KFC POSTS:

This is not truth but only a very stale assertion with which Catholics will no doubt be confronted as long as there is an organized opposition to the Church.

The truth is you have exchanged Christ's truth for Luther's lie.

KFC POSTS:



Ah, reiterating what came from Luther's rebellion once again? He was wrong and therefore you are wrong.

Scripture says that "the Church (not Protestant churches or a body of believers) is the pillar and foundation of truth."

Christ identified His Church by appointing St.Peter as His first vicar. Christ said, "Blessed are thou, Simon bar-Jona..and I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.."

Did not the angels at the tomb speaking in the name of Our Risen Lord, instruct the women: "Go, tell His disciples and Peter," indicating clearly that St.Peter was more than a mere disciple, that he was still the rock destined to give the firmness of infallibility to the Church and to fill the office of confirming his brethren as his successors? Christ kept His solemn promise of giving the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

A third time Jesus manifested Himself to His disciples after He had risen from the dead,He said to Peter, "Feed My lambs!", a second time, "Feed My lambs!" and in a 3rd place, "Feed My sheep!". In plane words receive the power of the keys, the power to exercise world and time-wide jurisdiction over My whole fold. So, under Christ's personal headship, Simon Peter as His vicar on earth under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, is for all time to be the human instrument to make the Church indefectibly "the pillar and foundation of truth"...Yes, Simon Peter, our first Pope living on in his successors. Benedict XVI is 265th currently sitting on the chair of St.Peter.

You are claiming that the Church of the first three centuries was one of "true believers" and only after legalization through Constantine became mixed with paganism. But how can this be? The Catholic Chruch is the one Simon Peter was made first vicar, the same one that began to function on the first Pentecost day. So, if what you say is true, then you're saying that Christ was wrong for He declared that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Chruch (not churches, not a body of believers). Such a declaration would be a grave offense for Christ is Truth Personified, was, is and ever will be free from error. The historic continuity of the Catholic Church, from the time the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles in the Upper Room until today, proves Christ to have been right, to have kept His promise when He said His Chruch would have an unbroken existence until the consummation of the world. The Catholic Church is Christ-established, not Constantine-established.

One fellow's books I do read is Patrick Madrid, a former Protestant who came home to the Catholic Chruch. He's been there, done that as an anti-Catholic Protestant.

In one chapter he explains how he thinks God deals with Protestant rebellion. He looks to Scripture and he sees that sometimes God gives those rebellious exactly what they ask for. He first points out the Jews complaining to God that they are tired of eating manna and want meat. God provided more meat than they could handle. Read Numbers 11:18-20. The people recognized their ingratitude and repented, but unfortunately within a few years they were once again straying from God.
Another is a story of the high divorce rate society has...same true of Israel...they wanted their own way and God allowed them to have it allowing them to sink into apostasy. In the end God gave them a taste of their own medicine...the very same..He divorced Himself. Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:8.

Madrid believes something similiarly happens with the Protestant rebellion against the Catholic Church. If God spoke now as He spoke in Numbers 11, He might say, OK, you want a different church. I'll give you a different church. In fact, I'll give you so many different churches you won't be able to count them all. Isn't this exactly what's happened? God has given the Protesters what they wanted and much more. one long continuous line of protesters: Protesters protesting against the Catholic Chruch and protesters protesting against their fellow protesters. This plague of Protestantism has spawned thousands of quarreling sects. Is this God's plan of one faith, one baptism, one fold, etc. KFC, or a dismal failure?

KFC POSTS: 87

TOVA7 posts:



The Blessed Mother Mary is not only is called Queen of Heaven, we Catholics believe she is Queen of Heaven. Why? Becasue the Blessed Mother Mary is undoubtedly in Heaven, and Jesus is King of Heaven. Since Jesus is King of kings, and Lord of lords, it is certain that His mother, Mary rejoices in queenly dignity.

I see you try real hard to connect Catholic reverence calling her Queen of Heaven to the pagans worshipping the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, whom they called "queen of heaven"....thus the insinuation that Catholics worship Mary. So, here's my answer....

If by worship you mean that Catholics consider Mary to be a goddess, that they imagine her to have powers of a Divine nature, and that therefore we Catholics bestow upon her honors such as heathen pagans bestow upon their female divinities, the answer is emphatically NO.
That would be a violation of the law of God.

We Catholics have always given special honor to the Blessed Mother Mary becasue God honored her above all others by bestowing upon her the highest dignity, the divine maternity. Here status accounts for the attention we pay to her. Instead of detracting for the love of Christ, devotion to Mary increases our love for Him. The devout defender of Mary is ever the strong defender of the divinity of Christ, her Son. Love for Mary, Queen of Heaven, the masterpiece of God's creation, by its very nature leads us to the love of Christ. He cannot be jealous of the praise we give her for every one of her privileges and perrogatives are His own free gift. Is the artist jealous of the praise you give his masterpiece? or the author of his book?




To your second question, yes, I remarked in one of my posts about such. I know Jeremias relates the pagans were worshipping the Babyononan goddess Ishtar, whom they called the "queen of heaven". I also note that all six of my Bibles quite properly never capitalize "queen of heaven" as you do.

Sorry Lula, I don't buy it.

It's one thing to think well of Mary. She was blessed among women, no doubt.

It's a whole nuther can of worms to offer up prayers to her, or to "ask" her to intercede. We pray to Jesus because HE ISN'T DEAD...we aren't communing with the dead when we pray to Him.

Mary was a blessed but otherwise ordinary human being, who died an ordinary human death. She is dead. In heaven? Yes, but dead all the same, no matter her current status in heaven.

We are not to commune with the dead. Ever. No matter how wonderful they were.

Jesus is alive. It is no act of necromancy to speak with Him.

Everytime you offer up prayer or supplication to a dead woman you are violating God's law about communing with the dead.

Lula, these were humans, not gods. Jesus was the only God among them.

Peter didn't just run away from Christ, he ran and DENIED him three times.

Imagine if you watched your best friend be arrested and beaten, then you denied him/her three times before they were put to a horrible death.

If he/she lived and called for friends, you who denied her three times would not count yourself among them.

Jesus knew Peter.

When he requested his friends he specifically asked for Peter or else Peter would not come, thinking he was no longer in the group of friends since his betrayal.

This is confirmed when you see how Peter acts when he is first reunited with Jesus, and Jesus must reassure him he is still loved.

Sometimes in the study we can lose sight of the fact that these were ordinary men, with ordinary problems, and ordinary reactions. You don't have to read anything into Jesus calling Peter specifically because common sense explains it well.

Do you believe a person must be Catholic to get to heaven?

I did.  I gave you a link that I said could explain it in detail.  Did you check it out?  I agreed with everything in it.  Instead of me writing it all out....it was done already.  So why should I sit here and write all this out Lula when it's done for me?   I again say, go back and check out that link that explains it. 

This pagan celebration was in the springtime.  Tammuz was the god of Vegetation and he was worshipped along with Ishtar in the Spring.  Do you remember reading in scripture that they made little cakes for her?  Have you ever thought about where Hot Cross Buns come from?  Little cakes with crosses on them? 

"and the women said, When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"   Jer 44:19

queen of heaven is not  in caps in my bible either Lula.  I just capped it earlier in my response to you as habit of capping a title thing.  My mistake.  What does that really matter anyhow? 

 

The Pagan celebration somehow got mixed in with our Passover/Resurrection Celebration and the two have been linked from then. 

 

ok.  The problem is Luther was right on.  The Just Shall Live By Faith.  He understood what the CC was teaching and what the bible was teaching and the two were not matching up. 

Church is most definitely a body of believers.  Christ was AGAINST the religious leaders of his day.  He had no intention of setting up another Phariseeic institution.  He had no intention of setting men up over others like the CC has done.  They were all supposed to be united and of one accord.  Brothers and sisters in Christ.  The Church is "ekklesia" and means..."called out ones."  It's not about a pillar, pope or creed.  It's followers of Christ.  Period. 

we've been thru this a million times so I won't go far except to acknowledge this is your mantra verse....I understand that....but what about in the same chapter (Matt 16) when he rebukes Peter and calls him Satan? 

How about Paul when he had to rebuke Peter to his face in the book of Galatians because Peter was in denial of five very important church doctrines? 

Christ is the rock...NOT Peter.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Constantine was Rome.  He and the Roman officials were killing the Christians.  He stopped it and took over the Christians from there on in.  Rome kidnapped Christianity and made it an empire.   A very very rich empire at the expense of the poor and down trodden. 

Yes, the CC made Peter their foundation AFTER Constantine.  There is no proof that Peter started any CC.  He died in Rome.  So didn't Paul.  So didn't alot of Christians.  It actually says in scripture that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles...not Peter.  Peter stuck pretty much with the Jews.    So there is no link we can see in scripture of this. 

Christ isn't wrong.  He was absolutely right.  The gates of Hell cannot prevail against his church. The more they killed the Christians....then and now.....the more cropped up.  The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the faith.

 It's not a denomination tho.  It's his followers.  He is the head and his followers are his body.  We are his hands and feet.  It has nothing to do with denomination.  Protestant, Catholic or otherwise.  Nobody has the right denomination here on earth.  There's no such thing.   The CC wasn't persecuted.  They did the persecution.  They were the power and might on earth for a very long time.  They ruled politically and religiously. 

There's no doubt Satan is involved in this Lula.  Absolutely agree with you on this.  But we are looking at this thru different lenses.  I'm saying the CC is just as bad as any of the Protestant churches might be.  Satan is ALL about religion.  He loves religion.  Christ was not a religious person.  He was all about having a relationship with his creation.  God said all thru the OT....it's your hearts I want....not your sacrifices.  They were going about doing their empty sacrifices and celebrations with hearts of stone towards God. 

When I see the Catholics (or any Protestant) go to their half-hour mass to make themselves feel good and then go about their sinful lives during the week I want to throw up.  They are fooling themselves.  But God will not be mocked.  He doesn't care about man-made religion.  He's searching the hearts and minds of his people no matter what church door they enter. 

In the last days...Christ said...."behold I stand at the door and knock , if any man will open the door I will come in."    It's pretty bad when Christ has to knock on the door of his own church to be let in.  He's left standing outside waiting.   The church should be centered around the teachings of Christ.....sadly they are not and when he comes back, boy is he gonna be mad. 

 

If I implied that ALL Americans know about Christians keeping Sunday. I was saying in general. Maybe it is limited to the areas I have lived in but I have YET to find someone who DIDN'T know what day Christians meet on.

No, I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is we have about 70% of people today unchurched.  We cannot assume they even know the exact reason Christians worship on Sunday anymore.  I don't think it's limited to any specific area although maybe in the bible belt a greater % would have the answer.   

They may know what day.... but they may not know the reason and not even put it together with the Resurrection at all.    Ask around to those in your area....."why do Christians worship on Sunday to begin with?" 

Okay, I see now. I'm not talking about the 'reason' they worship on Sunday but just the fact that they know they go to church on that particular day of the week.

My point is this. Although many may not know the 'reason' but they do know the DAY of the week they go to church. Note the difference?

Don't you find it interesting that the ONLY references to the first day of the week is Paul either breaking bread or continued to preach before he left a community?

AD posts:

KFC POSTS:

I'm not so sure the Apostles kept the feasts for according to St.Matt.12:1-6, 15:11-14, Christ dispensed His disciples from the Mosaic Law but the crowds to whom He preached could not as yet be dispensed. He instructed them to obey all that the legitimate interpreters of the Law told them to do, 23:3.

Christ fulfilled the dogmatical, ethical, ceremonial and prophetical part of the Law or prophets. Having fulfilled the Law He superceded it with His commandments. He spoke at the Last Supper of what He requires St.John 15:10-12, and just before His Ascension, He instructed the Apostles to continue His teaching in its fullness: Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." So the Mosaic Law was binding on all Jews until Christ's sacrificail death. Then, having been fulfilled, it came to an end.

There was a lot of confusion and controversy over what was still in force amongst the early Christian communities. This insistence of the Apostles that the Mosaic Law was of no more force led to controversy Acts 15. We had a discussion about this a while ago.

Ceremonial laws like that of circumcision, those of the Levitical priesthood, and of the Jewish feasts and special foods, are explicitly abrogated. The judicial or civil laws implicitly come to an end with the destruction of the temple and Jewish state in 70AD, succeeded by the kingdom of Christ in the world. Those moral laws enjoined only by the Mosaic Law with its promises and sanctions also ceased. Since the Mosaic Law had been abrogated, it is no longer binding even on Jews according to Gal.3:28; 5:6 and Hebrews 8:13. Acts 11:2 and Romans are examples of the persistant efforts of St.Paul to distinguish the salvation that comes through grace from the requirements of the Old Law.

To misread St.Paul is to misread a great deal of history of the Church. The Old COvenant is the COvenant of circumcision Acts 7:8. The struggle between the Law and the New COvenant began during CHrist's public ministry which began at the wedding feast of Cana, but the old mental habits lingered. Acts 10:45; 11:2-3. The Epistle to the Romans is a defense of the new Christian doctrine of salvation against the objections from Israel the chosen people of the Old who had rejected that doctrine as an innovation contrary of the Law of Moses.

All of these explanations from St.Paul refer only to the abrogation of the Mosaic Law. They don't say that we are saved by faith alone, that we need not keep the Ten Commandments, not do good works, nor meet the conditions laid down in the New Testament for our salvation.

AD posts:

Yes, very interesting. St.Paul sanctified Sunday by celebrating Mass of the Last Supper, "do this in commemoration of Me" is the "breaking of the bread".

On Pentecost Sunday, after St.Peter's sermon, 3 thousand were converted after being told to do penance and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ....V. 42, they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of the bread and in prayers. Acts 2:38-47.

Well there's the breaking of bread (communion) there's taking a collection on the first day of the week (tithes and offerings) and preaching.

You just pretty much summed up the early church's beginning church service that has been carried on since then.

But there's more to this. Every single one of Christ's appearances were made on a Sunday...including Pentecost (birth of the church). To celebrate the resurrection (also on the first day of the week) they would get together right away to celebrate this day. The Sabbath, remember, was to celebrate Creation. Sunday is to celebrate the Resurrection.

Which is greater? The birth of the world....or the birth of the believer?



Yes, they did Lula. There's many references where they "went up to the Feast" or went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts in scripture. Paul even wrote at one point he would come and see the Corinthians after the feast of Pentecost. This feast of course, had a much greater significance than it had before the death of Christ, but they celebrated it nonetheless.

Now AD.... I have a question for you. Are you ready to exposite a scripture for me?

and I have a question for you too Lula. Where did "Mass" come from?

KFC POSTS: #90

lula posts:



KFC POSTS:

Are you basing your statement that--- "we got Easter from the mythical pagan goddess, "Ishtar"" --on the seasonal timing of the two...that both occured in the springtime? Is that it?

If so, they may have, but a pagan celebration occuring at the same time isn't the reason why we got Easter. The existence of a spring equinox feast centuries before the Christian era has nothing whatever to do with the origin of "Easter Day". The argument from superficial similiarities such as the same seasons or that Ishtar sounds like Easter to causal connection teems with fallacies. A feast that occurs in springtime is not the same thing as a feast which is in honor of something and which merely happens to occur during the spring season.

I've already acknowledged the spring timing...saying,

The Christian liturgy and Easter festival springs from the feast from biblical Judaism. The paschal lamb slain by the Israelites was typical of Christ and as the Christ Risen as we say, on the third day, in English, "Easter" has been retained.

And yes, our Easter feast days happen to fall in the spring season. But Babylonnian mythology and the pagan worship and baking of cakes for Ishtar had nothing to do with this. We are honoring the Risen Christ, not spring, not fertility, not eggs, or bunnies.


This notion that we got Easter from the pagan god Ishtar is really far-fetched. To reiterate, there is nothing whatsoever that links the origin of the Easter Paschal feast with ancient paganism or the pagan goddess Ishtar.

KFC...Bottom line: History reveals and Scripture supports that Easter Sunday and the feastdays originated in the early Church herself and was a legitimate continuation of the Jewish Paschal season. The Easter feast was in existence and Eusebuis, Pope St. Victor, and St. Irenaeus all wrote about it. St.Polycarp kept Easter on the 14th of Nisan clinging rididly to the Jewish date, and claimed he was following the custom of St.John the Apostle whose disciple he had been.

There was nothing paganistic amalgamated into it or the Church, then or now. Easter was there from the beginning and Christians were dying by the thousands becasue they would not sacrifice to the gods of Rome and hated idolatry in all its forms.

Lula posts:

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself instituted and celebrated the first Mass at the Last Supper on the night before He died.