RELIGION....(part 2)

[makusama]

---

hahahahahahahah I just realized the passages you gave... hahahahhahaha


for a guy who in the past is indeed fond of interpretations... hahahahhaa

Colossians 3:8

but now you also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and shameful speaking out of your mouth
------------------------
1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"


hahahahah is this all you have to say? there is nothing here to dispute anything... you clearly are cornered and nowhere to run yet you do not accept due to stubborness or blind, unreasonable and foolish fanatisism to you mistaken "Pastor" or teacher whoever he may be....

If we follow the passages you provided to the full the n nobody has the right to interpret anything from the Bible (which obviously you are a master of).... tsk tsk tsk

[Cardinal Bunal]

hahahahah is this all you have to say? there is nothing here to dispute anything... you clearly are cornered and nowhere to run yet you do not acceptÂ* due to stubborness or blind, unreasonable and foolish fanatisism to you mistaken "Pastor" or teacher whoever he may be....

If we follow the passages you provided to the full the n nobody has the right to interpret anything from the Bible (which obviously you are a master of).... tsk tsk tsk

1 Cor. 3: 19, yes but I meant Colossians 2: 8, rather, typographical error in my above post. Colossians 2: 8 is my point about the Roman church straining to reconcile the irreconcilable differences in their gospel and the Gospel of Christ.

so of all data placed there this is the only one you contest to? I would just like to make it clear cuz this might go in circles.

No, I disagree with all that affirm the idolatrous and unscriptural practice of the idolatry towards "Mary." I just highlighted that one as one of the hollow discourses and deceptive philosophy and reasoning brought about by human wisdom.

When Ignatius of Antioch wrote to Mary in an attempt to exalt her beyond what should be - Mary had to say these simple words.
Whatever they told you (the apostles, particularly John, Ignatius' mentor) about Him (Jesus Christ) is true.

It is the abominable impostor 1 who has been preaching the way of Mariolatry as to undermine pure and sincere devotion to Christ. (2 Cor. 11: 3, 4) And if that's note enough, there have even been visions of someone pretending to be the Christ affirming these false doctrines, they are accompanied by signs so great.... (in fulfillment of Matthew 24: 24 - 28 )

The true Jesus of the Bible was very clear, we CAN turn to Him directly (John 14: 6 ) and Mary also couldn't have been clearer in telling us to obey Him. (John 2: 5)

Take heed and be NOT deceived by these divine impostors of the end times!!!!!!!



_________________
Footnote:
2 Thes. 2: 9 - 12 (NAB or TEV)
Isaiah 47: 5 - 10 (use NAB or NKJV)

[MrBiddle]

There is a way that seems right to a man... but it's way leads to death.
-Proverbs 14: 12

I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.
- John 14: 6

[mannyamador]

It's an enthymeme, you mean the Lord made her sinless by the immaculate conception? The missing minor term or "excluded middle" is what we automatically get from the similar to enthymeme argument I gave, meaning? Mary was NOT sinless

Go back to Logic 101. It means that you are ASSUMING there can only be two options (or the options you only want) when there can be more.

Everyone in her lineage would NEED to be lineage if we follow the logic of what the church teaches about Mary having to be without stain to bear the Messiah.

Non sequitur. It does not follow. God made her sinless. Why would he have to make the rest sinless?

In case you forgot, Mary is NOT beside Jesus per se.... she's IN FRONT OF or BEFORE Jesus in what the hyperdulia devotionals are about..... Hence the term AD IESUM PER MARIAN..... or one of her titles: NECK

And it STILL DOESN'T MEAN EQUAL. Emissaries are in front of their leaders. Guards are in front of their officers. Receptionists are in front of their bosses. You don't make sense.

It's still Mediation and Intercession nonetheless

Partial or contingent mediation and intercession. The Bible clearly exhorts us to intercede with our prayers. When you pray for others, you intercede and mediate. Intercessory prayer is a form of mediation, but it is not the same as Christ's. Same with Mary. You're again MISREPRESENTING the doctrine. That's DISHONEST.

but how serious a sin is it for Catholics to go to Jesus directly? Or to fail to invoke "Mary"?

It's not a sin at all. SUCH IGNORANCE!!!! You don't even know what oyu're talking about,and you dare criticize a doctrien you haven't even begun to undertand.

That's more than dishonesty. It's PREJUDICE!

No, but the Documents can stand on their own....

But they are NOT the only things that are sufficient. Please show me even one verse in the Bible that says ONLY the Bible is sufficient. Can't find any, right?

In fact, the Bible isn't even necessary for salvation as you have admitted. Therefore, following YOUR twisted reasoning, the Bible is superfluous and we have no need for such a man-made set of books. Absurd!

That's very true and valid.... but as taught by someone who could have been Paul or Apollos long ago, our HIGH PRIEST is ALWAYS, ALWAYS around! - Hebrews 7: 25.

And He ALWAYS wants us to honor His mother.

The Scriptures are very clear Babylon (Rome, the Church) is the apostate institution (see Revelation 18 )

There's no proof of this absurd claim except your WACKO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. And you haven't been able to show that your intepretations are authoreitative. But we have been able to show that they are IRRATIONAL.

[mannyamador]

hahahahah is this all you have to say? there is nothing here to dispute anything... you clearly are cornered and nowhere to run yet you do not accept due to stubborness or blind, unreasonable and foolish fanatisism to you mistaken "Pastor" or teacher whoever he may be....

Are you surprised? In all these months, cardinalwacko has NEVER been able to substantiate even one of his claims against the Church. We always are able to point out his faulty logic, lack of evidence, or plain wacko intepretations (which any Yahoo can make). He's big on claims, but a total zero when it comes to proof.

If we follow the passages you provided to the full the n nobody has the right to interpret anything from the Bible (which obviously you are a master of).... tsk tsk tsk

Hehe... that's just one example of cardinalwacko's errors. Keep it up, makusama. You're showing everyone on this forum that such mindless charges have no basis! God bless you!

[mannyamador]

1 Cor. 3: 19, yes but I meant Colossians 2: 8, rather, typographical error in my above post. Colossians 2: 8 is my point about the Roman church straining to reconcile the irreconcilable differences in their gospel and the Gospel of Christ.

Look who's talking! It's pretty clear from all your faulty reasoning that YOU are the one straining to reconcile your wacky personal interpretations with the Gospel of Christ.

Let's take sola fide, for instance. Show me even one verse that states that faith ALONE saves. Oh, I forgot, you have never been able too find that!

Or what about sola scriptura? You claim the Bible is sufficient and therefore there can be no other authority. But where, oh where does it say in the Bible that there cna be no other authority? Can you show me even one verse where it says that the Bible ALONE is sufficient? Can't eh?

How many years will we have to wait before you come up with that verse? And if you can't, then you owe us all an apology for your deception.

But knowing you, your pride will never allow you to see the truth. No wonder your claims remain as wacky as ever. You're probably foaming at the mouth when yopu make your rabid accusations. Better get your rabies shots!

[mannyamador]

Honesty and Misrepresentation in Argumentation

It's pretty clear that all cardinalwacko's arguments against catholic doctrines on Mary are based on his misrepresenting phrases and titles given to Mary. Instead of understanding the meanings of these phraaes or terms as used by the Catholic Church, he susbstitutes his own meanings andf interpretations and then pretends that these are the ones used by the Church.

Anyone with an iota of integrity can see that cardinalwacko's practice is extremely dishonest. The only valid way to go about disproving another person's claim is to undertsand the claim in the snese that HE makes it. And then show that the claim doesn't square with the evidence or contradicts other claims that he also makes (also in the sense and meaning that he makes them).

Substituting one's own interpretations is tantamount to commiting a "straw man" fallacy.

On the other hand, using cardinalwacko's OWN claims, we have been able to show that his fundamental claims are self-contradictory. He believes that the Bible is the final authority (sufficient on its own) and in salvatioin by faith alone. But then why isn't salvation by faith alone clearly taught in the Bible, his final authority? Why does it say in James that one is NOT saved by faith alone and that good works are required?

And the Bible itself doesn't claim to be the final authority. And it doesn't to be the ONLY authority either. There isn't a siongle verse in the Bible that says the Bible is the ONLY sufficient authority and that there is no other. Not a single verse at all.

The truth of the matter is that the Bible doesn't claim those things because there was ANOTHER authority for early Christians even BEFORE the complete Bible was written and compiled. That authority was the Catholic Church. The Church determined what was to be in the Bible. No other complete canon ever existed before the Church determined it. Cardinalwacko disputes this, but in all these months he has NOT been able to produce a complete biblical canon that pre-dates the Church councils that determined the canon. His obstinate insistence on a claim that has no proof is evidence of his unreasonableness and pride.

We should all keep this in mind when we see cardinalwacko conjure up personal interpretations of scripture: he has no authoroty to do so.

There is no reason to believe that this man's ravings are better than any other madman. There is no guarantee that his intepretations are correct or even sane. His repreated use of faulty reasoning even gives us reason to believe that any of his claims, scriptural or not, are to be questioned as a matter of course.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, was established by Christ Himself, and He cannot err. And He commissioned the Catholic Church to teach the world. And there has never bewen a break in formal authority and continuity from the Apostles all the way down to the Catholic Church today. No hter church can make that claim, especially not cardoinalwacko's church.

It is totally unreasonable to believe that Christ would not keep the Church safe from officially teaching wrong doctrine. Chrsit, of course, never said that Christians would be free form making any mistake. But he did would not have sent the Church to teach if it would be teaching error. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the official dogma of the Church (which is so different from the opinions and personal teachings of priests and pontiffs) is free from error.

[dacs]

Hey!

The 3-part series of the 'Catholic for a Reason' books by Scott Hahn, Regis Flaherty, Leon Suprenant and others are now available at National Bookstore. The copies I have were bought from the Ayala Center Cebu branch. The cost for the three books is P725 - that's for the three books.

Catholic for a Reason I : Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God
Catholic for a Reason II: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God
Catholic for a Reason III: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mass

Here's your chance to get quality apologetics material!

Peace, bro.

[mannyamador]

Immaculate Conception and Assumption
http://www.catholic.com/library/Imma..._and_Assum.asp

The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

The Immaculate Conception

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:2. The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Fundamentalists’ Objections

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

Mary’s Cooperation

Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:3, Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.

The Bible Only?

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly -- guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

[Cardinal Bunal]

It's not a sin at all. SUCH IGNORANCE!!!! You don't even know what oyu're talking about,and you dare criticize a doctrien you haven't even begun to undertand.

That's more than dishonesty. It's PREJUDICE!

So what happens if a Catholic trusts in Jesus Christ alone and courses all prayers through Him alone? bypassing the dulia and hyperdulia....

Partial or contingent mediation and intercession. The Bible clearly exhorts us to intercede with our prayers. When you pray for others, you intercede and mediate. Intercessory prayer is a form of mediation, but it is not the same as Christ's. Same with Mary. You're again MISREPRESENTING the doctrine. That's DISHONEST.

Sure, but the exaltation of the Blessed Mother as Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix is more than that, it's Messianic Attributes ascribed to someone else. especially the third definition I have mentioned.

So if it's NOT a sin at all and if the Catechism DOES affirm that Mary's role in the hyperdulia does in no way undermine the efficacy of Christ as ONE MEDIATOR, is there a consequence for trusting in Christ alone?