>I am Hungarian, male, aged 23, Protestant, called Ferenc Nemeth. :That would explain the "anti-Mary" bias. However, let me quote :what Martin Luther himself said about our Blessed Mother. [...] Luther doesn't bind my conscience. Have you ever heard him chide the Jews ("About the Jews and Their Lies")? Do you want me to go anti-Semitic just because Luther told them off in his anger? I can very easily ascribe the Marianism of Luther to his past (he had been a monk), and treat it accordingly. >I don't post it for technical reasons: for one year my posts tend >not to appear in the group (and I don't get back them with a >moderatorial remark that I should further edit them). Otherwise >I'd be exceedingly glad to unmask your overbold assertions in >the public. :I would be happy to have you post them. In fact, I will post this :exchange and see what happens. I am going to answer in private mail, however I'll try again and again to make myself noticed on the group. Post your letters, but if I can't manage to do this with mine, please post them too. It would be the a fine gesture of goodwill on your side. However, my account will expire within some weeks. >>Yes, true. But your implication, stated next, falls apart. >>Stating that we are all mother and brother is true spiritually. >>The Blessed Mother was Jesus' REAL Mother - no other human had >>or will have that privilege. Right? >Note well, the REAL mother was just standing outside the crowd! >And despite her "privilege" and her claims that she wanted to speak >to Him, the Lord declared His mother and brothers those who obey Him. >You got nowhere - it is the Lord to debunk your puerile conjecture. :Come on now! :Was Jesus a human? Was He born? Yes and yes. The Blessed Virgin :Mary is His real earthly Mother. She gave Him the human nature :to the Divine Nature of Jesus, Son of God. And that is also why :He is called Son of Man, since He was like man in all things :but sin, right? And despite this, He dismissed His REAL mother to point out to those who are spiritual mothers etc. Have ears for this, too. >>Mary, the Blessed Mother, was and is human, created by God, >>and not divine. So we agree on that part. So do you really say >>that the MOTHER OF GOD is "just" another human, nothing >>special? True, not divine, but "just another human?" >First: she isn't the mother of God. :If you say that is true, how then did Jesus come to earth? Bad logic. Jesus assumed His >human< nature from Mary, and this doesn't require of Mary to be the mother of >God<. (Otherwise she would be the mother of the Trinity as well.) :(See Luther's comments, too.) I put them aside as Romish reminiscences in his theology. :Luke chapter 1: :31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring : forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. :32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most : High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David : his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And note well, it isn't said: "On this account you'll be called the mother of God." :33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. :34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because : I know not man? :35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall : come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow : thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee : shall be called the Son of God. Again, the birth of Jesus didn't give Mary any epithets. > God has no mother. :The Son of God has a Mother. No. The Son of God has a mmmother (according to His assumed human nature). :And He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. So with God in Three Persons, :the Blessed Trinity, Mary is the Daughter of God the Father, Spouse of :God the Holy Ghost, Chapter and verse? By the way, as "She" is the "Mother of God", "She" is naturally the "Mother of the Father" and not His "daughter", and likewise, "Mother of the Holy Spirit" and not His "spouse". :and Mother of God the Son. She's quite well connected to God, isn't She? After your gratuitous epithet "Mother of God" given to her, yes. But not as mother, spouse and daughter, just as mother. :One heck of a perfect human! Do you really think that God would be :espoused to ANYONE with ANY SIN in all eternity? He is espoused to the Church as well, and the Church is still in need of cleansing. So your logic falls flat. Pick other arguments. > Jesus Christ was born of Mary according to the flesh. :YES! So how do you claim God has no Mother? Carnal birth doesn't make God the son of Mary. > Second: Mary is human, :YES! And God's unique in the universe of Creation human, the :Mother of God the Son. Remember that we Catholics do NOT :say Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is Divine. Only God is Divine, :Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost. I know that. The problem is that you call her mother of God, what she isn't. >and God doesn't look at the faces of men. We have our scriptural >testimonies to back up our claim. Go and find one in favour of >yours before making such pompous assertions. :Did Jesus walk the earth? Did He look at the face of men? :Yes and yes. So what are you talking about? Is Jesus God :in your belief? He is. Perfect God and perfect man. But Mary isn't the mother of God, for she isn't the mother of the Trinity. >>What is the 4th commandment? Did the Son of God have a Mother? >>Does Jesus follow His own commandments? Therefore does Jesus, >>Son of God, honor His Mother? >The Son of God had a mother. But He didn't have a "Mother". :Yes He did, as shown above. The Son of God had a mmmmmmother. But He did't have a "MMMMMMMother". >And He honoured her. So I do honour my mother. What's your problem? :No problem here. But you do not want to honor the Blessed Mother. She is not my mother. Why honour someone else's mother as mine? >Beside this, the "beloved disciple" John is just as human as >anyone of us, in spite of that Jesus Christ is specifically >said to have loved him. :Yes, St. John the beloved disciple is just as human as us. :But John was not God's Mother. Neither was Mary. :So what's your point? You could as well adress him with prayers and hymns. After all, he is the Beloved One of God! :John chapter 19: :25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and : his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. :26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple : standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, : behold thy son. :27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. : And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. :Jesus specifically tells us that all of us are to consider :the Blessed Virgin as our Spiritual Mother and She to :consider all of us as Spiritual Children. Maybe I'm blind. Where does He tell this thing to us "specifically"? >>If Jesus honors His Mother, are we correct in not honoring Her? >Yes. She was the mother of Christ only according to the flesh, :Yes, She is the flesh heritage of Jesus. And Her Spouse is :God, the Holy Ghost. Thus he isn't the "mother of God", just the mother of Jesus Christ our Lord according to the flesh. >and I have my own mother according to the flesh. :Yes. As I have to honour her, so are you. Remember, your logic allows the leap "honour someone else's mother"! >To stretch the >analogy further would make Mary a spiritual mother of Christ. :No. You stretched your analogy in the wrong direction. :BUT She is our Spiritual Mother with God as our Spiritual Father. Our new birth is not carnal. Mary was Christ's mother according to the flesh. So she cannot be our spiritual mother. >>If not to honor is your answer, do you know better than Jesus? >Where did Jesus Christ command us to honour His mother? :Are the 10 commandments from God and is Jesus God? :Surely you do not suggest to eradicate the 4th commandment? This commandment is the fifth one. That aside, where did Jesus Christ command us to honour His mother? :How about Jesus reminding us of that it still holds (until :Heaven and earth pass away)? :Matthew chapter 15: :4 Honour >>thy<< father and mother: And: He that shall curse : father or mother, let him die the death. :5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, : The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. :6 And he shall not honour >>his<< father or >>his<< mother: and : you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. I see. You can't read the words >>thy<< and >>his<<. Go to an ophthalmologist. I myself wear spectacles. >>These are not rhetorical so let's hear your answers. >You are arrantly mistaken, not being able to apply the commandment >of God correctly. It says "honour thy mother" etc. and not "honour >someone else's mother". If you know better than the Author of the >Ten Commandments, please correct Him. :He has informed me, therefore I follow His Word. Show me this piece of "Word." >>The Blessed Mother is also the ONLY human to have NO SIN, >>original or actual during her life. >Just another Romish invention. Paul says "all have sinned in Adam". :First of all, see Luther's own comments. They are the remnants of his Romish period. Trashed. :Protestants didn't come around for 1600 years or so after Jesus, right? Wrong. We Protestants willingly acknowledge what is Christlike in your denomination, and we don't reject the ancient undivided Church only when it wronged against the Word of God. :There are many Protestant denominations, all with different :Bible interpretations, right? :So how is it that all are different and all claim to be right? We don't claim to be infallible. You, in turn, do so, while you yourselves also have quarrelling parties ("Is Mary mediatrix?"). Formerly there were lasting debates about predestination (Thomists vs. Molinists), Mary's alleged immaculate conception (Dominicans vs. Franciscans) and so on - in which the pope didn't decide for centuries when this would have been the most urgent need. So your denomination is also divergent in its beliefs, and the pope cannot solve this problem. :2 Peter 3:16 :"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; : in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the : unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, : to their own destruction." And if you read Paul's epistles, you'll find him ever and anon recur to his own teaching with an enlightening purpose: "Shall we sin that grace may abound?", "Did God reject Israel?", "Did Abraham gain anything according to the flesh?", "Shall we boast?" etc. These were those difficult things, not any ridiculous gestures in front of the altar. :Second of all, Jesus' own Catholic Church is COMMANDED to be :THE Teacher. :Matthew 28: :19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in : the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. :20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded : you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation : of the world. I don't find "Catholic" in the text. However, the Orthodox also call themselves Catholics. Further, Calvin in the lumbering volumes of his Institutio kept calling "Catholic Church" what he thought to be something different from the papal denomination. So you proved nothing. :So I can also pull out of the infallible dogma on the subject :of our Blessed Mother too. I can send those if you want. I can save you from it. I know this impious dogma. >>Wouldn't you say that following Her example would lead you to Eternal >>life with God? >No, that's why Christ pointed to Himself as an example to follow. :NO??!??!?!?!? No, as looking at Mary will prevent me from looking at Christ. :Following an example of NO SIN does not lead you to God? Of course it does. For this very reason do I follow CHRIST the sinless One instead of Mary who herself said that she needed a Saviour (Lk 1:47). :So we have two role models, Jesus and Mary. If Mary is :without sin, only the Will of God could have allowed that. Yes. And if not? :Therefore, how can Jesus be "jealous" of us following :either example. Because Mary is inferior to Christ, not sinless, not God, etc. God won't give His glory to idols. >>Do you think that Jesus would want us to reject a perfect human? >>Please answer these. >No, He wouldn't. That's why He pointed to Himself as an example. >He is a Perfect Human. Why opt for another, in turn imperfect, one? :Not imperfect - no sin - original or actual. False. Apart from it, who is more perfect: mary or CHRIST? :Two role models for us. ONLY God's Will could have kept Our Lady :sinless forever. Proof by assertion. You make a statement, and leave it to God to lend His will to it. An irreverent and thoughtless tactic. >>As for praying to the Blessed Mother as blasphemy, not true at all. >>If a friend asked you for help with dealing with your father, >>do you reject him yelling "blasphemer"? If not, why not? >No. Because my father is no God. To God, a better intermediary is >needed than poor wretched me. By the way, when paralleling me with >Mary, do you hold me to be a perfect human? Or sinless? Or above >the average humans? I hope you don't. :Your human father is no god. Jesus says that His Kingdom :is not of this world, so let's keep the discussion :spiritual in this regard. God IS your spiritual Father, :as He is mine also. So you drop the above "father" simile. :The Blessed Mother IS better than you or I - a life of sinlessness. :No, you and I are not perfect - far from it. But She is. In your dreams. You cannot prove it. >>If you have friends, do you not seek out their advice, >>their insights? If yes, then why? The way we communicate >>with those in Heaven is to pray. >But if I have the greatest One in the universe as my Advocate >and His Spirit as my Counsellor, why would I turn to mere humans >when it comes to furthering my requests to God? :See discussion later. Do you believe that all humans :are equally glorified in Heaven, i.e. works of Charity :on earth have no effect on your "level" in Heaven? Maybe they have. I don't contemplate on difference between mere humans when I have to decide whether to go the the Son of God or to a mere human. >Should I despise >the Son of God by not daring to turn directly to Him? :No. Of course, I do NOT say that you MUST pray to Our Lady :or the Saints, but that you CAN. You can always go direct. And I mustn't go "indirect", as there is one Mediator between God and man, and guess what, it is Christ. >He, after all, promised to intercede with the Father for us. :Yes He did. And we both again agree that no man can come :to the Father except through the Son. And to the Son through Mary! (Anathema!) This was declared by pope Leo XIII, in the encyclical "Octobri mense" (1891). Your pope says that no one can go to Christ directly, making you a liar. Look up the encyclical. >You are sidestepping here, not being able to justify your ridiculous >"reflection". You try to bully me into your inventions, and back them up >with God's authority. To you yourself does this kind of vaunting apply: >"here's the infallibility, pope, it's all up to you now" :I will be happy to send more details of the flaws with Sola :Scriptura. It goes against God's Word in the Bible itself. :I have already posted it titled "The Church or the Bible." :Quick summary - what did the first Christians (Catholics actually) "Catholic" in the early centuries didn't imply "Roman Catholic." :do without a Bible in the first several dozens of years? They couldn't. The OT was complete, and the Septuagint contained it in Greek. Paul instructed Timothy to be careful to read up the Scripture in the public (1Tim 4:13), and asked that the scrolls and the books be carried to him (2Tim 4:13). Further, Clement of Rome urges the Corinthians to study the Scriptures (1Clem XLV,2). :How is it that until about 1500, when printing became practical :and people could begin to READ, all those people who COULD :NOT READ and HAD NO BIBLE know the Word of God? By having it read out loudly. Rev 1:3, Col 4:16. :From the Catholic Church, of course! Alas, the Hebrew Scriptures weren't written by your denomination. Neither was the Septuagint. That apart, "Catholic" didn't mean then "Romish." >>Don't you read in Scripture that St. Peter is handed the keys to >>the Kingdom, what you bound on earth is bound in Heaven, to feed My >>(Jesus') sheep (us humans), and the gates of hell shall prevail not? >At last, we see the Roman dragon in its whole pomp! Being unable to >prove your weird claim, you betake yourself to the standard subterfuge >of your denomination: you resort to the Big Blank Papal Cheque. :Read the Church or the Bible posting or file I send for details. I didn't get it. However, it's ridiculous that you can anyhow make the Bible and the Church two mutually exclusive things. Irenaeus never did so. Of course, he had an easier task: he was no papist. >These keys are preaching and church discipline. :Please explain what you are talking about. Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heavens at Pentecost by his preaching. He closed the door for Ananias and Saphira and Simon the magician by his rebuke. Paul asked the Colossians (4:3) to pray for him so that God opened for him the door of the Word (ie. preaching). In 1Cor 16:9 he speaks about an opened door, by which he denoted his missionary work. Again, he says the same in 2Cor 2:12. And we see the apostolic college as a whole exercising this power in Acts 15, by removing the obstacles from before the pagan-born Christians. >We can very well see Peter applying these keys. :See above. You sent no arguments. As for mine, see just above. >But we cannot see Peter coining any dogmas off the top of his head. :The Apostles, St. Peter being the head Chapter and verse? :and therefore first Pope, Church history refutes this allegation. All textual witnesses from Irenaeus on call either Linus or Clement the first Roman bishop, not Peter. Jerome is the first to ascribe the title of the Roman bishop to Peter. Formerly the conviction was that the apostles were entirely different from the local bishops, so they were not counted among them. By the way, do you know that in the first couple of centuries other bishops were also called "pope"? Ask someone if you don't believe me. :had their words and writings - Gospels and Epistles. After the Apostles, :the dogma is called just that. Are you saying that St. Peter's writing :doesn't count for anything? Are you saying his words do not count for :anything? Of course I don't. I just question that your denomination has preserved their additional unbiblical words whereas it rejected many writings claiming Petrine or Pauline origin from the first century. :The words are called Holy Tradition (capital T). A hypothetical thing. I'd call it "Your Blank Cheque". >This is just a Popish claim which neither Peter nor Christ thought about. :I await your proof of said claims. The burden of proof rests on that one who makes the claim, ie. the pope. :Of course, we didn't have a Bible for hundreds of years The Church had the OT as Bible, so your "argument" is off. :and then not for 1500 years did there exist a low cost mass distribution :of the printed Word. However, this was the case under the OT, too. And this didn't prevent God from asking the priests: "Why didn't you teach the truth"? :Again, why do several Protestant denominations argue about the Bible :meaning? Because we sincerely admit that we are not infallible, unlike you, who boast inordinately that you are. However, your denomination has an increasing number of exegetes, many of whom are stoutly debating the traditional interpretation of certain verses (eg. Rev 12.) :We probably both agree that the Bible is the infallible Word of :God? Of course, the KJV has been reported to have 30,000 errors :in it, so I use the Church approved Douay-Rheims version. Maybe the KJV has 30,000 departures from your translation, but they don't become errors on this mere score. Those who "report" such things are usually biassed Roman Catholics. Let me tell you a story. In Hungary, where I happen to live, Bible distribution was not always easy. For example, when the 1590 Protestant version had to be amended one hundred years later (yea, it was admitted to be imperfect!), a new revision was made by Hungarians in Holland. When it was printed, a Polish Catholic lord (Vienna was to be avoided!) called the Jesuits (as he confused the words "Aranyos Biblia" - "Gilded Bible" with "Arianus Biblia" - "Arian Bible") to scan it through at the country frontier. (Hungary was then adjacent to Poland.) These worthy heresy hunters claimed to find 400 errors in the translation - however, when further investigations were made in the presence of the oppressed Protestants and some Dutch envoys, the number was reduced to 1 (one). It ran: "Baptize them ONTO the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", whereas the former Protestant translation had IN, and the RC version something else. It's the more ridiculous that the present Hungarian RC translation uses ONTO, thanks to the fact that in Hungarian "baptize" is translated with "crossify", which has no implication of immersion but to drawing the sign of cross on the forehead. Thus we see 400 being reduced to zero. This will suffice about "errors". >>The Catholic Church Jesus established on earth >He didn't establish your denomination, together with a pope, cardinals, >priests, Mass, statues and purgatory. These are but later innovations. :I await your proof of said claims. The burden of proof of papacy, purgatory etc. lies on you. :So then the Church just wandered around until 1600 or so when :the "light" of the protestant finally made God's Word clear? Sort of that. However, the ones who first reverted to the sources (ie. Greek and Hebrew Scriptures) were actually Catholics, called Humanists. Later the majority of them turned Protestant. :All the many "lights" where none agree? The Word of God is the light. We liberated it from the dungeon of your denomination which was puffed up in the Latin Vulgate - the rest will be solved by God. Such principles of sound exegesis which were formerly condemned as Protestant in origin - were allowed in 1943 (see the encyclical Divino afflante spiritu). :I hope you find out before your judgement day, my friend. That is my fervent hope, too - concerning you. >>continues in revealing further details on God's great Truth. >The Church of Christ is commanded to keep what she has learnt from >her Master, and not to add to it. :True. And not throw out parts you don't like We don't do anything like this. What do you have in mind? The Apocrypha of the OT? Jerome also rejected them. Further, 2Mac approves prayer FOR UNREPENTANT DEAD IDOL WORSHIPPERS, ie. for ones already frying in hell. Disentangle yourself from this book if you can. Don't be upset if you can't: none of my RC correspondents could untie this knot. As an aside note, you dropped your (?) initial claim about "revealing further details on God's great Truth." :and not have everyone figure out their own interpretation of which :none agree. On these your Church Fathers seemed to have been in two minds. We do surpass them in biblical knowledge. :If the Word of God is perverted, then the gates of hell HAVE :prevailed, right? Yes. And this is our chief accusation against your denomination. >Your denomination, on the other >hand, arrogates to herself such power which was never given to the >Church of Christ. This shows that yours is not the Church of Christ. :So is this "faulty?" :Matthew 28: :19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in : the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. :20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded : you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation : of the world. He didn't say "Teach what you will". You, in turn, try to exploit this passage to arrive at something like this. >>This is stated clearly about Mary in the dogma of Her Immaculate >>Conception and Assumption, body and soul, into Heaven. >This just proves that heresy has to grasp at unwarranted and despotic >means (arrogant and cursing papal bulls etc.) to prevail against your >denomination. It's your problem that you endure Satan to get his grip >on your denomination. :It is interesting that you bring up Satan, the father of lies. Paul did the same when saying "the devil as a roaring lion roams around to devour whomever he can". :How like him to claim the Truth is false and falsehood the Truth. :And I know the Truth is spoken as the hatred shows itself aimed at me. What's your problem? Read some papal bulls and then see who is filled with hatred. Formerly it was a frequent phrase of popes to threaten the opposing crowds "with the wrath of God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul". >>And who is the head of the Catholic Church on earth >The head of the Church of Christ is, quite surprisingly, Christ. :On earth, He has His Vicar, the Pope. Chapter and verse? In my Bible the Holy Spirit is His "vicar". :Jesus works through human hands right now, until He comes again. Why should "human hands" be read as "papal hands"? :However, Jesus is truly present on this earth through the Blessed :Eucharist, which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Chapter and verse? >And if you claim to have a different head then let you realize that >either you have to throw away Christ or you have to make your >denomination a two-headed monster. :Following your logic, so then protestants have a "hundreds- or :thousands-headed monster" since they cannot all agree, with every :denomination being different. Your logic is flawed, as we don't claim to be the Heads of the Church. :Why would God let His sheep wander in all these ways to get to Heaven? :Why can't Jesus get it straight, with all these denominations anyway, :Him being the Head of the many churches? Please explain why? He prophesied many heresies. Cannot Rome be one of them? >Your additional clause "on earth" >resolves nothing. What do you think, why does Paul in Ephesians say >to Christians on earth that the head of the Church is Christ - if not >because he felt that Christ in Heaven is a sufficient head for the >Church on earth? :I assume you refer to Eph 1:22 or 5:23. Yes. :See above comments already. Are you then claiming that the :other Bible Gospels, which say clearly to teach the world :are made null and void or what? This commission doesn't even imply that those who go and preach are in any way "heads" of the Church. The contradiction isn't with the gospels but with your traditions. :These verses simply state that the Church comes from God, and not man :as in the pagan worship of those days (or even today like buddhist and :the like). I do not know what religion the Ephesians were at that time :(before Catholic that is). And that Christ is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. >>- the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter the 1st Pope. >The pope is not the "Vicar" of Christ, :He is indeed. Chapter and verse? >as Christ is with us always through the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. :And in the Blessed Eucharist too, in physical form no less, :via transubstantiation. ^ Anathema. | >Him do you have to eliminate >if you want to have your Roman boss accepted as "vicar". :Let's get one thing straight. Jesus IS the head of His :Church, and the Pope is His CHIEF representative on earth. And you assert that he is the head of the church. :You imply we treat the Pope as a replacement for Jesus - we do not. Then are there two simultaneous heads in the Church? >Add the numbers >of VICarIVs fILII DeI according to the Latin counting. What's the result? >666. So, your pontifex maximus can only be the Vicar of the Antichrist. :An interesting perversion. Are you a new ager or freemason? No, I am Charismatic Protestant, however, lately I tend towards classic Reformed theology. Address the above computation. Vicarivs Filii Dei is the official title of the pope, not a Protestant cavil. You yourself deem your boss the Antichrist. >Worse, Peter was no pope. It' clear from Gal 2, where he is reported >to have accepted Paul's correction in a grave doctrinal issue - such >thing no pope is likely to do ever. :Really? Perhaps you can expound in detail. :I do know the story and want to hear your claim. The pope is alleged to have never erred in doctrine. (See "Dictatus Papae".) However, Peter was in need of grave doctrinal correction. >>So when our modern Pope declares such dogma, it comes from God. >As I refuted all your pretensions, this conclusion is flawed, too. :As you rejected, not refuted. I refuted them by pointing out that you give no proof. >>So your rejection of God's continued teachings might actually be the >>blaspheming. Doesn't Jesus say that rejection of those who follow Him >>are rejecting Him? >God made His final word in Christ (Heb 1). If you argue for "continued >teaching", please quote chapter and verse. Your argument about those >following Christ fails to make a case for the papacy unless you prove >that the popes are following Christ. :I did - see above. So why did Jesus speak only to St. Peter :specifically? God doesn't do anything without a specific :reason. He acted thus because He wanted the Church to be represented by one individual in the beginning. This is the interpretation given by "St" Cyprian in his book "About the unity of the Church." Peter was the preaching one at Pentecost. However, later all apostles are called rock (Eph 2:20), and Paul is reported to have used the keys (preaching, see above). - By the way, your comments on Peter prove nothing regarding popes. >>Since Mary, the Blessed Mother, is the Mother of God >Be sure, she isn't. She is just the mother of Christ. >And even that according to the flesh. :"Just" the Mother of Jesus Christ. "Just" blessed among women? :That's more than any other human ever was or ever will be. "Blessed among women" refers to the dignity of being the mother of the Messiah. It was the highest goal of a Jewish woman. This is the reason for saying "among women" and not "among humans." Blessedness has to do with motherhood of Christ, and not with allegedly being Corredemptrix, Mediatrix, Queen of Heaven etc. >>and Jesus is the Founder of the Catholic Church, >Another false allegation. Your denomination doesn't have anything >but her own words in her favour. :So why is it that the protestant didn't arrive on the scene until :1600 or so? Cyprian of Carthage was Protestant. He opposed pope Stephen and denied his interpretation of the keys of Peter. Yet he is among your saints. >>can't you see how Mary is the Mother of the Church? >Mary, the mother of our Lord, isn't the mother of the Church of Christ. >But if you want to argue that the monstrous idol you have substituted for >her is the mother of your denomination, I'll willingly give you credit. :I'll take the credit, since She is indeed the Mother of the Catholic :Church, with Jesus as the Head, or Father. A perverted denomination requires a monstrous mother (ie. the pseudo-Mary). >>True that you must go though Jesus to get to the Eternal Father. >>The Blessed Mother and saints are intercessors, helpers. They >>lead you TO Jesus. Mary leads you to Her Son - not to Herself >>and not directly to the Eternal Father - but ALWAYS to Jesus. >It's your opinion. In the Bible we find the Holy Spirit in this role. >Although, if you want to dispose of Him, do it quickly. :Hmmmm.. Perhaps we argue over the ROLE of the Holy Spirit. :I do NOT dismiss Him, not in the least. He is the Love of :God, from the Father and the Son. And Our Lady was present :with the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended at :Pentecost. No privilege here: there were 120 of them. But address my words. Mary is alleged to lead us to Jesus. Yet we don't find heavenly saints in this role in the Bible. We find the Holy Spirit there. >>Yes, the Blessed Mother completely followed God's Will - >>completely so that She never sinned. >It is debatable even according to your denomination. The dogma of the >"immaculate conception" doesn't say she never committed any light sin >but that she was allegedly devoid of the stain of original sin. :We need to get through the foundational issues before dealing with this :one. Since you reject all Catholic teachings, digging into the details :here is an exercise in futility. Rejecting to buy my house from its :external curb appeal means that I won't bother showing you the :kitchen, if you get the drift. Right. I require proof of you, and you offer mere assertions. >>So, if we strive to do no sin, not possible without God's specific >>Grace given only to those two individuals, isn't that following >>Jesus' example? >Which "two individuals" do you have in mind? Jesus and Mary? >Nice couple - God and Goddess. :God and NOT goddess. I discussed the role model thing earlier. :We NEVER claim to make Mary, the Blessed Mother, divine - never. In your above words you make no distinction. When elevating your cursed idol to the level of mediatrix, you are never alert to guard Christ's majesty. You strive to have your fictions accepted without defending your arguments to this effect. Nice tactic. >>>You surely do not think that she could be all that much more >>>trustworthy than any other human? After all she is just that. >>Indeed not! She is much more that the normal human, >>no sin ever, body and soul in Heaven, the REAL Mother >>of God. I will gladly, along with my brother here, ask >>the Blessed Mother for help, gladly pray to Her to >>lead me to Her Son. Gladly. >"No sin ever" is just your misinterpretation of your false dogma. >Ask a learned one if you don't believe me. :You are entitled to an opinion. Ask someone. Your dogma runs "she was conceived without the stain of original sin". The opinions stating "she never sinned" are not dogmas but interpretations of this false dogma. >"Body and soul in heaven" is just a fifth century apocryphal fabrication. :Your statement is one of many protestant heresies actually. You impertinent and ignorant fellow: QUOTE THE EARLIEST TESTIMONY IN YOUR FAVOUR. You can't find earlier ones than the fabulous Acts of Transitus from the fifth century. Keep quiet if you have no arguments. >The bold reference to her being "REAL" mother falls flat on the face >when you realize that by saying :We discussed this above. And you were defeated. See the continuation below. >"Those are my mother and brethren who do the will >of My Father" Jesus Christ Himself placed obedience to the Father's >will above mere carnal relationship - as His REAL mother was then >standing outside and waiting for Him in vain. If the Son of God >gives precedence to the Father's obeyers over His carnal relatives, >why should I still cling to the latter ones, if I don't pray even >to the apostles? :A heart of stone, as Jesus says. Sidestepping. You were not hindered from copying your earlier answer here if not by the fact that you had never answered this question. >>There are specific prayers and sacramentals which the >>Blessed Mother obtains God's various Graces for us. >They are just impious novelties. :Your loss. :Matthew 7:6 :"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls : before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, : and turning upon you, they tear you." Misinterpretation. Using this logic ANYTHING can be proven. Eg. that Buddhism is the finest pearl of Christianity. >>For example, the Brown Scapular in which She promised, through >>God's Grace (always), that the wearer will not goto hell (may be >>in purgatory though) upon death. I'll take an intercessor like >>Her any day! >Thus, wearing this scapular will magically squeeze you into heaven, >even if you sin "mortally" daily, and die unrepentant! What a horrid >blasphemy! And you still call it "through God's Grace!" Phew! What >kind of "grace" is a blank cheque which allows you to sin as wildly >as you can, and still go to heaven (through the so-called purgatory)?! :Making claims without knowledge. :God forgives ALL sins, BUT ONLY IF REPENTANT! The nefarious brown scapular doesn't require repentance, as it's not explicitly mentioned. :Read your Bible, man! In MY Bible no mention of any brown scapular is found. :And how DO YOU KNOW that one is not repentant at the moment of death? Obfuscation. We are not arguing about specific individuals but about the irresponsible Mariac assertions. Your sect makes claims and then requires additional interventions of God on every man to be able to maintain them. :And if you behave as foolishly as you suggest, then you will indeed :have a very, very long purgatory. The so-called purgatory does not exist. The Orthodox also deny it. I don't fear your puerile inventions. :In fact, although I doubt you will believe this, from a book on Purgatory :comes the story of a man dying in a Catholic hospital. The staff put on :him a scapular and he took it off saying it gave him burning sensations. :So God WILL NOT allow the foolish unrepentant behavior that you describe. :And God keeps His promises, right? Fabulous and old-womanish tales. Moreover, what does it prove regarding your opinion that repentance is needed even with the brown scapular? Was this man unrepentant? Even then, the "burning sensations" could only be the alleged flames of the so-called purgatory, as you said: >>the Brown Scapular in which She promised, through God's Grace >>(always), that the wearer will not goto hell (may be in purgatory >>though) upon death. :Of course, you probably don't believe that it was allowed by God. :Just like anything else from God, one must have Faith too. Faith in the pope and his fictions. >>Did it ever occur to you that when we are in Heaven, that we can >>still ask for things which are compatible with God's Will and get >>them for our friends still living on earth? >Alas, even those in heaven don't precisely know God's will. We have >a example from the book of Revelation where they were refused by God, >saying "Wait until your companions are murdered too". Look it up. :You imply that not having all knowledge means one is blind. No. I say that not having knowledge of God's will regarding the earth implies that they don't know how to pray for us properly. :All knowledge is given from God, so He can tell you about :what is going on if He wants. And you boldly come and say: "And He does want". Alas, the case mentioned refutes this conjecture. :Are you saying He is incapable or He refuses if a child of His :on earth asks for help from a spiritual friend in Heaven? I say that those in heaven can pray badly, and God can refuse them. :Just because you do not ask doesn't mean that others, like me, :don't ask. Just because you do something doesn't mean that you are right. :BTW, that event in Revelations is not all that far away, :believe it or not. What does it have to do with our discussion? >>Friends here means the whole human race since our love will be >>perfect, not limited to the human love we can have. >It is irrelevant to the issue. But we still won't have a perfect >knowledge (see above), which in itself will prevent us from learning >of all the needs on earth. :We will learn about earth as God's Will allows us. But you depict heavenly saints as all-knowing supermen, so your last clause should be: "so God will adjust His Will to us." >>Did it occur to you that you, on the earthly end of the >>stick, can ask your spiritual friends in Heaven for help? >No, never. Where have you read such a vile heresy? :Too bad, you throw out a whole group of friends! No, I just don't attribute to them such knowledge which they, according to Revelation, don't possess. :The whole Catholic Church teaches this. Erroneously. >>> Let us get a grip here. In context, when Jesus says "My mother and my >>> brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." He is speaking >>> of who He considers to be His Mother and Brothers. Now, if Mary heard >>> the Word of God, and did not do it, then you could have cause for >>> your judgement against her. I do not see that judgement here. >>Your context is confused. Read Matt. 12:46-50. It is clear from >>a study of both of these gospels combined what Jesus truly meant. >You didn't answer to this man. Or weren't it you to have committed >the above misquotation? It speaks volumes about the much-claimed >"correct interpretation" in your denomination. :I didn't write it, but let me answer. :Jesus states that in the SPIRITUAL form. Spiritual or not, He calls "mother", "brother" and "sister" those who obey the Father. By the fact that He did so while His mother and brethren were waiting for Him in vain, He emphasized that this kind of motherhood is superior to that according to the flesh. The same can be found the most clearly in Lk 11:27: someone extols Mary, and Jesus replies that those obeying the Father are much more blessed. :For in the eyes of :God, all souls are equal. But also know that souls do earn :merit through their works on earth - faith worketh by charity. :Perhaps that is troubling to those who run around yelling "I :am saved" thinking that is enough. The "equal" here is like :the USA - all have equal OPPORTUNITY for success but not all :people have the same AMOUNT of success. Yes, I see the problem. I am not a "once saved, forever saved" advocate. I rather say "Christ redeemed me with His blood, so I am compelled to run the race". But I will never assign the merit of any of my good deeds to myself but to God. :Mary, was Jesus' Mother, as described many times above. :And yes, She did God's Will - always. That is why She :is "Full of Grace." No, she is reported to be "favoured" apart from any of her deeds. Grace is not something you can merit or deserve. Moreover, "full of grace" is an arrant mistranslation. >>> I do agree that she has no favored status by being a biological >>> parent. That is clear. >>The only human in the history of all creation, being the >>Mother of God, having no higher status in God's eyes? >He was the only one to bear the Son of God in her womb. But this doesn't >make her "Mother of God", as then she would also be the "Mother of the >Father" and "Mother of the Holy Spirit". :We discussed this all above. Mother of God the Son, Spouse :of God the Holy Spirit, and Daughter of God the Father. Empty speculation. Only the third one is biblical. :She is second only to God, with St. Joseph next in line. Excuse me, Abraham is the second one to God. The Israelites considered him the last but one forum to address with prayers (of course I don't mean it serious) in Isa 63:16: "For thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not." :The Blessed Mother is higher than Lucifer too, :that is why She will crush his head (Gen 3:15). A pathetic blunder. Gen 3:15 ACCORDING TO THE LATIN VULGATE says: "Inimicitas ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius; IPSA conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius." "Ipsa" is "she". But the Hebrew unquestionably has the masculine pronoun. This translation error is now admitted even by RCs as such. Ask a priest. >An interesting detail: When Roman Catholics are hard pressed for >evidence regarding the Theotokos ("God-bearer") dogma, they usually >resort to the stock argument that "this title has to do with Christ >rather than to Mary". The context of the Council of Chalcedon which >coined the phrase, said: [Christ] "was born of the God-bearer virgin >Mary according to His humanity". Nothing like "Mary is the Mother of >God". It was then a peripheral issue, Christ being the centre. And RC >arguers ever and anon say: "The title is given to Mary to emphasize >Christ's true manhood, and not in order to magnify her". With this >they usually manage to abate the Protestant flames. >But when everyone has forgotten the context of Chalcedon, presumptuous >men arise and roar: "Mary is the Mother of God, let's magnify Her!" >So they tread upon the very pretext under which they could have their >dogma accepted, and infer from it a doctrine which was totally alien >to the Council of Chalcedon. But never mind: your denomination has >survived greater inconsistencies. :And if you reject the teachings of God's Church on earth, I just reject those beliefs of hers which are unbiblical. :the One who possesses the fullness of Truth, your claim for :all the various disagreeing protestant doctrines as "true" :is light-years from being definitive. I have just given an example for you denomination's error. You didn't address the gist of my argument, so it seems futile to send letters to you. :So while you reject Her, :I will again gladly accept Her prayers and Her help. Which you made up in your wonderland. >To cause you lose your sleep, I mention a couple of interesting things. >Two popes were impious heretics and were condemned by ecumenical councils. >The condemnation of one of them was confirmed by the following popes. >Another pope tried to have his power inaugurated by a council by showing >a forged canon of the council of Nicea. Another exerted himself in the >face of the African church by referring to the canons of a provincial >council as if they were Nicene. Another had a donation letter forged in >which the Emperor Constantine the Great is made to have given the whole >Western Empire under the yoke of the papacy. Another had "ancient >patristic" decrees made in which papal supremacy was declared. Another >declared that papal infallibility is the invention of the devil. >Another denied Mary's alleged immaculate conception. The same rebuked >the patriarch of Constantinople as the follower of Lucifer when he >termed himself "universal bishop." >These are NOT Fundamentalist cavils. Go and ask a priest about >Vigilius and the Three Chapters, Honorius the Monothelite, Leo and >Chalcedon, Zosimus and Carthage, the Constantinian donation and Valla, >Pseudo-Isidorian decrees, John XXII and his bull in 1324, Gregory I >and "only Christ was conceived without sin", and the same pope with >his title "servant of servants of God". :The trials and tribulations of man do not cause me to lose sleep. :For I know that no matter what the Pope as a man does, God can use :His Vicar to declare His Word. The infallibility applies under :specific conditions. These conditions were met in the above cases. These popes roared their false opinions very loudly in the face of the Church. :Did you know that even the Pope has a confessor? Yes, I did. :Why? All men sin (except Jesus and Mary). God and Goddess. :Since you don't agree with infallibility and the Pope, how :does a protestant reconcile the "gates of hell shall prevail not?" By saying that yours is not the Church and that the pope is Antichrist. :Or do they accept that errors do exist in the faith and hope :that God "doesn't mind?" Yes. For example, in your denomination Mediatrix or the exact mode of predestination, so first pick the beam out of your own eye. >The priest (or anyone more educated in your religion than you) :Are you saying that you are complete in knowledge and :therefore are on a "higher plane?" From the lack of your arguments (and the dull repetition of the same proofs-by-assertion) I infer that you don't know even the history of your denomination. I don't have to be omniscient to educate you. >will corroborate me and destroy your one-sided imaginations about >the >doctrinally< pure and unchanging papacy. Note that I am not >contending for the >moral< sanctity of the popes, which was long >ago deemed unnecessary for them. :Your whole argument is mislead. The Pope Perhaps you might first have thought over what you wanted to say, and not just automatically written: "You are wrong". This unfinished line betrays your despair and preconceptions. And that you perforce admit my truth. How sad that you didn't go back and delete your above "arguments" to the effect that "no matter what the Pope as a man does, God can use His Vicar to declare His Word". >>Are you perhaps jealous? >I am not. Jesus Christ, on the contrary, is. :Actually, you doubly sin. First, you reject His Teachings through :the Church and then you impose your human jealousy on Him since His :Church teaches otherwise. Don't just assert things. Give proof. >>Or are you putting your jealousy on Jesus assuming He would not want >>you to goto His Mother for help? >I am not putting anything on Jesus. It was Him, and not me, to have >said "I am the way, and no one can go to the Father except through Me". >If you devise another way beside Him you provoke His jealousy. If you >insert a mediator between Him and mankind you necessarily belittle His >compassionate heart. I did give proof. So it's you who doubly sins. First, you insert a base mediatrix between God and men, and then assume that He will tolerate it. >>In the Catholic Church, we do pray to God's friends for help, we call >>them Saints. >The NT calls all believers saints. :And the Catholic Church calls the ones most following God's :Will Saints (capital S). There is a long involved process to :get classified as a Saint. Unbiblical. The NT calls all believers saints, and you limit it. >>Saints are those who lived a Godly life far above the average human. >Beware whom you despise! James puts forth the example of Elijah >while stating "he was a man, like us". No air of semi-divinity. >Apart from this, you take away the inheritance of the saints >(Col 1:12) to give it to some privileged ones. :I am not claiming Saints have any divinity! I wrote "semi-divinity", if you perchance have problems with English. This charge has its basis, as your denomination actually places these people between the ordinary believers and God. :And who am I despising? The Chosen People of God, the members of which are called "saints" in the Bible, by robbing them of this name, and putting it on semi-gods. :Saints have, by definition of being declared a Saint, lived an :exemplary life on earth - following God's Will more than their :own human will. They are indeed fully human. What is it with you :that immediately throws in the word divinity all the time? Because you think that they are capable of hearing millions of prayers simultaneously. Further, you termed Mary "Mother of God" which is at least smacking of divinity. >>Only God gives the Grace, but the Saint can help us obtain >>God's Grace. >It's just a statement, wanting proof. :Since you reject the teachings of God's Church, that becomes :difficult. Of course, a lot of things are impossible to solve :with Sola Scriptura - look at all the different protestants. The problem is that you invent ridiculous questions to render the Bible insufficient, and then come around with a cry of victory to cure the wounds that you yourself have inflicted. We can see that by erroneously calling the Eucharist a sacrifice, your theologians gave rise to many baffling questions, like "how does it relate to the sacrifice of the cross?" >>Now, let's get practical. If you need help and you ask a Saint >>or the Blessed Mother in Heaven, that benefits you thusly: >>One, while you cannot pray constantly for your intentions, >>the saint can - 24 hours a day. You do sleep and eat don't >>you, so praying 24 hours a day is not humanly possible, true? >Provided they hear you at all. But it's uncertain. :It is certain. Chapter and verse? >And have you >never read "don't speak much in prayer as the pagans who think >that they are heard because of their much speech"? Do you want >me to buy into your torpid and supine mantraization? :You are way off base here. The context was not to :pray to "show your piousness" to man. And good deeds :and fasting are similar - do them in secret so only :your Father knows. Why? Showing off to man is pride :and showing only to God is humility in front of other :men. The context was "not to pray long in the mistaken belief that God hears you because of the length of your prayer". My charges fit you well. You indeed proposed a 24 hour mantraization. >>Two, the saints are EAGER to help - after all, giving in charity >>is the number one virtue according to God. Right? So the saints >>in Heaven please God as they help you. The help of God, >>through Grace, obtained by the saint also helps you get >>closer to God, right? Isn't that a win-win scenario? >Provided they hear you. But God forbade to consult any deceased one, >let it be even Moses or Abraham. So He ruled out your scenario. :You fail to distinguish between the "occult" demonic spirits :and the Saints. God also "failed to distinguish" between them when forbidding the Israelites to "consult the dead." >>Three, when you get help, aren't you pleased? Doesn't God >>also wish to please you, in addition to your daily sufferings? >He can do so without any saintling's mediation. After all, we have >Jesus Christ for our Advocate and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter >not in vain. :You can get by without any Saints help. However, you can also get to :London from New York by plane or ship. I'll take the plane myself, :using my favorite Saints, Blessed Mother and Guardian Angel as jet :fuel. By no means do the Saints or Angels or the Blessed Mother :replace God - not at all. But they can join me in my prayer if :I ask them. And who do they pray to with me? God of course! Jesus Christ is sufficient, and He claims sufficiency very jealously: "There is one mediator between God and men." :Like two heads are better than one. Two-headed beings are usually uncapable of life. Good simile. >>Four, if you contemplate a saint's life, modern ones like St. John >>Bosco, or OT ones (called Patriarchs or Matriarchs for that time >>period), would not that lead you closer to God? A real life example >>of how some particular humans put God first above the world. Doesn't >>God tell us in Scripture to reject this world but long for the next >>- His Kingdom? >The first correct point so far. But I can do it very well without >addressing them with prayers. :You can do it without them, officially. But why limit yourself? Because there is one mediator between God and men. :I could pull out some Catholic info on why it is pleasing to :God to do this, if you are interested. They will be mere happy speculation. But do you know what - send them! I'll be happy too unmask how weak your strongholds are and to sway you in your triumphalism. >>Five, have you considered that the prayers of the Saints >>and Blessed Mother carry more weight than yours alone? >No, never. :Too bad. I always thought 2 or more was greater than 1. Even in the case of mediators between God and men? Further, you defend joint prayer. I am not attacking it. What I am attacking is the notion that we can pray to anyone else than the Almighty God. :And such is God's Will that certain Saints have a :more specific orientation, hence the Patron Saints. Such was the belief of the pagans, too. They also appointed certain gods to guard the specific areas of life. Look out what you call "God's Will!" Maybe it's just a pagan fiction. :Like St. Christopher for travel Hermes is more ancient. Why replace "Him"? :and St. Anthony for finding lost things. Rather Autolycus the patron of thieves. He can >prevent< theft! :Try St. Anthony with FAITH and you will be amazed how well :he works! And don't forget your Guardian Angel. "An unprecedented opportunity! Pray NOW!!!" How businesslike. > And even James who said "pray earnestly" after the example >of Elijah, urges us to "pray for one another". :Yes, for us while we are still on earth. We have not yet been :cleaned of our sinful nature yet. My intent will be clear below. > Then shall I pray FOR Mary? :No, since She is 100% spotless in full view of the Face of God :and does not NEED your prayers. But She can pray for you! Only :if you ask though. I do. But then, your denomination's arguers stumble here when employing this verse for their doctrine of praying TO saints. For it includes praying FOR them too. >Apparently James has in mind prayer requests to those on earth >who can undoubtedly hear us. :On earth, we do not pray TO those on earth, only TO those in :Heaven, and then only to HELP us obtain our petition FROM God. However, your apologists usually try to evade the fiercest accusations by likening prayer to dead saints to prayer requests to those on earth. By your making distinction, their linking together of these things is deemed faulty. :We can pray FOR those on earth while we are on earth or :in Heaven, again to HELP us obtain our petition FROM God. :We can and should also say prayers of THANKS, not just :petitions. Would you pray TO your priest? Give him thanks in prayer? And the same to "St." Anthony? What's the difference? >>They can AMPLIFY your prayers with their intercession. And it's >>all free - all you must do is have Faith - consistent, ain't it? >Maybe they can. Yet they themselves didn't ask deceased ones to >pray for them. :Really? How do you know which Saints various individuals :pray to? Only God knows all that. I had in mind the heroes of faith in the Bible. They are not reported to have addressed humans with prayers. > When emulating them, why should I do the opposite? :Your presumption was incorrect, so this question is invalidated. So: when emulating the heroes of faith in the Bible, why should I do what they never-ever did? >>It's the protestant groups that ignore this Grace from God, >In our fallible opinion God's grace is in Jesus Christ. >Do you assert that we ignore Him any more than you? :I am not asserting you ignore Jesus, but I am asserting :you ignore the Blessed Mother and the Saints, and perhaps :Angels too? We just don't enter through the window or dig our way through the wall. We prefer the Door, as it is written of Jesus. :And ALL Grace comes from God. It's that the Saints, Angels :and Blessed Mother can HELP us obtain more Grace with their :prayers, added to ours. The question again is whether they can add ANYTHING to the intercession of Jesus Christ our sole Mediator. :Again, you have to ask them and have faith. I'll never have faith in such apocryphal and paganistic practices. >>to ask His friends and His Blessed Mother for help. >>Why waste what you have free access to? >I am not sure I have "free access" to any such help. >I cannot see any reliable testimony to this effect. >But God promised to hear my prayers in Jesus' name. >It will suffice for me, a poor sinning worm. :All humans have free access. Ask and it shall be given you... This promise applies to the prayer in Jesus' Name. Shall I pray TO the "saints" in Jesus' Name? >>Finally, look in the Bible when St. Elizabeth says "full of grace" >>to Mary. >I'm sorry to contradict you, but it is just the Latin Vulgate and not >the original text of the Gospel that says "full of grace". The Greek >says "kekharitomene", that is, "graced" or "favoured". If you are not >too bored to check up on what I said now, please verify it from the >widely acknowledged Nestle-Aland text. It may be found on the shelf >of every learned priest. :Actually I goofed. It was St. Gabriel the Archangel who said :"full of grace" and not St. Elizabeth. I was thinking of the :"blessed is the fruit of thy womb" phrase. Never mind, I also overlooked it. The mistranslation is more evil. :I can certainly look up the text you mention, but how :do you think it makes any difference? The Greek runs contrary to your bad translation. "Kekharitomene" is "favoured", not "full of grace". >>What other person EVER mentioned in the Bible has that said to them? >For your information, it is the Son of God Himself. But He is not >described just as "a favoured one" as Mary, but outrightly FULL >of grace, "pleres kharito". See the same Greek text at John 1:14. >Then be ashamed to be found having stolen what is Christ's and >having attributed it to your pseudo-Mary! :OK. By person I should have said - "straight humans." Of course :Jesus is Full of Grace - He is God and is the SOURCE of Grace. Right. >>Where does the Grace come from? God. Who is FULL (not >>just some, but all) of Grace? Mary, the Blessed Mother. >You seem very confident in your loud and heretical assertions. >Again, I urge that you reviewed the Greek text with a dictionary. :The "Full of Grace" is in the Catholic Church approved Bible. This just betrays on how swaying ground your whole "approbation" rests. :Not heretical at all. I have the whole Catholic Church doctrine :which says so. This just shows how hollow your self-assurances are. :And we have proof of the faulty premise of all your doctrines :since the protestant denominations all presumably did just what :you said and all came up with different answers. How can they :all be true? No one claimed that "all" are true. Further, not "all" our doctrines are different. But listen, did you know that the Filioque clause (that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father AND THE SON) was included into the Nicene Creed only in the sixth century? And it's your doctrine. (I don't mean to debate it, but to point out to its later origin.) >>Her and Her alone from the whole human race - forever. >Stop blaspheming Christ, stealing His glory and putting it on your >pseudo-Mary. We have a jealous God who won't lend His glory to idols. :True on the latter, but rejecting God's Mother is nothing but :human jealousy misplaced on God. Rejecting any other mediators is totally biblical. :I can hear the outcry already when the dogma of Co-mediatrix and :Co-redemptrix is declared. It will be the death of your denomination. Protestants will exegetize you to death, and you won't be able to move a limb in your defense. I look forward to this scenario with undisguised pity. >>Let's hear a specific response on all of these questions, please. >You got them. Try to disentangle yourself. :Thank you (sincerely)! No disentanglement needed. So you choose to remain wrapped up in a net of unsolved questions. :One last thought, what if Mary, the Blessed Virgin, said no? :She had free will and could reject God. Think about those :ramifications, man. Think real hard. I have already thought about it. And I came up with the conclusion that God not in vain prophesied the birth of the Redeemer in the OT. He definitely wasn't afraid of Mary's possible refusal. (He did fore- ordain Mary's whole answer, assent etc.) Then why should I tremble?