36PM

Lousy article.

Scott Lahti| 7.21.11 @ 12:56PM

You saw the byline, didn't you?

What on earth were you expecting - the reanimated corpse of H.L. @#$%ing Mencken? Granted, you got the "corpse" part right...

Bill S| 7.21.11 @ 12:44PM

The Catholic Church is the largest cult in the history of the world. It teaches salvation is by infant baptism and obedience to church rules, not by faith in Christ alone. It teaches that it's traditions are equal to scripture when the Bible is the sole source for truth. The church even says it has the right to condemn people to hell.

WilliamR| 7.21.11 @ 12:54PM

CrackPotVille.

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:18PM

"Excommunication of laypeople principally means that they are cut off from receiving the sacraments. It does not mean that the Church is condemning a person to hell. In fact, excommunication is intended to be a medicine to inspire people to repent and be reconciled to the Church. "

Now, Go To Hell, Bill.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:16PM

Everything that Bill said is true.
Even Clint/Tim* has no authority over Christians who belong to Christ, and certainly not the "Pope!"
LOL.
You can tell him to "Go to Hell", but repeatedly ask me to tell you where non believers go?
Heh, your twisted mind needs some regeneration.
That would be the John 3:3 type of regeneration.

Frank T| 7.21.11 @ 9:50PM

Bill S, before you comment on the Church, you should study what it represents. You are buying into some rather interesting falsehoods and failing to grasp the concept of the faith. The Church and Christ are like a bride and Groom (note the capital 'G'). Traditions are also part of the Word of God. Failing traditions, how else was the Word of God transmitted before it was put into print? And, let us not forget, who formalized the written Bible as we know it today? Yeah....a newly converted Catholic Christian emperor and a bunch of Catholic bishops. No matter how you cut it, you are tied somewhere, somehow to Catholic Christianity. After all, Christ did not tell His Apostles to go forth and multiply into a bunch of different churches.

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:10AM

But He also said that none come to the father except by Him... thus no need for a papal intercessor between man and God.

Also said that all men are with fault... hence Mary not being sinless (still no one has addressed the fact that if she were in fact sinless, it would refute the necessity of Jesus as a sacrifice since she could do it).

Nothing against Catholics... just parts of Catholicism.

Clint| 7.22.11 @ 6:00AM

"Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13)."

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:37PM

Yes, the "He who listens to you"~ the "you" part~ is the Apostles.

Christians listen to the words of Christ and the Apostles, and every Word of God that is written in the Bible.

Indeed.

Christians do NOT listen to false teachings of men that came after them~ that are twisted and perverse.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 12:08AM

YeloStalyn,

I guess I don't understand your assertion that if Our Lady was sinless, as she was, how this negates the need for Jesus the Christ (Messiah)?

The prophets listed the qualifications for God's Anointed One. He would be a male. His name would be God Saves. He would be of the line of David. He would be a priest-king and a greater prophet than Moses.

How, exactly, would the Virgin Mary meet any of these qualifications? (Except being from the Davidic line, of course.)

Where in the Scriptures does it state that the Messiah would be the only sinless person to have ever lived?

Also, if Christ is to be our only Intercessor, why did Saint Paul ask others to pray for him? (Cf Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1) Paul also asks Christians to pray for those in secular power in 1 Timothy 2: 1-4.

God Bless!

Scott Lahti| 7.21.11 @ 1:36PM

Say, Nancy and Ronnie, have you seen them yet

But they're so 'winged out, B-B-B-Bachmann and the Pope

Oh but they're tried and they're sanctified

Oh, Bachmann, the Light she's seen

She is a star today

A MILFy way

You know I read it in Bob's magaz-i-i-i-i-i-ne, oh, ho-oh:

B-B-B-Bachmann and the Pope...

Seamus Enrico Kowalski-Lopez| 7.21.11 @ 3:30PM

I'm a practicing Catholic!

In that regard, I've been practicing for years. Could someone please tell me when the BIG GAME is???

Seriously...this practicing crap is for the birds.

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 4:15PM

Bob, [as a born, raised, educated Catholic also, though non-practicing presently] I share her disfavor with the homosexuality marriage, and believe that homosexuals [although immoral] should be afforded the right of non-discrimination but denied any marriage type santification. If she is Lutheran, I suspect that her issue with the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Infallability issue, but rather it downfall from homosexual priests' molestation of children historically [as do I]. That said, No one's religion [other than perhaps Muslims or radical black nationalism sects, hint-hint] should preclude their being elected to become president etc, since a no politician [to my knowledge] elected to higher office has ever used their religious beliefs while in office in a corruptable manner in their governing/administrative activities!!!!!!!!!

Mimi| 7.21.11 @ 7:07PM

Why waste so much time on religion..... 0pinions and tastes can always be discussed ...and are as perenial as GRASS! Its the topic of Michele Bachmann that deserves the opinions. She in my opinion is on the right side of anything that matters...From the Constitution to HOW the monies are spent to our wars abroad. God Bless her , She is rising so fast in the POLLS all should take notice. Why do you think they are going after her on " nothing things"....Penny-ante stuff!
She's about as decent as your gonna get, Looks terrific, speaks better than most and is Conservative as heck!
I'm not picking yet, as most of you are ...but she's a good , beautiful example of what we want and need in a President! Honesty, trustworthiness and strong principles is what I see. Noticed today, she's running far ahead in IOWA.

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:42PM

Bless you, Mimi.
But it WAS the subject!
However, you are right~ Michele is a grand woman, and a sister in Christ. She would make a wonderful President because she is right thinking.
I am willing to vote for any of the current nominees, though I won't particularly enjot having to vote for Romney if he becomes the nominee~ only because he seems more liberal than the others.

While I must admit, I would rather a man for the job~ if the ladies are the ones that have more drive, desire and courage to stand up to the Left~ so be it!

I still say that if Sarah runs~ it will be a landslide election, and a joy to behold.

Run Sarah, run!!

Frank T| 7.21.11 @ 9:41PM

I, too, am a Roman Catholic, but that did not prevent me from voting for the greatest President of our times, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan never let his own religious views interfere with governing. In fact, as those of us remember, President Reagan had a wonderful relationship with Pope John Paul II. If I should vote for Mrs Bachmann---and I am inclined to do so at this time---it is not going to be based on the way she worships.

Vern Crisler | 7.21.11 @ 10:35PM

The "greatest President of our times, Ronald Reagan." Yes, true. Frank, almost hast thou persuaded me to become a Catholic. ;-)

Jennifer Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:42PM

There are other GREAT reasons to become Catholic. I discovered them 12 years ago as a Presbyterian Calvinist.

Crossing the Tiber was the best decision I ever made (with God's sovereign help, of course!)

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 10:24PM

"Notice, for all the decades of controlled
and contrived 'dialogue' about unwanted
pregnancy ---and extermination of the
unborn ----NEVER so mucb as a suggestion
that perhaps the males, linked to the situation
via DNA --be made legally responsible for support.
And certainly never, EVER a suggestion
we actually defend and reinforce traditional
courtship and marriage."
-ALAN WATT

BTW ----as the country, culture, demographic
and economy implodes ---anyone begining to miss
those 50 MILLION missing children?

OH YOU WILL---------------------------

Herb Tarlek| 7.22.11 @ 12:20AM

There is only one true church. Deviate from this and you will be lost. It is the Roman church.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:16AM

No, church can't save you, and if you believe this, you are lost. God has appointed the Son of God to save those who are destined to be His:

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:6 & 7.

Clint| 7.22.11 @ 6:03AM

Asked & Answered Lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sybil-Sandy.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:24PM

See my above post. The first part of your quotation~ "Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and bishops" ~ THAT isn't part of the verse! It isn't in the Bible!

And yes, the "he who listens to you" part the YOU He is talking about, is the Apostles~ and yes, that's who Christians listen to~ all that is written in the Bible, and not the false teaching of apostates that came afterward, and twisted the Bible to suit their perversities.

Jennifer Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:41PM

You wallow in ignorance. No well catechized Catholic believes that the Church saves us. We are saved by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and we all know that. But that Sacrifice is only present for eternal life on the altars of the Catholic parishes around the world in the form of the Eucharist.

What part of "except you eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood YE HAVE NOT LIFE" (Jesus --Savior of the Word AD 30) do you not understand????

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:31PM

"But that Sacrifice is only present for eternal life on the altars of the Catholic parishes around the world in the form of the Eucharist."

Ignorance? It isn't me who is ignorant.

The "Eucharist" isn't anywhere in the Bible~ there's no such thing.
What you are saying isn't part of God's purpose at all.
Jesus died once for all, as the Bible states. He is NOT "re-sacrificed" at the taking of Communion~ that is a demonic teaching.

Jesus died on the cross~ one time~ according to the Scripyure, was raised from the dead by His Father, God, and now sits in Heaven at the Right Hand of God.

You've been taught heresy.

"The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God." Rom. 6:10.

"For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." Heb. 9:24-28.

This tells you everything you need to know, it is God's own Words.

This is why Catholicism is not Christianity.
Catholicism teaches, as you say~ that Christ is re-sacrificed at some absurd "Eucharistic" thing. It is a huge lie~ and against God.

You are either a Christian, which means a follower of Christ, and that means you obey HIS Words, or you do not.

Your Religion isn't a biblical one. It's a false one.

Oh, and as to "what part of eat my flesh" don't I understand?

I understand it perfectly well. I understand that Jesus didn't mean we physically eat Him.

He said to take Communion in remembrance of Him. Eating His flesh is spiritual, not physical.

Only a demonic cult would try and actually get people to believe that you are committing cannibalism with Jesus' physical body~ He is in Heaven, as the Bile says, sitting at the Right Hand of God.

Not even the "Pope" could make Him come down in order to have people eat Him physically~ how disgusting a thing this is!! How utterly disgraceful that this cult has been practicing this demonic thing for centuries!

You need to read your Bible, and forget this cult.

"and when He had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." 1 Cor. 11:24.

What part of "Do this in remembrance o do YOU not understand?

Tony in Central PA| 7.23.11 @ 1:52PM

Again Margie, nowhere does it say in any Catholic catechism that Christ is " resacrificed " at Mass. I challenge you to find it and post it. Christ's sacrifice was indeed, " once for all " but it is also something that stands above time itself, redeeming billions who would be born after the event in Earthly time.
I find it ironic that some people take everything in the Bible literally except what Jesus Himself had to say about the Eucharist. I have been in many " Bible - based " churches that scrupulously avoid discussing certain parts of the Bible, parts that support the Catholic and historical beliefs of Christianity in the Eucharist.

I was baptized Catholic, but never had any religious training. I went to church occasionally. By the time I left college, I was basically an agnostic and there I remained for some time until after getting married. My wife and I began going to an evangelical church and enjoyed our time there. The music was very entertaining and uplifting, the pastor was a great speaker and the people were nice. As is often the case, personality conflicts within the leadership led to doctrinal conflicts over Biblical interpretation and the whole thing collapsed in a heap within a few years. Congregants scattered to different locations and denominations and I am sure the process continues.
The one thing that made me increasingly uncomfortable while I attended this evangelical church was that the pastor seemed unable to tell us what Communion was and why we bothered to do it. We were told there was no transubstatiation. I recall receiving Communion once from a used car salesman ( nice guy ) who said " The Body of Christ " when handing me the bread. Wait a minute ! The pastor just said it wasn't. I witnessed grown men sobbing after taking Communion. I wondered how many of them actually believed Jesus wasn't really present ?
Eventually, I stopped receiving Communion at the church. I was very uncomfortable with what was being offered. Communion now seemed like a useless ordinance given the interpretation of salvation the church was providing. In fact, all of the sacraments found in the Bible seemed pointless following their view. I began to question why God would institute needless sacraments ?

I discovered that the Catholicism of my baptism was the only interpretation that made sense of the sacraments. Catholicism not only made the purpose and benefit of the sacraments clear, through Catholic theology I could now see how the OT and NT fit together in unexpectedly meaningful ways. For me, the process continues to this day.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 2:47PM

"Again Margie, nowhere does it say in any Catholic catechism that Christ is " resacrificed " at Mass."

Then you do not agree with the person's comment that I was responding to?

She said:
"But that Sacrifice is only present for eternal life on the altars of the Catholic parishes around the world in the form of the Eucharist."

Again, there is NO such thing in the Bible as a "Eucharist", Tony. And there is NO Jesus being sacrificed on the altar each time at Communion.

There is NO such thing in the Bible as "Transubstantiation".

I find it very strange how Catholics say "oh, that isn't what we're saying!"
But it is.

As to the taking of Communion, the Bile is so clearly written. It is simply communing with Christ while eating bread and drinking the juice (Christians do not drink wine).. and it is done as Jesus says it should be, "in remembrance of Me."

"And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My Body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." Lk. 22:19.

"..and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My Body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 1 Cor 11:24 & 25.

The Catholic church created an entire perverse thing surround this simple but meaningful command by Christ~ turning it into a lie and distortion of His Word.

Jesus's Body is not physically present, and no one actually physically eats it.
As I said before, how this cult could convince people for centuries, and get away with this atrocity is mind boggling~ yet, I know that the Judgment of this Harlot is going to be swift.

I'm sorry you had a rotten time in a Christian church, but it isn't at all surprising. These days, and really for decades, I'm aware of how churches have become super watered down versions of Christianity.
As I've posted before to someone here, I'd rather go to a Robert Cray concert than sit in the pew of some of these so-called churches where rock music plays, singing and swaying and all emotional, but no substance.
The people just sit there while the pastor does all the talking~ they shake hands at the end and then leave.
"There! I went to church today!"

I know that there are Christians everywhere that gather together to read the Bible, pray together and fellowship in God's Word, and that they are to be found in non-denominational churches, mostly.

Once you get into any denomination~ you will have arguing and everyone's own ideas and if you do not agree with them you will have to leave or agree and stay. I'm not saying THEY will boot you, but you won't want to stay.

The Bible is self explanatory~ and you'd just need to find other Christians who say, YES, it is!
There is only real unity when everyone agrees with this fact.

Remember that God says that "No Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation". 2 Pe. 1:20.

The trouble comes in when people disregard that fact.

Tony in Central PA| 7.23.11 @ 6:52PM

Margie, " This is my Body " is about as unambiguous a declaration of the true nature of the Eucharist as one could hope to find. It doesn't really make sense why Jesus would say this if He didn't mean it. I would also refer to the contentious Chapter 6 of John's Gospel where Jesus was far more explicit. As shocking as the idea of eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood is today, it was probably even more so in first century Jewish Palestine with the many dietary and cleanliness laws. It is recorded that after saying these things, many of Jesus' followers abandoned Him and " returned to their former ways ". Apparently, humans haven't changed much in two millenia. If He was speaking figuratively, Jesus could have certainly cleared things up, if not with the departing followers, at least with the Apostles. But that never did happen.

The purpose and meaning of the sacraments in the Catholic and some of the older forms of Christianity are inexorably linked to the Old Testament and must be understood in terms of the Old and the New Covenants. Christ is referred to the " Lamb of God ". You will hear this term repeatedly in the Catholic liturgy and also in Revelation. Also that Christ is our Paschal Sacrifice. This recalls the Old Testament sacrifices, particularly the one found in Exodus prior to the flight of the Jewish people from Egypt. A pure lamb was to be slaughtered, consumed and its blood placed upon the doorway of Jewish homes for the protection and deliverance from bondage to all inside. What began in the Old Covenant is perfected in the New Covenant.

Another sacrament I'll briefly touch upon is baptism. A similar realtionship of this sacrament is explained by St. Paul, who said circimcision was to the Old Covenant was baptism is to the New Covenant.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 10:39PM

Tony,

Just as Jesus isn't a physical Lamb, His physical Body isn't present at Communion.

He said, "Do this in remembrance.."

And, He now sits at the Right Hand of God, in Heaven, as it is written.

Communing with Christ during Communion is spiritual, just as our prayer is. Jesus is there with us in spirit, but not physically.

Anyhow~ see my post, below.
God bless, always.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 10:40PM

Of course, He could appear at any time physically, and does, whenever He pleases.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 6:32PM

Margie,

"The 'Eucharist' isn't anywhere in the Bible~ there's no such thing."

Yes, it is. Go look up the Greek for "gave thanks" in Matthew 26: 27, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, at the Last Supper.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 10:32PM

Nick, If you are talking about Communion, then I agree.

I give thanks for you, Nick~ one for whom Christ died.

And He did so, once for all. And on that, we do agree.

God bless you, brother.

Nick| 7.24.11 @ 7:35PM

Margie,

"If you are talking about Communion, then I agree."

Then why did you state that the "Eucharist" is not in the Bible? Communion is the Eucharist, in the Catholic Mass.

Margie| 7.25.11 @ 1:45AM

Because the Lord's Supper is Communing with Christ and it is done in remembrance of Him. It is what the Bible says we are to do.

If this is what you are referring to, then we agree.
Otherwise, anything other than that, if it is unbiblical, then we are not in agreement.

There is no physical Jesus in the bread or wine taken during the taking of the Lord's Supper. It isn't biblical. This is what your Religion teaches that the "Eucharist: is, which is unbiblical.

I presented the verses where Jesus says to do this "in remembrance" of Him.
Why would He say to do this in remembrance of Him if He was there physically?
And the Bible says that Jesus is in Heaven, sitting at the Right Hand of God. And you know that Scripture cannot be broken. (Jn. 10:35).
Therefore Jesus is not physically present in any such "Eucharist".

Nick| 7.25.11 @ 2:40AM

Margie,

I see what you are saying. You didn't mean that the word eucharist isn't in the Scriptures, but, that the concept of the Eucharist is not. As you know, I beg to differ! Ha-ha!

But, this ties in perfectly to my question, below, about whether you were referring to another thread (where we discussed "once and for all", with Rich D.) I was referring to a post script in my comment, from way above in this thread, about my failure to answer a question of your's. I'll copy it here:

"p.s. I almost forgot. I did finally respond to your comment, where you asked why I hadn't answered you, in that other thread. Again, I'm sorry I missed it. You'll have to scroll up a little bit. Me and Rich D. had a [quite a] few comments after I posted [it]. Here is the link:"

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_574092

I think my response to your objections about Christ dying for our sins "once and for all" can also be applied to your objection of the Eucharist based on "do this in remembrance of [Him]."

I would re-copy it, but, it is pretty long. The question of yours, to which I am responding, is up where you informed me of the passing of you dear mother-in-law, on the 4th of July @11:23AM. I can re-post it, if you would like?

Nick| 7.25.11 @ 6:53PM

That link doesn't seem to work, as I just found out!
Here, I'll try again:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_574092

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:44AM

"I think my response to your objections about Christ dying for our sins "once and for all" can also be applied to your objection of the Eucharist based on "do this in remembrance of [Him]."

Nick,

You are willing to actually reject that the Scripture states that Christ died once, for all?
That is truly sad.

That's exactly why I reject Catholicism~ it perverts the Word of God and the Scriptures.

Do you really think anyone can get away with it?

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:48AM

Oh, duh.
I have read your post wrong. You said that I had the issue with that.
No, YOU had the issue with that, Nick.
Because when you pretend, along with your Religion, that Christ is physically present in the the bread and wine, which He isn't~ you are indeed saying He's being sacrificed again.
Isn't that the whole teaching of your "Eucharist?"

Nick| 7.31.11 @ 9:07AM

Margie,

Did you go back to the Purgatory's Appeal thread and read what I wrote about Hebrews 7, 8, & 9?

My response in that thread explains the Mass and Eucharist. I can copy and paste them, if you would like?
God Bless!

Nick| 7.24.11 @ 7:43PM

Margie,

"And He did so, once for all. And on that, we do agree."

Is this a reference to the other thread?

I give thanks for you, too, Margie. Please keep challenging me, and my Faith.

I have learned much having to defend what I believe, as Saint Peter taught (1 Peter 3:15). I hope that you have, too.
God Bless, my sister in Christ.

Margie| 7.25.11 @ 1:54AM

It's a statement tying up the conversation, and it applies to what we were talking about as well, yes.

And I'm not trying to challenge your faith in Christ, just your faith in false doctrine. (ouch!).
Your faith in Christ needs no challenging.
Our faith shouldn't be in Religion, but in Jesus Himself.

If I've learned anything, it's that only God can open the eyes of the blind.
God bless.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:34PM

p.s. I still have my old Catholic catechism booklet which says that "Grace comes through the church."

Nowhere does it say that it comes through Christ.

It says a lot of sick, twisted things~ making itself the authoruty, and not Christ.

No wonder I was scared to death of going to "Catechism" classes as a child.

Thankfully, Jesus saved me by His Grace, and I know the difference between a false Religion, and Christianity.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:09PM

Awful typos, please forgive.
Scripture and authority spelled wrong.

Tony in Central PA| 7.23.11 @ 1:04PM

Actually Margie, here's one of the many things the catechism says about grace : 2011 " The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men.
( The 2011 identifier just happens to coincide with this year's date. )

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 3:38PM

Well, Tony, that's all well and good, but the church still practices myriad of false doctrine.. and if it really believed that Grace comes through Christ, the Pope would repent of being the Pope, because it's completely unbiblical. He'd say, "What am I doing?!"

And my little catechism booklet actually states point blank, "Grace comes through the church".
And basically, that's how this cult operates, anyway.

And the above quote isn't even biblical. Why is it that the Catholic church for centuries has distorted the Word of God and replaced it with their own unbiblical teachings?

Why is it that the Bible isn't good enough for them?
And I'm talking about the hierarchy here, not the individuals such as yourself who have assumed and been taught that this Religion is of God?

The Bible (God's own Words) says this concerning Grace and how we are justified and sanctified, and it has nothing to do with our "merits", or our works.

"That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all.." Rom. 4:16

"Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:1.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8 & 9.

Jesus told (Saul) Paul on the road to Damascus, that we are sanctified by having faith in Him:

"..to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" Acts 26:18.

Why does Catholicism persist in teaching that Salvation is by works, when Christ Jesus teaches that it is by Grace, through Faith in Him?

Just some questions to consider, Tony.

Tony in Central PA| 7.23.11 @ 7:08PM

I think you for your reply, Margie, but you've got it wrong when you say the Church teaches one attains salvation by works. This is question I wrestled with at one time. But first, let me clearly state what my 1995 catechism ( the most recent edition, I believe ) has to say about salvation : 161 " Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since without faith it is impossible to please God and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life but ' he who endures to the end ".
The second part of this post would ask, What is faith ? Some people describe faith as a feeling, so I guess in their mind if one " feels " saved, one is saved. I can't accept this. Feelings are often fleeting and sometimes not even real. How does one know if one's faith is real ? If a person infuses evry every aspect of his life to the point of almost unconscious action, they could certainly say they have true faith. There are a number of New Testament verses that indicate this, most dramatically, though, it is found in Matthew 25.

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 10:30PM

Tony,

God bless you, sir. I am encouraged by your love for Christ, and His Word.

I am happy to see that that is part of the Catholic catechism, but there are so many false doctrines that still make it so wrong a Religion.

I think that you and Nick, and so many others who love the Lord Jesus Christ are precious in the Eyes of God..

I just cannot ever accept a Religion that has so many doctrines that are so wrong.
When there are threads here that argue in favor of doctrine that is unbiblical, if I'm around, I will say what I think~ and you will do what you think is right.

My disdain isn't toward individuals, but toward doctrine.
Some have tried to say it's hatred when I speak up, but it isn't toward individuals, it's toward doctrine.

God bless you always,
Margie

Edward Hara| 7.26.11 @ 12:15AM

This is a very narrow forum in which to try to defend the Catholic Faith. As a convert to the Catholic Faith after 25 years of hating the Catholic Church as a Fundamentalist and then PCA Calvinist, I found that I was just steeped in ignorance as a Protestant. The things I was taught about the Catholic Faith were simpy not true.

Furthermore, the doctrines of the Catholic Faith are found in scripture and go back 2000 years to the beginning of the New Covenant. What you have been taught (as I was) is an INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures which is simply not true. To try to destroy the Catholic Faith, the Protestants created new doctrines that had never before been known in Christendom. They played fast and loose with the Greek in Romans 3 and 4 to create their teaching of "justificiation by faith alone" and ignored verses like John 5: 28-29 where Jesus clearly states that on the Last Day, He will raise the dead from the graves and give eternal life to those who have DONE GOOD. This teaching is repeated in Matthew 25: 26-43 and Romans 2: 5-10. It is taught quite clearly.

So the bottom line is that you have accepted as true a religion which goes back no further than 1517 when it was invented, which distorts the scriptures to prove itself (just as the JW's and Mormons do), and which tells blatant lies about the Catholic Faith in order to keep its people in its pews. That is not impressive. And quite frankly, I was more than a little mad when I found these things out and realized that I had been deliberately decieved by pastors I trusted in.

I invite you or anyone else here who wishes to discuss this to contact me at eahara@comcast.net. I have written several manuscripts I can send out which clearly explain the Catholic Faith from the scriptures.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:39AM

Catholicism's a great hideout, isn't it?
You truly know better if you truly know the Lord.
And Christianity~ the real kind that the Apostles and disciples of Christ actually lived, began not in the 1500's, but at Pentecost.
I strongly suggest you get back into the Bible, and not Catholic doctrine.
What is God's will?

Rich Rostrom| 7.22.11 @ 1:39AM

"no religious test" means that elected or appointed office may not be conditioned on profession of any particular religious belief.

Voters, however, are free to evaluate the religious beliefs of a candidate and include them in the factors by which they judge his fitness for office. I would not under any circumstances vote for a Scientologist, for instance. Or a Wahhabi.

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 2:31PM

I just have to say that this was so very well said!
Thanks, Rich.

POST American| 7.22.11 @ 6:05AM

----AGAIN----

Deep, sustained and unflinching attention
to the MASSIVE, almost century long
demoralization and infiltration of GENUINE
Christianity by 'Free' Masonry, the ever
sinister, ever corrupting Rockefellers and their countless
London sourced Fabian takedown ops.

There's nothing speculative or theoretical
about this. It's ON RECORD.

Even the most deluded, self-basting Oprah
addict can NOT deny it.

The deady sinister, utterly unaccountable,
ultra-rich, TAX FREE 'chair-irritable' foundations
have to be drawn out, taken apart and profoundly
prosecuted.

The very future of mankind is now in the
hands of these monsters who themselves
haven't worked an honest day as the world
works --in generations, if even then.

Petronius| 7.22.11 @ 10:59AM

Ad Meum Dei Gloria?
not this planet.

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 11:20AM

So Tyrell wants me to believe he is a Catholic.

Catholic my Aunt Minnie.

No one can be a Catholic and a Conservative.
No one can be a Catholic and a Liberal.

Catholicism is its own entity. Mr. Tyrell needs to go back to class and have some good Catholic philosophy teachers reform and reshape his conscience properly.

Scott Lahti| 7.22.11 @ 2:14PM

Recalling the rebuke of the Ancient in Shaw's 'Back to Methuselah' -

Infant, one moment of the ecstasy of life as we live it would strike you dead.

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 6:22PM

Mr. Hara,

"No one can be a Catholic and a Liberal."
Completely true.

"No one can be a Catholic and a Conservative."
Utterly false.

Edward Hara| 7.26.11 @ 12:05AM

Conservative =

1. Money, money, money. It's all about the money. Conservatism protects the rich at the expense of the poor. This is fact, and the voting records of Conservatives prove this.

2. Bomb the hell outta them!!! That is the answer de jour of Conservatism. We are in a war economy, thanks to the military/industrial complex holding hands with Conservative War Hawks in Congress (most of whom, remarkably enough, have never served in the military).

3. Mean spirited nastiness towards the poor. Constantly whining about how the poor should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" with smarmy and condescending insults. I've heard this more than once on Right Wing Radio programs.

I guess the best example of this was heard on Rush's show one day when he explained that the purpose of life, our goal as Westerners in America, is the acqusition of things and the bettering of one's position in life.

No, Rush. That is NOT the purpose of life. Life is not where we strive to acquire as many toys as we can before dying. It is the preparation area for eternity, and only a fool concentrates on hoarding that which cannot go through the Valley of Death with him.

Nick| 7.27.11 @ 2:55AM

Mr. Hara,

First, let me welcome you home to Holy Mother Church. Praise the LORD!

"If you think Jesus wouldn't talk this way, please read Matthew 23."

I appreciate your lack of patience, as I have been guilty of the same, on this site and others. As the ole' saying goes, "Patience is a virtue." Patience is also one of the twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit. (See CCC para. 1832; Galatians 5:22-23.)

I know that Christ used harsh and direct language against his enemies, but, He never used obscenities. As you did in your comment of 7.22.11 @ 12:48PM. Would you use obscenities in His presence? Like during Mass? Fellow Christians are not our enemies. We should not treat them as such.

Again, I write this not from a holier than thou attitude, but, as someone guilty of worse offences myself. Except swearing. I do keep that kind of language out of my posts, although, I've had to restrain myself, many times!

This article helped me, regarding defending the faith with non-Catholics. Maybe it will also help you:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705fea2.asp

Finally, your comments about conservatives sound like the same old tired lefty bromides I've heard for years (e.g. "military industrial complex".) Rush is not a Catholic, so, you can't fault him for not following Catholic teachings. But, you are not reciting Catholic teaching. To answer your objections one by one:

1) Thou shalt not steal. Respect of private property is expressly taught by the Catholic Church. We can't force others to give to the poor through the government.

2) Thou shalt not kill. The Church has always taught that societies have the right to defend themselves. A nations needs a military to defend itself.

3) Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day Holy. God said that we were to WORK for six days, and rest on the seventh. Able-bodied people should not steal from the rest of us, when they can work. Saint Paul said, "if any man will not work, neither let him eat." (Cf 2 Thess. 3:10) And, sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The free market economy is the best way to help the poor, and, the Church does not condemn free markets, as She does Marxism. Pope Pius XII said, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist" in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. See this article:

http://www.acton.org/pub/comme.....capitalism

Again, welcome home and God Bless!
Yours, in Christ, Nick

Edward Hara| 7.28.11 @ 6:56PM

Hey Nick --

I guess I think of swearing as words that are a little more crass than what I used here.

I agree that the government has no right to steal from us and that we do have the right to private property. I am not a Socialist and I have little time and even less respect for them. But I am not a Capitialist either.

I believe in the Catholic Social Order as expressed in the writings of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Beloc. These can be found over at THE DISTRIBUTIST REVIEW.

Remember also, a free market is not the same as Capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism are really different sides of the same coin -- the money and/or goods are owned by a very small coiterie of men who make wage slaves out of the rest of us. The only appreciable difference is that Capitalists don't usually take their workers out and shoot them.

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 3:02AM

Mr. Hara,

I never used the word Capitalist. Capitalist is a Marxist term. I try to never use it. And, you didn't, either, if look at your original comment. Your wrote:
"No one can be a Catholic and a Conservative."

Conservative and capitalist are not synonymous. Conservatives believe in the free market system. Which is why I am a conservative and a Catholic, like Mr. Tyrrell. A faithful Catholic knows that all forms of idolatry are against God's Commandment, and, that we must struggle against their temptations.

"I guess I think of swearing as words that are a little more crass than what I used here."

Come on! You think using the vulgar term for someone's backside is not swearing? Why? Because you here them on T.V. all the time. As I asked you before, would you talk like that in Christ's presence?

Again, I'm not holier than thou. Swearing is a very bad habit of mine. But, when I'm typing, I have more time to deliberate, so, it's easier to keep from cursing on blogs.

Also again, welcome home! I hope you get a chance to read that article on the "Church Belligerent" from Catholic Answers. It's very enlightening.
God Bless!

Edward Hara| 7.30.11 @ 12:56AM

I tried to link to the Church Belligerent and the link took me somewhere else.

How abou this, from the KJV --

1Ki 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

Meeeayah, that's pretty earthy!

I know, trying to justify my bad language. Okay, I'll work on it. Thanks for the reminder.

Sorry, Conservative to me has a bad conotation. When I think of Conservative, I think of Rush Limbaugh and that host of right wing zealots who are constantly bloviating on the radio.

I opinion is that a Catholic should be about 50% of each -- Conservative and Liberal. At least, to those who look at his outward beliefs and practices.

Thanks for the welcome Home. Where's the dinner table?

Nick| 7.30.11 @ 3:55AM

Mr. Hara,

I'm sorry. Here is the link to which I was referring:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705fea2.asp

I'll give you a hint. Don't try to justify a word choice, to another Catholic, with the KJV! Ha-ha!

I'm sorry that Conservative has a bad connotation in your mind. And, I know talk-radio isn't for everyone. But, I don't see how a Catholic can be 5% liberal, let alone 50%.

Even the few issues, of which they are on the right side, they aren't right for the right reasons. Unless, you would like to explain what, precisely, is the "50% liberal" that a Catholic should be?

"Where's the dinner table?"

At the Mass, of course!
God Bless!

Nice| 7.22.11 @ 10:49PM

The church even says it has the right to condemn people to hell.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

Tony in Central PA| 7.23.11 @ 12:52PM

It is absolutely not true that the Church has the " right " to condemn people to hell. The most the Church can do is excommunicate a person, and even that doesn't close the door on that particular person reentering the Church.
The thing about excommunication that I find puzzling in this day and age is, why would somebody want to claim a faith with which they fundamentally disagree ? Some career advantage is the only thing I can consider. In the case of a politician, they may claim a false religious identity in order to attract voters of that particular religion ( see our current President, also Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry etc ).

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 7.23.11 @ 12:21AM

Nice commentary except the part of utilizing as a comparison, Obama's former [radical] church. The Bachmann's former WELS church body can hardly be considered radical, as it is evangelical and has nothing to do with fomenting political ideology.......

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 3:11PM

Just a word to good old JP~ hey, where'd ya go?
Throw a few stones my way and then I answer you and you leave?
Nice guy.

RCV| 7.23.11 @ 11:01PM

Nick and Margie - sincere thanks for a respectful, enlightening and Chistian discussion of doctrine.

Margie| 7.24.11 @ 12:04AM

Thanks.

RCV| 7.24.11 @ 7:01PM

It was one of the best biblically based Catholic-Protestant theology debates I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

Margie| 7.25.11 @ 1:24AM

RCV,
I'm not a Protestant. Just one for whom Christ died.
Truly, please do not label me that, ok? I'm just a Christian in need of His mercy every day of my short little life on this earth, which will soon be over with sooner than I think.
Thanks, and I appreciate what you said.

Nick| 7.24.11 @ 7:21PM

RCV,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I hope others will learn by our example. Not that I'm blowing my own horn! Marie has been very patient with me.
God Bless!

Nick| 7.24.11 @ 7:22PM

Sorry, Margie (Marie!), typing to fast!

Margie| 7.25.11 @ 1:32AM

Nick,
You are something else, but then so am I, so we're even.
I wish we could all get together and get into the Bible.
A giant Bible study with all who wanted to attend.
I would love that. Just a thought.
God bless.

Nick| 7.25.11 @ 2:42AM

Margie,

That would be great!

POST American| 7.24.11 @ 2:33AM

-------------BOTTOM LINE--------------

Confront your church leadership about their
affiliations and undisclosed funding sources.
Special attention to this invidious spy network
'Clergy Response' that's reportedly blanketing the country.

And don't be put off by the condescending
manner of the operatives. They're usually
just what they are, low level sycophants, and
hence even more deluded than their 'flocks'.

GET the Rockefeller demoralization op
'Council of Churches' and all the
sundry Freemasonry ops ---OUT.

If that's not possible leave your church and
found your own ---with just a few, honest,
doctrinally sound members and families.

Finding,. clearing and guarding your space
really is fundamental to begining to deal with
this mess.

You have to feel open and secure within your
own private spaces, and societies of choice.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|30 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|71 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|10 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|18 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|21 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 6.19.13

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6.19.13

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.19.13

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 6.19.13

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 6.19.13

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 6.19.13

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Current Crisis

Bachmann and the Pope

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (348) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kenny| 7.21.11 @ 6:51AM

PJ| 7.21.11 @ 9:33AM

Delta Zelda| 7.21.11 @ 12:21PM

canuckistani| 7.21.11 @ 12:57PM

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 1:29PM

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 6:26PM

skip| 7.21.11 @ 1:48PM

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 3:14PM

masly | 7.21.11 @ 11:22PM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:02AM

Publius| 7.21.11 @ 10:25AM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:34AM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:53PM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:32PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 11:07PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 11:21PM

mames| 7.22.11 @ 11:19AM

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 1:55PM

Mike McLaren| 7.21.11 @ 2:18PM

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 2:36PM

Evanston2| 7.21.11 @ 4:27PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:38PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 9:52PM

Edward Hara| 7.22.11 @ 12:54PM

Sammy Begley| 7.21.11 @ 12:04PM

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 2:46PM

calvin | 7.21.11 @ 8:06PM

cuban pete| 7.21.11 @ 3:20PM

Doctor Right| 7.21.11 @ 3:22PM

TrueBlue| 7.21.11 @ 3:37PM

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:41PM

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:10PM

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 10:00PM

Patrick| 7.21.11 @ 10:25PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:03AM

Elron H.| 7.21.11 @ 10:28AM

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:48PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:37PM

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 10:02PM

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 5:46PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:47PM

IXLR8| 7.21.11 @ 7:35AM

Ryan| 7.21.11 @ 8:24AM

Ryan| 7.21.11 @ 8:25AM

David T| 7.21.11 @ 9:30AM

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 10:00AM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:08AM

Citizen Jerry| 7.21.11 @ 10:39AM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:53AM

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 11:38AM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:25PM

David T| 7.21.11 @ 1:58PM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 4:18PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:34PM

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:23PM

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 6:54PM

mames| 7.21.11 @ 10:42PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 1:25PM

JP| 7.21.11 @ 4:17PM

YeloStalyn| 7.21.11 @ 5:54PM

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 8:21PM

Margie| 7.21.11 @ 8:38PM

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:25PM

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 4:48PM

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 1:20AM

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 10:03AM

David T| 7.22.11 @ 10:30AM

YeloStalyn| 7.22.11 @ 1:41PM

David C| 7.22.11 @ 3:50PM

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 9:53PM

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 8:08PM

Margie| 7.22.11 @ 9:12PM

Nick| 7.22.11 @ 11:50PM

Margie| 7.23.11 @ 4:10PM

Nick| 7.23.11 @ 8:01PM