RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

Even then, we know that Mary and Joseph offered the animal sacrifice in the temple for atonement. She wouldn't have done that if she was sinless......

What utter nonsense! Such sacrifice wasn't needed to atone for her sins (she ahd none). But there is no indication that Joseph was sinless. So they BOTH went. And you also forget that it was a Jewish tradition. And even Christ followed tradition. Tell me... did Christ need to be baptized? Was He less God before He was baptized? But He was baptized. Well, He did it for us so we could see, you might say. Well, same for Mary. Sje followed tradition just as her Son did.

Ah well... I just sank your bad logic again! Your wacko PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS don't hold water.

Anyone who is sinless does NOT need a Saviour.

In the above claim, therefore, you commit the logical fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

Jesus PREVENTED Mary from incurring the stain of original sin. She didn't do that herself. She couldn't. You NEED a savior for that!

If you were about to fall into a pit because you did not see it at night, and a person came and prevented you froim falling into it, then that person saved you from the fall, even though you had not actually fallen. Same with Mary. She never actually sinned BECAUSE she had a savior who prevented her from being stained with original sin and gave her the grace to avoid sin.

It is easy to see the fallacy of this logic because all her parents, her grand parents, and her great grand parents would also need to be sinless!!!!!!!

That's silly. The prevention of the stain of orginal sin does not come form one's parents. It comes throught the power of God. You have faulty logic, as usual.

I was not misrepresenting the teachings of the Roman church to create an opponent made of straw that I can attack, I was merely bringing them into a new light.

That's sounds like a tacit admission that you WERE MISREPRESENTING them. You clearly made up doctrines that were not taught by the Church. The above documents I posted prove that. You were dishonest.

we see many prayers that clearly defy the catechism what it teaches about "NOT worshipping."

Only if you take words out of context, which you constantly do.

Lucia Dos Santos and Bernadette Soubierous were told to KNEEL before the vision. Peter, the messenger angel in Revelation clearly discouraged kneeling before them and the angel even identified the act of kneeling as close to "worshipping" already.

But kneeling is NOT worshipping. Even the angel makes that distinction! But if we follow your mindless logic, then a person who kneels with a Bible in his hands is kneeling before the Bible and therefore worshipping it. Maybe he's worshipping the church pew too, eh? Idiocy.

Both of those prayers are by Alphonsus Ligouri....

As Dacs pointed out long ago, Liguori's style is over-emotional. You are quoting him out of context. He is also not authorized to make ex cathedra statements.

Anyone with an iota of common sense understands that excessive veneration is tantamount to worship.

Only in your wacko interpretations.

but why won't the church close shrines that have not yet received full approval by Rome?? Why won't they discourage the paying of pilgrimage to those places if it's possible that the visionary has deviated from the "good fruits" that (according to Rome's teachings) is truly an indicator of a benevolent spirit?

Because there is no judgement on the shrine. And even if there is, the Church has no civil authoroty to close down shrines.

Nope. But the Scriptures do attest that they ARE enough for salvation.....

That is not at all the same as being the ONLY thing sufficient for salvation. As we pointed out, you don't even need the Bible for salvation. Does that mean the Bible superfluous? Does that make the Bible a man-made addition? YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!

The Arameans, the Coptics and the Greek orthodox had the complete New Testament even before the Roman church did

Funny how you just can't seem to support this claim by citing the document! Where oh where is that pre-definition canon of yours? Can't show us eh? No proof, eh? That's because you know it doesn't exist.

Because the Scriptures clearly convict the universal faction that you so zealously defend.

Wacko personal interpretations again? Even INK and the Jehovah's Witnesses can come up with those. Spare us the mad ravings, please.

It's obvious you are now clutching at straws after I totally sank your previous erroneous argument. In that case, you clearly misrepresented Catholic doctrine, and now you're desperately trying to cover up your dishonesty. Bad boy...

I'll give you one more change. Show me one verse that the Bible is the ONLY authoroty and that there can bve no other. Oh... but you have always failed to find that verse, haven't you?

What about that pre-existing, complete canon you claim exists? Why can't you seem to produce it? I know! It does exist... in your imagination!

[mannyamador]

then Mary instantly becomes another Mediator!

Non sequitur. The logic doesn't follow. Being beside someone doesn't make one equal.

If you had a sick friend, and his physician is out of town - but his mother, who happens to be a lawyer is avaible. You would certainly in lieu of the doctor's absence ask her mother, the lawyer to cure your sick friend, right? The reason being, since your physician is an expert and is very qualiified in his field, surely his mother can't be good for nothing right?

If the physician's mother had access to him, then it would make eminent sense to ask his mother to contact him. And if the person wantwed to honor his mother, it would make sense that he would ask his mother (who would love to assist him) to be at the forefront so that she would get to meet his patients.

Peter himself (Acts 10: 26 ) and an angel sent by the Lord (Revelation 22: 8 - 9 ) identified the very act of kneeling as the beginning or equivalent or WORSHIP.

Hmm, you seem to be in doubt there. Is it the beginning or equal? Obviously, your INTRERPRETATION doesn't carry much authorityor even certainty!

[mannyamador]

Saint Worship?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe,
which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is
to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage
survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans
would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they
may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate
to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that
supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact,
one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of
confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter
material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians
began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which
is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that
is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who
lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals
(Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus --
God in the flesh -- in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the
honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of
the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the
latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms -- latria, dulia, hyperdulia -- used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes
when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the
word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not
familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use
the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration,
and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling
to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints,
and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that
one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term.
The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration -- what contemporary English speakers call "worship" -- is to be
given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship
anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by
hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson
as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go
further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in
the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the
honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakhah. It is appropriately used for
humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in
coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘[ B ] ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose
and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed
another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon,
and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers
shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you (49 : 8)." And in
Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him
and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."

Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.

Honoring Saints

Consider how honor is given. We regularly give it to public officials. In the United States it is customary to address a judge as
"Your Honor." In the marriage ceremony it used to be said that the wife would "love, honor, and obey" her husband. Letters to
legislators are addressed to "The Honorable So-and-So." And just about anyone, living or dead, who bears an exalted rank is said
to be worthy of honor, and this is particularly true of historical figures, as when children are (or at least used to be) instructed to
honor the Founding Fathers of America.

These practices are entirely Biblical. We are explicitly commanded at numerous points in the Bible to honor certain people. One of
the most important commands on this subject is the command to honor one’s parents: "Honor your father and your mother, that
your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you" (Ex. 20:12). God considered this command so important that
he repeated it multiple times in the Bible (for example, Lev. 19:3, Deut. 5:16, Matt. 15:4, Luke 18:20, and Eph. 6:2–3). It was also
important to give honor to one’s elders in general: "You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and
you shall fear your God: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:32). It was also important to specially honor religious leaders: "Make sacred garments
for your brother Aaron [the high priest], to give him dignity and honor" (Ex. 28:2).

The New Testament stresses the importance of honoring others no less than the Old Testament. The apostle Paul commanded:
"Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor
to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13:7). He also stated this as a principle regarding one’s employers: "Slaves, be obedient to those who
are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). "Let all who are under the yoke of
slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed" (1 Tim. 6:1).
Perhaps the broadest command to honor others is found in 1 Peter: "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the
emperor" (1 Pet. 2:17).

The New Testament also stresses the importance of honoring religious figures. Paul spoke of the need to give them special honor in
1 Timothy: "Let the presbyters [priests] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching
and teaching" (1 Tim. 5:17). Christ himself promised special blessings to those who honor religious figures: "He who receives a
prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man [saint] because he is a
righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward" (Matt. 10:41).

So, if there can be nothing wrong with honoring the living, who still have an opportunity to ruin their lives
through sin, there certainly can be no argument against giving honor to saints whose lives are done and who
ended them in sanctity. If people should be honored in general, God’s special friends certainly should be
honored.

Statue Worship?

People who do not know better sometimes say that Catholics worship statues. Not only is this untrue, it is even untrue that
Catholics honor statues. After all, a statue is nothing but a carved block of marble or a chunk of plaster, and no one gives honor
to marble yet unquarried or to plaster still in the mixing bowl.

The fact that someone kneels before a statue to pray does not mean that he is praying to the statue, just as the fact that someone
kneels with a Bible in his hands to pray does not mean that he is worshiping the Bible. Statues or paintings or other artistic
devices are used to recall to the mind the person or thing depicted. Just as it is easier to remember one’s mother by looking at her
photograph, so it is easier to recall the lives of the saints by looking at representations of them.

The use of statues and icons for liturgical purposes (as opposed to idols) also had a place in the Old Testament. In Exodus 25:18–20,
God commanded: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy
seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the
cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their
faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be."

In Numbers 21:8–9, he told Moses: "‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall
live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and
live." This shows the actual ceremonial use of a statue (looking to it) in order to receive a blessing from God (healing from snakebite).
In John 3:14, Jesus tells us that he himself is what the bronze serpent represented, so it was a symbolic representation of Jesus.
There was no problem with this statue -- God had commanded it to be made -- so long as people did not worship it. When they did,
the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). This clearly shows the difference between the proper religious use of
tatues and idolatry.

When the time came to build the Temple in Jerusalem, God inspired David’s plans for it, which included "his plan for the golden
chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the
writing from the hand of the Lord concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19).

In obedience to this divinely inspired plan, Solomon built two gigantic, golden statues of cherubim: "In the most holy place he made
two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold. The wings of the cherubim together extended twenty cubits: one wing of the
one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub; and of
this cherub, one wing, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and the other wing, also of five cubits, was joined to the wing
of the first cherub. The wings of these cherubim extended twenty cubits; the cherubim stood on their feet, facing the nave. And he
made the veil of blue and purple and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and worked cherubim on it" (2 Chr. 3:10–14).

(See the Catholic Answers tract, Do Catholics Worship Statutes? for further information.)

Imitation is the Biblical Form of Honor

The most important form of honoring the saints, to which all the other forms are related, is the imitation of them in their relationship
with God. Paul wrote extensively about the importance of spiritual imitation. He stated: "I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore
I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in
every church" (1 Cor. 4:16–17). Later he told the same group: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you
remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:1–2). The author of the book
of Hebrews also stresses the importance of imitating true spiritual leaders: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word
of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7).

One of the most important passages on imitation is found in Hebrews. Chapter 11 of that book, the Bible’s well-known "hall of fame"
chapter, presents numerous examples of the Old Testament saints for our imitation. It concludes with the famous exhortation:
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so
closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us" (12:1) -- the race that the saints have run before us.

[Cardinal Bunal]

In the above claim, therefore, you commit the logical fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

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 ;b

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. The logic doesn't follow. Being beside someone doesn't make one equal.

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.............

It's still Mediation and Intercession nonetheless, the church defines that she is higher than all humans, higher than all saints but lower than God. And second-only to Jesus...... but how serious a sin is it for Catholics to go to Jesus directly? Or to fail to invoke "Mary"? Even if it's not that grave, it is an offense nonetheless therefore it isn't so invalid to conclude after all that this Co-Redemptrix has in fact been made equal to Jesus Christ.

That is not at all the same as being the ONLY thing sufficient for salvation. As we pointed out, you don't even need the Bible for salvation. Does that mean the Bible superfluous? Does that make the Bible a man-made addition? YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!

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

If the physician's mother had access to him, then it would make eminent sense to ask his mother to contact him. And if the person wantwed to honor his mother, it would make sense that he would ask his mother (who would love to assist him) to be at the forefront so that she would get to meet his patients.

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.



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

See also Daniel 7: 23 for a more geopolitical perspective....

[Cardinal Bunal]

From Peter Heintz, "A Guide to Apparitions of Our Blessed Virgin Mary," pages 100-114.


During the Spanish Inquisition a man was hanged for substituting the phrase "Praise be to God." for "Ave Maria" in a school prayer.

Yes, friends! This may be already a matter settled in mea culpa in the church, but a supernatural being is ascribing to Mary a title that God has condemned long ago..... Queen of Heaven (Jer. 7: 18, 44: 18-19,Â* onwards)

Isaiah predicts an End Time delusion that will involve Babylon (Rome) and a figure called the Lady of Kingdoms (KJV), the Queen of Nations (TEV) or a Sovereign Mistress (NAB) See Isaiah 47: 5 - 10

Could this be the impostor impersonating Mary?

Scripture has refuted all the claims that there is a need mediation through someone else besides Christ.

Take note that the abominable impostor who's end time demise is prophecied by Isaiah is also called one of "Mary's" titles in the Roman Church: Sovereign Mistress and in Litanies "Rayna sa mga Nasod", = it is Isaiah 47: 5 in the Cebuano Popular Version [Cebuano equivalent of Today's English Version] of the Good News Bible.

Friends, Mary would NOT have it any other way, she would tell you to put your trust in Jesus Christ alone.

[makusama]

Oh.. brother!

I am growing tired of you not researching properly and everytime I have to point to you the foolishness of your posts.

Here read for yourself.... I hope this site answers all your questions about "THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN CONSPIRACY "

http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian9.html

For the answers of common protestant conspiracies aimed at Mary see the link below...

http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian.html

I hope you are happy since I have located all the question you can ever ask about Mary together with the following explanations.

For your convenience... the only scriptures here mentioned are from the KJV Bible (King James Version) unless stated

Research...

[makusama]

here is another link for you to ponder and read. I surely hope you read it because it would be rather tiresome if you dont... sakit ako kamot og type...

The Catholic Church Unbiblical?
Matod pa ni Soriano.. "hala sige.. basa"
http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/biblical.html

[makusama]

naa na tana diha gikan sa Imong:

"REBULTO CONSPIRACY"
"MARY CONSPIRACY"
"CATHOLIC NOT CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY"
"USING A CRUSIFIX IS BAD THEORY"

ETC ETC ETC.... sorry for the caps eace:

[Cardinal Bunal]

He did not have to abolish it either. Yet He had good reason to continue it. Since Jesus was born under the Law (Gal 4:4), He was bound to honor His Mother. Since He is the Son of David it was fitting that He honor her as His forefathers honored their mothers. Since he is God, He is able to honor her more than could an ordinary king of Judah, by making her the Queen-Mother of the Kingdom of Heaven itself. This is exactly what He did!

See Colossians 2: 8 and 1 Cor. 3: 19..........

[makusama]

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.

So all the others you accept?