Yes Mary really was a Virgin, in my belief, from the day she was conceived until the day she passed away. IF SHE HAD OTHER CHILDREN, WHERE WERE THEY WHEN CHRIST WAS HANGING ON THE CROSS? wouldn't you be near your father or mother when they died?

-- Eunice Goostree (goose99@webtv.net), October 18, 1998

Answers

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

In my struggle to renew my faith, I had the same question. Scripture appears to confirm that she had no other children than Jesus. John 19:26-27, in every translation including protestant and catholic bibles, Jesus said to Mary, to "the beloved disciple" whom we know to be John, "Woman, behold your son", and to John, "Behold your mother." If Mary indeed had several sons and daughters, as the some protestant faiths have claimed (there are supposed to be over 20000 protestant faiths), she would not be following the disciples, and thus would not be understood as the symbol of the Catholic church. She is known as the "Mother" of our church. Some protestants view that Mary had married Joseph, had normal relations with him, and had childrens as supported by Matthew 13:55, "Is this not the carpenter's son, Is not his Mother called Mary, And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, And his sisters, are they not here with us?", and the nearly identical verse in Mark 6:3. One only needs to look at the context of the word "brother" in both the new and old testament, which depending on the context, could mean relative, cousin, or friend; and quickly dismiss the notion that these verses were positive proof that Jesus had brother and sisters, and therefore Mary was not evervirgin. To be at peace with our protestant brother's questioning (brother here is in the biblical context of course!), we can justify this by saying James, Joses, Simon and Judas were his step brother or cousins. Joseph might have been a widower (maternal mortality in that age is extremely high due to poor medical care, just review the statistics in the US morbidity and mortality report from the past), and Joseph took Mary on as a spouse afterward and raised Jesus as his own.

To imagine that a husband would not have sex with his newly-wed wife would be unimaginable now in our current age of self-indulgent and self-gratification. No hot-blooded man in his right mind would stay married to his wife if she did not surrender to his lust! We need to separate our own feelings and emotions and look at the context of the era before Chirst.

There were widespread fear of the end of the kingdom, and many people were looking for the coming of Christ. Matthew 3:2 noted John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Celibacy in the early christian churches was not looked upon as marital dysfunction nor of marital disobedience, but as a spiritual gift. If Mary was as holy as the Gospel proclaims her, knowing that she is bearing the Son of God in her womb, and is so physically aware of his presense in the first 30 years of his life, would she not takes on a life of purity and chastity, because her body carried the presense of God? Reflect on Jesus teaching in the gospel about lust and celibacy.

If Joseph had faith in the Angel of the Lord, (Matthew 1:20-24), and truly knew that his wife is carrying the Son of God, would he violates her desire to keep her body clean of sin and temptation to prepare for the coming of God, and the end of the Kingdom. Look at the tradition of the early Christian monks and priests, they did not practice celibacy just for the sake of perpetuating a Catholic myth. The tradition was most likely initiated by the early apostles, Mary, and Joseph. It is unfortunate that some major protestant denomination do not encourage nor practices monastic life, nor periods of celibacy during marriage - for enhancement of one's spiritual health and understanding of the Gospel. If you take the second theory, which Joseph was not a widower, but was a virgin; there is nothing in the bible that discourages one from marying for just companionship. Surely he could have divorced Mary because she refused to have sex with him, but if Joseph is as holy and faithful to God as the Gospel made him to be, he would certainly not deserted his wife after marriage to seek to satisfy his lust and desires from another woman. In fact, he stayed and taught Jesus the skills to be a carpenter, and true to the teaching of Jesus, was a spiritual leader in the family. How else could have the human and earthy Son of God learned the scripture so well, that at and early age, he impressed the rabbis and priests at the temple? Joseph might have died early and was little mentioned in the Bible, except among the churches' tradition.

The final argument of some protestant literal interpretation of the Bible is on Matthew 1:25. Joseph "did not know her till she hath brought forth her first born Son." or he did not have "union" with her until after the birth of Jesus. The translation her is what divides some protestants and the Catholic faith. The translation of two greek words "heus hou" or something like it is debated, but from what I have read, does not confirm is disproof the Catholic tradition that Mary is ever virgin. All it means is that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit to a virgin woman, not that he had sex with her soon after she gave birth. Of course, my hormones and lust would like to say otherwise if I were in Joseph's shoes. But I am just an ordinary man, married to an ordinary woman, who continually have to fight temptations and desires like other man.

But that does not give me the wisdom nor the insight to challenge or question the rich tradition of the Catholic church which has essentially remained the same for almost 2000 years. I might question some of the other "t"raditions of the Church, but the apostolic "T"radition and the tradition of the ever virgin Mary, I am now more willing to accept. But my inquisitive mind will not let me question and test these prostestant challenges. Please read Scott Hahn's "Rome sweet home" for a quick booster for our questioning faith. You will then understand that some of the giant's of today's theologians can not support the protestant's challenges. I have to give them credit though for being some of the best true Christians I have met, making us so called "Catholics" humble. Please read the new testament, the catechism of the church, and talk to a wise and knowledgeable priest.

-- Thomas Pham (mddvm1@pol.net), November 01, 1998.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

If Mary was still a virgin and so holy, why is it that she also needed a Saviour to obtain a place in Heaven? God told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So they were married. How many men would take a wife without being able to consummate the marriage? After all, Joseph was only human. Do you believe God would create man and woman to be together just for companionship? God said, "Go forth and multiply." Did He mean everybody, but Joseph and Mary? I know many holy people who are married and have children. To be holy is to be Spiritually pure, not physically pure. People tend to make sexual intercourse out to be an evil, unpure, nasty event that happens between two people. Remember, God looks at the heart. Whatever is in your heart is what makes it out to be pure or evil. Just because Mary may have had intercourse doesn't mean she was being unholy. If she was just with Joseph for companionship, what would be the reason for them to get married? Jesus said, "It's not the outside of the cup that needs cleaning, but the inside." He was talking about our heart. It shouldn't matter if Mary was a virgin or not. We need to focus our attention on Jesus and how we can obtain salvation for one and all. For Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nobody obtains Heaven, but through Him. You don't get salvation through Mary or Joseph or the Apostles or the church you go to or the pastor or priest that teaches you. It only comes through knowing and believing in Jesus. Once you truly know Him, this question about "Was Mary a virgin when she died?" will seem truly unimportant.

-- Patti Marcellais (patti.marcellais@sendit.nodak.edu), April 09, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Dear Patti:
Because you seem a good lady, I'm giving benefit of the doubt that you only support what you see as truth, and have no animosity toward the Catholic faith. If so, we can discuss the subject fairly. I hope that your judgment would not be impaired by preconceived notions about Catholics. I don't have to tell you what these are, in conventional protestant tracts. Any and all vile accusations are seen fair and square, as long as they're directed at ''the Papists''.

Mary does, indeed need the salvation we all do; coming exclusively to us from Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. This is a central article of our faith. No one claims that Mary was exempt from a need for her Saviour. The Church teaches exactly this:

Mary is saved in advance of Christ's Incarnation as True God and True Man in the womb of the Virgin.

Mary's salvation is accomplished BY HER SON; as a singular grace, to be effective in her own conception within her own mother's womb. This is the Immaculate Conception. Christ is active, even from the Godhead before His own birth!

Because the Son of God is Eternal; He isn't bounded in any way by time and space.

What is good for all humanity is good also for Mary. She is saved from the original sin of Adam by the blood of Jesus Christ. However, it is a revealed truth Mary has grace in superabundance; she is ''Full of grace'' as Luke, 1 :28 tells us. ''The Lord is with Thee,'' says the archangel. Her own soul has been preserved by grace in anticipation of the Holy One she was to bear. --Now, every grace is given humanity as a gift of God, and proceeding from the Son, by way of Calvary. It can be now-- or it can be as Mary's personal salvation uniquely was. Her preservation from sin at conception was a unique grace. We know from Scripture the Messiah would be born of a virgin; and we know in scripture, from Gen. that a ''woman'' would step on the head of the serpent; who would strike at the heel of her Son. --So, Mary's destiny was known to God and written from the beginning. She surprised you and me; but her own role was determined from out of prehistory by God the Father.

Knowing this, why is it hard to see He would provide as mother for His divine Son, at the appointed hour, a woman of sinless origin in the womb? Sinless in every possible way, as Eve was before the Fall.

But saved, no less, because of the Son she was called to bear. We have sin ''washed away'' as our salvation. She had sin ''kept away'' as her own salvation. Without Jesus, Mary would never have received any extraordinary grace. But, in His infinite merit alone; because He is God no woman born in sin could possibly have been His holy mother. Not even after having been cleansed.

The bearer of God can't be even remotely touched by sin. If she were; she would cast sin's shadow over the Son of God. Please contemplate these things for the present, Patti. If later on you need any more catholic clarification of doctrine (which you have problems with) --we can take them one at a time. God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Hello Patti,

I'm happy that we both share a desire to know Christ. I've got some quick responses to some of your points. Your comments are in bold throughout.

"Do you believe God would create man and woman to be together just for companionship? God said, "Go forth and multiply." Did He mean everybody, but Joseph and Mary?"

In my understanding of the Church teaching, God's command was to the human race in general--not to each one of us as an individual. This must be the case given the following facts:

1) Jesus (Himself truly human) did not procreate.

2) Paul never married.

3) Jesus himself says in Matthew 19:12

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

4) Paul recommends that all Christians live as he lived (as a celibate).

5) Had the commandment been binding on all people, God would not allow any human being to be sexually impotent.

"People tend to make sexual intercourse out to be an evil, unpure, nasty event that happens between two people."

You are attacking a "strawman" that does not reflect the Catholic Church's view of sexuality. In fact, the Catholic Church has often condemned the heretical view that our flesh is evil, even as some Protestant Christians hold this belief.

Are you suggesting that sexuality outside of marriage is OK according to Jesus?

"Remember, God looks at the heart."

Remember, Jesus judges the sinner's words, thoughts, and deeds.

"We need to focus our attention on Jesus and how we can obtain salvation for one and all. For Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Jesus is clear that sins (including sexual sins) can cause us to lose our salvation.

"Nobody obtains Heaven, but through Him."

Correct. Only God can give us the Grace for salvation. How do we get grace? How do we lose grace?

"You don't get salvation through Mary or Joseph or the Apostles..."

This statement is also a heretical belief that the church has never taught. Are you questioning the value of Christians who communicate with the saints through prayer?

"or the church you go to or the pastor or priest that teaches you."

Are all churches the same to you? Are contradictory teachings equally valid?

"It only comes through knowing and believing in Jesus. Once you truly know Him, this question about "Was Mary a virgin when she died?" will seem truly unimportant."

How do you know that the voices in your head are the voice of Jesus? How do you discern that it isn't Satan misleading you? How do you know you truly believe in Jesus, and not a false-Jesus?

Do you believe that all Church teachings not found in the Bible are "truly unimportant"? Is the doctrine of the Trinity equally unimportant to our salvation?

Also, please refer to this link. It is quite clear that earliest Christians held this view in the "Protoevangelium of James", and thought it important enough to write about.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 09, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Wonderful post, Matt;
Particularly since it addresses questions by Patti that I wasn't able to include up above. My own post was heavy-laden enough.

You gave Patti plenty of food for thought. Let's pray she'll attempt a sincere evaluation of your thinking. It's Catholic to the core.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

There are so many scripture passages dealing with Mary if you know where to look. Heres one:Ezekiel 44:1-3 Which talks about the east outer gate of the sanctuary and which was closed by God. Only "the prince" may enter it, eat bread, and leave the same way. Well, if the gate's closed literally by God, how does the prince get in? It would then be talking figuratively. This would prove her virginity. There is also another passage about Gideon's fleece. Judges 6:36- 40. The fleece was wet while the ground was dry and then was dry when the ground was wet. Once again it can't be taken literally. That proves when people say it can't be possible that Mary was a virgin, that it can. I think it funny how people have no problem calling the boy-child of God: Jesus but have a real problem calling the woman: Mary, in the book of Revelation. Revelations 12:1-6 Also it's funny how Moses in Exodus removed his sandals before the burning bush because of the devine presence inside it, yet many would not dare honor the woman who held Jesus in her womb by calling her blessed in the "Hail Mary" lest they not honor God. Both held the fire of God's divinity without burning yet the bush is given honor above the Mary. Kind of gives you something to think about. Mary is also like Rebecca who covered Jacob's arms with goatskins so that he might receive the blessing of his father. Mary covers us with the merits of her son Jesus that we too may receive the blessing of our father in heaven. We know that the one miracle Mary publically asked for in the gospels was at Cana, which was granted her. Why do so many doubt the love God has for her? Even as Elizabeth called her "blessed amoung women" Mary responded back with the magnificant which says that she is humble enough to give praise where it's due. I wonder if people refuse to say the "Hail Mary" because they think she changed and no longer honors her God? What I like about the Catholic church is that even if you are alone, you can have 2 or more praying with you in the saints. I realize I was somewhat off topic but I got carried away in my zeal for her. My apologies. Peace, Megan Mosovsky

-- Megan Mosovsky (Seriphina@excite.com), August 14, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Way to go Megan! That was great.

Thank you.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 14, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Ditto, Jake. Megan has some lovely insights!
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 17, 2002.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

8th September, 2003

Greetings to all

Some answers:

Q 1. IF SHE HAD OTHER CHILDREN, WHERE WERE THEY WHEN CHRIST WAS HANGING ON THE CROSS?

Answer:

(a) The Bible clearly states that Christ will be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). Joseph knew not his wife Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn (Matthew 1:25). Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?... (Matthew 14:55, Mark 6:3)

(b) However, Jesus might have offended his mother and brothers during his ministry, as listed in Matthew 12.46-50, Mark 3.3-35 & Luke 8.19-21 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:47-50

(Most probably, Jesus' mother and brothers came to seek him fearing that he has lost his senses or something... how could a carpenter's son leave his job and go about preaching... about a kingdom of heaven... rome could hear about it... they must have loved him and wanted him back...) And when his friends heard [of it], they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. - Mark 3:21

Jesus considered true confession of himself (Christ) as revelation from God; unfortunately, even good intensions for his well being that interfeared with his work (ministry, suffering, death on cross) resulted in rebuke from him: Jesus commended and then scolded Peter... (Matthew 16:13-17, 16:22-23; Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-20) (c) When Jesus was crucified, most of his disciples deserted him and fled; even Peter denied him! (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - sections dealing with crucifixion)

(d) Paul wrote about James (the Lord's brother? If James did not believe initially, as did the apostles, an appearance by Jesus after his resurrection may have changed all that... even Paul changed). The other James, brother of John, son of Zebdee had already (Acts 12:2) suffered martydom. 1 Corinthians 15:7-8 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." - Galatians 1: 18,19. -x-x-x-

ANSWER TO ANSWERS:

2. Thomas Pham November 01, 1998

(a) "Scripture appears to confirm that she had no other children than Jesus. John 19:26-27..."

Answer (a) (i) Jesus was the firstborn son. He had a duty towards his parents (possibly Joseph was dead before his crucifixion). "Honour thy father and mother." (ii) If the rest of Jesus' brothers did not believe in him, while Mary did (knowing all about his divine birth), there could be differences... John 7:3-5 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.

(b) One only needs to look at the context of the word "brother" in both the new and old testament, which depending on the context, could mean relative, cousin, or friend... we can justify this by saying James, Joses, Simon and Judas were his step brother or cousins...

Answer (b) (i) The New Testament does use the word "cousin". "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible." Luke 1:36-37 (ii) There is nothing in the context of Matthew 13:55 to suggest that the context meant a cousin or step brothers/sisters. (iii) Can we justify anything by assuming that Mary was an evervirgin? (iv) If Joseph had children by a previous marrage, what happened to the children when Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt? How could they understand their father marrying Mary who was with child before they came together?? Did they not view any incidences of the Angels, etc. and know that Jesus was the son of God right from the begining??? (v) If US mortality rates in past were high due to poor medical care, why does India and nearby countries have such a growth in population, inspite of "extremely poor health, hygene and medical" conditions even for urban (city) dwellers, even today (September 2003)? Its worse in the smaller towns and villages... It is written that Hebrew women could give birth and then return to household activities during the same day? This can be observed in several countries (mostly arab) even today...

(c) "To imagine that a husband would not have sex with his newly-wed wife would be unimaginable now in our current age of self-indulgent and self-gratification."

Answer (c) (i) There are cases contrary to the above in "our current age." Here, most marrages last a lifetime and fewer cases of infidelity occur (though on the rise).

(d) "If Joseph had faith in the Angel of the Lord, (Matthew 1:20-24), and truly knew that his wife is carrying the Son of God, would he violates her desire to keep her body clean of sin and temptation to prepare for the coming of God, and the end of the Kingdom."

Answer (d) (i) The pious jew (male and female) believed in Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (ii) Holy matrimony is not "sin and temptation." (iii) Jesus upheld the institution of marrage (Matt 19:3-6, Mark 10:2- 8) "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

(e) "Look at the tradition of the early Christian monks and priests, they did not practice celibacy just for the sake of perpetuating a Catholic myth. The tradition was most likely initiated by the early apostles, Mary, and Joseph..."

Answer (e) (i) Jesus further said in Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]." (ii) Peter and the apostles had a wife: And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. - Matthew 8:14

Paul and some others did not marry: Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? - 1 Corinthians 9:5

Paul allowed church leaders and pastors to marry: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach - 1 Timothy 3:2 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. - 1 Timothy 3:12 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; - Titus 1:6-7

(f) The final argument of some protestant literal interpretation of the Bible is on Matthew 1:25. Joseph "did not know her till she hath brought forth her first born Son." ... translation of two greek words "heus hou" or something like it is debated ... does not confirm is disproof the Catholic tradition that Mary is ever virgin...

Answer (f) (i) Have you not read Genesis and the rest of the Bible. The same word is used for union between man and wife: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. - Genesis 4:1 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. - Gen 38:26 And the damsel [was] very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not. - 1 Kings 1:4 (ii) Mary may or may not have had other children apart from Jesus. However, she was truly the "wife" of Joseph.

-x-x-x-

Patti Marcellais, April 09, 2002

(a) "Do you believe God would create man and woman to be together just for companionship?..."

Answer (a) (i) There are many references in the Bible that illustrate marrage consists of more than "go forth and multiply." (ii) What Peter said Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. - 1 Peter 3:1-7

-x-x-x-

Eugene C. Chavez, April 09, 2002

(a) Mary is saved in advance of Christ's Incarnation as True God and True Man in the womb of the Virgin

Answer (a) (i) Before Jesus' work of salvation on the cross, the Law had to be followed for the purification from sin (and other rituals) even for Jesus! After the resurrection the old covenant was replaced by the new one. Even Mary was under the Law (she had to be purified). And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. - Luke 2:22-24

(ii) "No one is righteous, all have sinned." The Bible does not say that Mary was an exception As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: - Romans 3:10 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23

(iii) Christ's work was only finished (accomplished) on the CROSS, not before it... God has set a time and place for many things. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. - John 19:30

(iv) Before his death, nobody (Mary included) had direct access to GOD (most holy place separated by curtain from the rest). And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; - Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45

(v) He became sin for us. For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. - 2 Corinthians 5:21

(vi) Mary had to wait to receive the holy spirit with the other apostles and believers And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. - Acts 1:4-5 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Acts 1:14

(b) However, it is a revealed truth Mary has grace in superabundance; she is ''Full of grace'...

Answer (b) (i) Who revealed that Mary has "grace in superabundance?" Not mentioned in the Bible anywhere?

(ii) Jesus is regularly mentioned as "seed of David" - both as a descendent as well as spiritual offspring. Although David had a lot of faith, he was a sinner too... No mention of Jesus as "seed of Mary" with respect to grace or faith in the Bible? Grace only flows from God. None can claim to have it beforehand. Why is there no reference in the Bible of Jesus as "spiritual" descendent of Mary, if Mary had this superabundance grace?

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: - Romans 1:3-5

(c) We know from Scripture the Messiah would be born of a virgin; and we know in scripture, from Gen. that a ''woman'' would step on the head of the serpent; who would strike at the heel of her Son. --So, Mary's destiny was known to God and written from the beginning.

Answer (c) (i) I have read many versions of the Bible and related books, but none mention that a "woman" would step on the head of the serpent...! Is this a typing error or written in some version of the Bible? The scripture (two different versions) reads thus: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. - Genesis 3:15 KJV "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." - Genesis 3:15 NIV

(ii) Satan's destiny is also known to God (and those who have read Revelation). Why is he still around?

(d) a woman of sinless origin in the womb?... because He is God no woman born in sin could possibly have been His holy mother...

Answer (d) (i) Mary was not born like Jesus. She had parents. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, - Luke 3:23 (Ref. Matthew 1:16 - Joseph is son of Jacob)

(ii) For God nothing is impossible - even if Mary was not perfectly sinless, God has power to choose her to be the mother of his son. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshdow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. - Luke 1:35-37

(e) The bearer of God can't be even remotely touched by sin.

Answer (e) (i) Even I assumed it initially - have always wanted to believe it. Yet, if you read the Bible from begining to end, you will notice, more often God chooses the "imperfect" or the "sinner" such as in the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamar), Rahab (book of Joshua), David (and Bathsheba), Solomon, ... and all these were the ancestors of Jesus (at least through Mary).

(ii) The apostles too presented a poor picture until they were filled with the Holy Ghost on penticost. After that they were changed and they turned the world upside down...

-x-x-x-

Mateo, April 09, 2002

(a) Correct. Only God can give us the Grace for salvation. How do we get grace? How do we lose grace?

Answer (a) (i) One instance of salvation by believing: Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16:29-31

(ii) Other instances mentioned of and written abount in the New Testament. Remember the thief crucified with Jesus, who was saved at the last moment of his life?

(b) Are you questioning the value of Christians who communicate with the saints through prayer?

Answer (b) (i) Are we allowed to pray to saints? The second commandment in the Law of Moses is: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; - Exodus 20:4-5

(ii) What did Jesus command us about prayer But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly... After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. - Matthew 6:6, 9, Luke 11:2,

(iii) There is a difference between praying "for" and praying "to" a person.

(c) Are all churches the same to you?

Answer (c) No, all churches are not the same. Ref. The Epistles and begining of the book of Revelation

(d) How do you know that the voices in your head are the voice of Jesus? How do you discern that it isn't Satan misleading you? How do you know you truly believe in Jesus, and not a false-Jesus?

Answer (d)

(i) Whenever I have read the Bible in devotion and prayer, I have had a feeling of God speaking to me. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. - Revelation 3:20

(ii) John (gospel of John) has written: 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

(e) Do you believe that all Church teachings not found in the Bible are "truly unimportant"? Is the doctrine of the Trinity equally unimportant to our salvation?

Answer (e) (i) All church teachings not found in the bible are not necessary for salvation, else God would definitely have put them in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 11:6 But though [I be] rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things. ... 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 11:15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

(ii) Although the word trinity does not occur in the Bible, the doctrine does; nevertheless many have been saved (as given in the Bible ref. the thief on the cross) that knew not the doctrine of the trinity.

-x-x-x-

Megan Mosovsky, August 14, 2002

(a) There are so many scripture passages dealing with Mary if you know where to look. Heres one:Ezekiel 44:1-3 Which ...This would prove her virginity...

Answer (a) (i) Going by such comparisons, the Bible can be manipulated into proving almost anything (ii) Every christian (hopefully) should agree that Mary was indeed a virgin. (iii) She may have remained a virgin all her life? Or she may have had other children...

(b) yet many would not dare honor the woman who held Jesus in her womb by calling her blessed in the "Hail Mary" lest they not honor God... Mary covers us with the merits of her son Jesus that we too may receive the blessing of our father in heaven. We know that the one miracle Mary publically asked for in the gospels was at Cana, which was granted her. Why do so many doubt the love God has for her? ...

Answer (b) (i) There is a difference between honouring a person (calling her "blessed") and equating her with Jesus (or the office of Jesus). (ii) How does Mary cover us with the merits of her son?? (iii) Even if God loved Mary more that any other person, He choose not to disclose it, at least through the Bible. (iv) What is present in the Bible or rather the New Testament, is sufficient for a person to obtain the knowledge required to be saved. Nothing else is necessary!

THE BOTTOMLINE:

Finally, the question about "Mary remaining a virgin all her life" has little relevance concerning our salvation:

(a) I believe that the gospels and epistles are inspired by God (writers were filled with the Holy Ghost).

(b) Whereas they do not list every incidence about Jesus, his earthly life or the church, God allowed such references concerning Mary and her possible other sons and daughters to be retained.

(c) Did God want us to debate over such issues? Is that why these verses are still there in the Bible?

(d) God may have allowed a hint to remain concerning the humanity of Mary. She is not God, neither is she equal or near God in any aspect. She was the vessel (handmaid) of the Lord so that His purpose might be accomplished. Thus she should not be considered to be a mediator or one throught whom God is accessed!!!

(e) If anyone who is not a christian (i.e. before christianity started) is great, it is "John the baptist." Jesus said that "none born of women is greater than he." Jesus also added that the least member of the kingdom of heaven (christian?) will be greater than John. Since John lived before the advent of christianity, yet had the spirit of God from birth and received praise from Jesus, his position of honour may be greater than Mary? After all, even Mary had her parents??

(f) We do not bow down before or (indirectly) worship John the baptist. Is it rightful to do so (indirectly) for Mary?

Please do let me know your own thoughts on this subject.

May the Lord bless each one of you,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 08, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Jmj

Andrew, it's too bad that you didn't go to the forum's archives and read all the other threads about this subject (from the last 5.5 years). What you would have found there would have left you without a need (or desire) to post the above message of yours, because you would have seen that all your questions/objections have been answered time and again.

Even your comment at "Q 1 (a)" was already refuted in the initial response, above, from Thomas Pham. You must have overlooked it.

Your comment at "Q 1 (b)" is not coherent. In trying to explain why Jesus's brothers were not at the cross, you offer the possibility that Jesus had offended his mother and brothers earlier. But if that were true, she too would have been absent. In fact, Andrew, Jesus offended no one. You just misinterpreted what he said. (That's easy for a "SolaScripturist" to do!)

Your comment at "Q 1 (d)" does not help you. It doesn't matter who was absent from Calvary or who disbelieved in Jesus. If he had had blood brothers, Mary would have gone to live with them; she would not have been given by Jesus to a non-kinsman like John Bar Zebedee.

More later, perhaps!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Jmj
Andrew, let's continue with your reply to Thomas Pham.

Your comment "2 a" does not really demonstrate anything, because (just like today) the word "brother" does not necessarily imply "child of the same parents." Today, "brother" doesn't even necessarily imply "blood relative."

Your comment "2 b (i)" erroneously implies that the Greek word for "cousin" ("anepsios") was used to refer to St. Elizabeth. In fact, the word St. Luke used for her was "suggenEs," which simply means "kinsman" (one related by blood) or even "fellow countryman." [The King James partial version of the Bible too specifically uses the word "cousin." Perhaps this misled you. Going with KJV and Sola Scriptura is a "double-whammy," Andrew.]

Please be aware that the Greek word for "cousin" ("anepsios") appears in only one Bible verse -- Colossians 4:10. This rarity of usage suggests that some other word was used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to a cousin. That other word? It is almost surely "adelphos" -- the very word that you have wrongly been assuming means only "brother" (child of the same parents). Thus, it is perfectly natural to assume that James, Joses, etc., could have been cousins. Then, the whole thing is nailed down by paying attention to the "oral gospel" -- the truths passed down by word of mouth from the first century. The great Bible scholar, St. Jerome, who lived around 400 A.D., powerfully rejected the conjecture of the first Christian known to have attempted to say that Mary had other children. If anyone knew what was intended by adelphos, anepsios, suggenEs, etc., it was St. Jerome. But how could you have ever known about this, Andrew, since you are a SolaScriturist, unaware of the Oral Word of God.

Your comment "2 b (ii)" was: " There is nothing in the context of Matthew 13:55 to suggest that the context meant a cousin or step brothers/sisters."
Now turn it around. There is nothing in the context to suggest that "blood brother" was meant.

Your comment "2 b (iii)" was: "Can we justify anything by assuming that Mary was an evervirgin?"
Who is trying to "justify anything"? We are just passing along the truth taught for 2,000 years, but you are fighting it.

Your comment "2 b (iv)" was: "If Joseph had children by a previous marrage, what happened to the children when Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt? How could they understand their father marrying Mary who was with child before they came together?? Did they not view any incidences of the Angels, etc. and know that Jesus was the son of God right from the begining???"
Keep in mind that we do not claim with certainty that St. Joseph had other children. However, if he did, they could have been left with other relatives in Nazareth, since Herod sought only the newborn child. They would not necessarily have known about Mary's pregnancy. They would not have seen the visitations of the angels to their father, since those came in dreams. (You need to get control of your imagination, Andrew!)

Your comment "2 d," about the actions of a "pious Jew[ish]" married couple, would ordinarily be convincing, but you are closing your eyes to the fact that Joseph knew that Mary was actually espoused to God himself, having conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. As a "pious Jew" and sinner, St. Joseph would never have dreamed of intruding upon the pure and perfect relationship between Mary and God. As the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant held the Word of God (the tablets), so the new Ark of the Covenant, Mark, held the Word of God (Jesus). And, as very few Jews were permitted to even see the old Ark [much less touch it (lest they be struck dead)], so St. Joseph would not dream of intimately touching the new Ark, Mary ... and it was not fitting that a non-divine child (sired by a sinner) would be conceived and grow within the new Ark.

Your comment "2 e," about early celibacy, does not refute what Mr. Pham said. The fact that most of the Apostles were married doesn't really prove anything. It is now believed by some that the Apostles became "continent" when they embarked upon their missionary work after Pentecost. (Apparently, there is evidence of this, though I am not yet familiar with it.)

Your comment "2 f" completely misses Mr. Pham's point. He explained that the Greek word "heos" in Matthew 1:25 -- rendered as "until" or "till" -- should not be misread to be referring to what happened at a later time. If you had studied this subject in the archives of the forum, you would have come across a thread in which I gave several examples, from both Testaments, of the use of "until/heos" in such a way that your interpretation of Matthew 1:25 is shown to be faulty.

Even in English, we can say, "I will think of you ever day until we meet again." Does this mean that, after we meet again, I will NOT think of you? No. The word "until" does not speak about the future, but only about what happens up to a certain point. Thus Matthew 1:25 simply says that the couple had no relations prior to Jesus's birth. It says nothing about what they did after his birth. The point of Matthew 1:25 was to emphasize that Jesus was not the biological son of St. Joseph. The point of Matthew 1:25 was NOT to make any comment about a couple's sex life.

More later, perhaps!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 08, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

[Topping for Gene Chavez and Mateo el Feo. Perhaps you gentlemen would like to respond to Andrew's objections to your past messages?]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 09, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

In the Gospel the "crowd" often says things that are incorrect. For example, it was the crowd who asked "isn't this the son of Joseph the carpenter?" and then goes on to ask about his "brothers and sisters". But the point is clear: they got it wrong about his father so why should we accept their word for it about his siblings?!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Its' Dr. Lance.(the reiki dude).

-- - (.@...), September 10, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

12th September 2003

Greetings

Answers to response of John F. Gecik

I was directed to this web page (thread) while searching for some biblical material, and did not know that it formed a part of a (very) large forum. However, I am now in the process of reading all the archives of the last 5 years, particularly the ones related to the "above message of mine." Please forgive me if I have caused any inconvenience or offended anyone, but when I first read the statements (both for and against) on this page, I found them to be quite "out of place." Moreover, scripture references were inappropriately quoted (more on this and sola scriptura to follow…).

Please note that I am not against anyone or the Catholic Church and am open to correction if I find myself to be wrong. I am only stating my beliefs according to what I know from the Bible - KJV, NIV, Gideons, Douay Rheims, Apocrypha, etc. (call me a sola scripturist or whatever), for the study of which I have devoted considerable time.

* already refuted in the initial response, above, from Thomas Pham. You must have overlooked it

I did not overlook it. Thomas said, "the word 'brother' could mean cousin, relative, etc. depending upon the context." He further adds that since this is not "positive proof" the notion can be 'quickly' dismissed. However, the statement is also not positive proof of the contrary, i.e. "Mary was an ever virgin." Thomas even 'justifies' himself by declaring that they were Jesus' stepbrothers and stepsisters or cousins.
I am sure that only God can justify us. Don't you think so?

* Sola scripturist or not, I am sure that you too believe what the Bible says, at least. On more than one occasion, Jesus commended faithful believers instead of his mother (and brothers). A (true) mother's heart is different; she can forgive her children for nearly anything. That's not so easy for brothers and sisters.

"In fact, Andrew, Jesus offended no one" Have you ever read the New Testament (Vulgate, Septuagint, KJV…)? Jesus repeatedly offended the Pharisees, teachers of the law, and a lot of other people (especially for their false doctrine). Did I misinterpret it then?

* I have read only a few of your responses for some other queries, but whenever someone quotes the Bible accurately to make a point that is hard to refute, your argument is somewhat based on one or more of the following:

(a) The Bible can only be interpreted by the Catholic Church: this further narrows down to early Church fathers and the doctrines that originated in the early Churches. Anyone else cannot properly understand the scriptures in the light of what they (scriptures) say, unless of course they are taught by the Catholic Church!
(b) The Bible is not the sole authority (particularly if it is not according to a doctrine of the Church).
(c) Those who quote the Bible are in error if they are not considering the "oral doctrine." And the doctrine or those who formulated it are infallible?

Answers to all the above may merit a separate thread; however, I will give a brief account of a couple of statements that I found on the internet and on one of the "grenspun Catholic forum" threads (please note that I do not actually know about the validity of these):

(a) The second commandment (original in Hebrew and Greek) or part of the verse (quoted below) is missing from several editions of the Catholic Bible. Is this true? Who edited the scriptures?
Exodus, Chapter XX, verse 4-6 in KJV.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Douay Rheims Bible has the following:
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

(b) This is an excerpt from an address given by the Cardinals to Pope Pius III, and is preserved in the National Library of Paris, Folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, pp. 650 651.
"Of all the advice that we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail. The Bible is a book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realise that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it."

* If he had had blood brothers, Mary would have gone to live with them; she would not have been given by Jesus to a non-kinsman like John Bar Zebedee.

John, you and I have differences even though we call ourselves Christians. Would you have accepted me even if I was your brother, had we followed different beliefs? (I do accept all Christians as brothers, though… who am I to exclude anyone if God is willing to accept him/her).
Someone has mentioned on one of the threads that James and John (sons of Salome and Zebedee) were the cousins of Jesus. This is while "refuting" the claim of the use of brother for blood relatives of Jesus. Wouldn't that make John Bar Zebedee a kinsman of Jesus? Further, John was the most beloved disciple…

* just passing along the truth taught for 2,000 years, but you are fighting it
Once again, I am not fighting anyone. I am only stating what I believe, which I have found in the Bible. And I am open to correction if I am wrong.

* could have been left with other relatives in Nazareth, since Herod sought only the newborn child… (You need to get control of your imagination, Andrew!)

Sure, Joseph leaves (probably) 5 to 7 children behind and migrates to Egypt with Mary and Jesus, although he does not know when he will be back (7 years). As for my imagination, please recall that there are topics such as "Actual birth of Jesus, did Mary labor?" on the greenspun server, to which you have contributed a reply too! Now isn't that odd?

* would ordinarily be convincing… Mary was actually espoused to God himself… it was not fitting that a non-divine child (sired by a sinner) would be conceived and grow within the new Ark

Very interesting! If I am not going against the "oral word," the Bible mentions at various intervals of persons that were filled with the "Holy Ghost." This is both in the Old as well as New Testament. This selective group consisted of sinners too; a few of them sinned even after they had an experience with the "Spirit of God." Does God allow favouritism? On one hand, He sends His Spirit upon sinners (that may or may not repent: famous example of Saul in the OT "is Saul among the prophets"), while on the other we claim that Mary was sinless on account of the Child with the Holy Ghost within her. Or are there several versions of the Holy Ghost (God's Spirit)?

When we read about Jesus, God's spirit descended and alighted on Him in the "form of a dove" only after Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. Could that mean that the Sevenfold Spirit of God only entered Jesus after his baptism, and remained with Him thereafter? Please ask some knowledgeable Catholic Priest or Theologian about this…

Also recall, the "Ark of the Covenant" was captured by the pagan (idolatrous sinners) on more than one occasion, yet it remained Holy.

* early celibacy… now believed by some that the Apostles became "continent" when they embarked upon their missionary work after Pentecost. (Apparently, there is evidence of this, though I am not yet familiar with it.)
The verse that I had quoted is reproduced for you again:
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? - 1 Corinthians 9:5

While we can accept that Joseph and Mary may not have had any relations, do you actually "believe" that when Paul made this statement, he was speaking of it in the same light, i.e. having a wife but "not having marital relations with her." That's absurd and against the sanctity of marriage; you make it sound as if being married is a sin! This way, no true Christian married couple should ever have children and then where does our Christianity go? And then, why didn't God make Jesus from the dust of the earth (or something better)? He could, if all this is so sinful; nothing is impossible for God.

* emphasize that Jesus was not the biological son of St. Joseph
Thanks. But I do agree that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. From the context, a person is likely to assume that the word "until" indicates that till Jesus was not born Joseph had no relations with his wife Mary, and so no doubt remains about Jesus' birth being through the Holy Ghost.
(Blame it on my imagination; but it's logical too :-)
Why did St. Matthew have to explicitly state this? Perhaps there were people living at that time who knew that Joseph and Mary had several children and St. Matthew wanted to emphasise that the firstborn son was not through Joseph; rather it was the work of the Holy Ghost.

As you will agree, the explanation that you put forward is also based on the "oral word and teachings, and the interpretation of the Bible according to that."

May post on other threads too to share my thoughts, if possible… will try to continue with the above after I have read the last 5 years archives… phew… these pages are really long…

May God bless each one of you

Andrew

---

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 12, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Andrew, I hope to have a chance to respond to you on Saturday. There is much in your words in need of correction. Perhaps someone else will jump in ahead of me. We may address things to specific people by name, but everyone is free to intervene at any point and help out.

Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you to read at least the opening messages on this thread. It will help you to know the rules of the forum and to keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum (not a "general religion" forum).

I see the ".in" in your e-mail address. Does that mean you are writing from India or Indonesia? We have a Catholic man from India posting here -- Abraham T. Perhaps you will chat with him one day.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

(Topping for Sunday consideration.) [Gene, if you have returned, please scroll up and see where Andrew critiques an old post of yours.]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Dear John,

I have read contents of the link (and the rules) that you have directed me to. If my views are deeply offending anyone, please let me know and I will stop posting anything further on this web site.

After all, I hope and pray that "those who do not yet know about Jesus or the Gospel are preached to," instead of causing any rift between true believers and causing them to be turned away from God!

Once again, I repeat that "I am only posting my views on this subject with reference to the scriptures and historical information, which may or may not be correct, and am willing to accept corrections if found to be wrong." However, at present I strongly believe the authenticity of the Bible and it being the true (inspired) word of God.

Yes, I am writing from India. Is there an option to chat with someone through the greenspun server or independently?

BTW, I have added my e-mail address so that if anyone responds to my message I will be notified. However, I did not receive any intimation via mail, concerning your reply?

May God bless you too.

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 14, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Dear Andrew,

Your statement ...

"However, at present I strongly believe the authenticity of the Bible and it being the true (inspired) word of God."

... is absolutely in line with Catholic teaching, word for word. However, Catholic teaching goes a step beyond that, requiring that the written Word of God, which was set down in writing through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and which was later compiled into the Bible as we know it through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can yield truth only if it is also interpreted through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It goes without saying that the Holy Spirit, God, does not contradict Himself in interpreting the Word of God, the writing of which He initially inspired. Therefore it would seem apparent that the many conflicting interpretations which come out of denominational Christianity cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot be accepted as truth with any degree of confidence. I see no way around this dilemma. Do you?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Response to Is Mary really a Virgin? (amswer to question asked)

Dear John,
I was vacationing out of town a few days. Just returned and see your reference to what Andrew W. Peoples is saying of my previous posts.

He has a right to his private opinion. It's skewed toward his unorthodox interpretations of scripture, of course. What are we to do about the glaring mistakes of some free-lance Christians who disdain the holy teachings of the Catholic Church? They're quite like the Pharisees Christ argued with on the streets of Jerusalem.

In their eyes, Jesus Christ was an upstart who corrupted the truth as they interpreted it. It was enough for them to quote the Law; if He was opposed to their interpretation, it didn't matter. His word was just a nuisance to them because they were self absorbed.

Mr. Peoples is self-absorbed. His bible wisdom is beyond reproach, since he accepts no Church. No Church can correct him, because, like a Pharisee, he's never wrong.

I'm always risking the accusation here of making only ad hominem replies and not offering much biblical proof text. But to argue from text with an Andrew W. Peoples is like playing tennis without the net. Only when Peoples calls it a net ball is the problem settled to his satisfaction. He can say the Church fails to return his volley, and you'll have no recourse. The court is all in his bible. It's his court, you lose. Therefore, ad hominem replies, I believe, are suitable against Mr. Know- everything, the modern Pharisee.

He must have seen by now all our various statements about the Virgin Mary; and about the Church's authority to teach the truth aided by the Holy Spirit. --He refuses to believe. Does he just reject God altogether???

No; and none of the Pharisees did, either. They didn't believe Christ was God. If they had, then they wouldn't have rejected Him.

If Mr. Peoples had known the Church speaks for the Holy Spirit, he wouldn't reject the teaching of the Church. If he realised his biblical wisdom was flawed, he wouldn't insist on it the way a Pharisee insisted on his flawed version of the Law. Meanwhile, like that Pharisee, Mr. Peoples is rejecting God but he doesn't even know it! We must pray for these poor, misguided free lancers. Pray for people like Mr. Peoples.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 14, 2003.

Thank you, Paul and Eugene.

Andrew, I find myself again without free time to respond to your comments in detail. Perhaps tomorrow. However, it occurred to me to tell you the following, in case you have never heard it before. In fact, after reading it, you may want to turn to other topics to discuss instead -- or even to a different Internet forum.

We Catholics do not claim that one can prove "scientifically", from the Bible, that Mary, the Mother of God, had no children besides Jesus. At the same time, we do claim that you cannot prove the contrary. The Bible only provides a multitude of "clues" that could be read differently by different people. [By the way, all of this is admitted by honest protestant scholars.] Naturally, I would say that the scriptural clues, taken together with sound, logical reasoning, can lead only to the conclusion that Mary had just one chid -- Jesus. (But I realize that it would be tough for you to agree with this. Too Catholic, and disloyal to protestantism!)

Since neither of us can conclusively prove our contention from the Bible alone, we need to turn to other sources of information (if any exist) and/or to an authoritative, guiding voice (if one exists). What do we find?

(1) The living memory of the Church of Jesus, passed down from generation to generation, is a reliable source of information. It tells us that Mary had just one child.
(2) The Catholic Church, and only she, possesses the "authoritative, guiding" voice -- protected by the Holy Spirit -- that tells us the authentic meaning of each of the ambiguous scriptural verses (about which you and I could otherwise argue for hours).

Perhaps there is no point in our debating these things in a "piecemeal" fashion, Andrew -- is there? I can assure you that you will not change anyone's mind here. Are you open to having your mind changed?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Dear John,

As per your wish, I am placing a copy of the email I sent and your reply so that others may also contribute an answer:


12th September 2003

… My encounter with this thread on the "greenspun" website was by chance. I was actually searching for some information concerning the scriptures, to augment my knowledge about God's word. However, when I read a few of the arguments and reasoning put forward, I found them to be quite illogical and completely out of place (both for and against)! Compare the same with the statements and inferences put forward by Paul in his epistles and you will perceive what I mean.

After having read your response on the "internet thread," I am following up on all the archives and related threads that you have referred to. Sorry, I did not know there was such a lot of discussion going on out there! And I thought that our faith and religion was a dying one...

It will take me at least a week to carefully study all the "thoughts and rebuttals," as there are hundreds of pages covering a period of several years at 'greenspun'. And I will certainly post another reply... if God allows me to. As for the statement "it is impossible for you to come up with a new and convincing objection," I have already found one; but it will surely take some time and study before it is presentable!

I am not against the Catholic Church. In fact, what I am actually against is the break-up of the Church into the various segments that we have today. And many of them have contrasting beliefs! I strongly feel that instead of "dividing a house against itself," early reformists should have found a way to correct whatever practices they found to be divergent from the "Way of our Lord," and stayed with the Catholic Church. After all, even the epistles speak of differences in the early Churches as well as the solutions to such circumstances.

You will also agree that some of the traditions and stipulations followed throughout the ages by the Catholic, Protestant and other Churches have not been correct, at least according to the scriptures (and also according to basic principles of morality) and thus were required to render an apology later.

Concerning my state of being "immersed in error," I have always been drawn towards God since my childhood. Although born in a Christian family where lots of emphasis is placed on God, I felt something was missing; therefore, I devoted a part of the growing years of my life to a regular study of the Bible and related documents. To my dismay, I realised that none of the Churches here (many Catholic, Protestants, Methodists, ... in several states that I had been to), were actually the "true" Churches as described in the New Testament (after all, the NT is an authority for comparison).

For the Church is not the beautiful building or the decorated altar; it consists of the congregation. And the congregation that I encountered could not be considered Christian even during and after worship service, much less thereafter. And how am I to rebuke anyone to turn back to God; for I am a sinner too, and our Lord has said "first take the log out of thine eye, then the speck from thy brothers eye." In all this darkness, our Lord regularly enables individuals to shine like a bright light, for us to remember that He is still there and cares much for us; one such name you might be well acquainted with, that of Mother Teresa.

The principal fact that I have found lacking was the presence of the Holy Ghost (the book of Acts could also be titled the "Acts of the Holy Ghost"). In fact, after being aware of this, I doubted whether I was a recipient of the Spirit during my confirmation, for the very people who placed their hands upon my head were of a questionable character. I am now trying a little revival for self and a group of youth of one Church (but without any break-up of the Church: I am very much against division)... lets see where the Lord takes us. In regard to your last statement, "If loving God with all my heart and soul and strength, believing in Jesus and trying to obey his commandments to the core is the 'Catholic Faith,' then I am already a Catholic at heart." However, if any man or law or doctrine forbids me or endeavours to hinder my faith in God (and God alone whom I worship) then even the peril of loosing this life (a gift from God) would not overwhelm me. And Jesus will help me when that hour comes (if I ever have the honour). That is a promise of Jesus himself.

May God bless you too.

Warm regards,

Andrew

...

Reply from John:
I want to let you know in advance that all your thoughts have rebuttals. The Catholic Church has been in existence since Jesus founded her almost 2,000 years ago. It is impossible for you to come up with a new and convincing objection. All objections have been replied to hundreds, if not thousands of times. As the saying goes, "There is nothing new under the sun." I am sad to know that you have been immersed in error until now, but it is never too late for you to learn! I look forward to the day when you too will be Catholic, joining the millions who have converted from Protestantism (including thousands of clergymen).

…

You must have overlooked the fact that I expressed my desire not to communicate by e-mail, but rather to exchange thoughts on the discussion forum. (I wrote last time: "If I choose to respond to you, I will do it on the Internet thread, rather than by e-mail.") It is better to converse at the forum, because you will then receive facts and advice from several Catholics, not just from me. It will hasten your conversion!

In keeping with my preferences, I will not be able to respond to your new message. Although I recognize the effort you put into writing, I trust that you will not write to me again privately. In fact, I suggest that you copy and paste part of your message into the Internet thread where we met, so that I and others can respond to it. You have made at least a couple of mistakes in your message, and it would be good if someone could reply.

I am very happy to know that you are exploring the forum's archives. (I think that I mentioned that they go back to January of 1998.) God bless you.

John

Thank you for your answers. I am still reading the forum archives. Will try to go through at least 120 threads,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 18, 2003.

''I am actually against is the break-up of the Church into the various segments that we have today. And many of them have contrasting beliefs! I strongly feel that instead of "dividing a house against itself," early reformists should have found a way to correct whatever practices they found to be divergent from the "Way of our Lord," and stayed with the Catholic Church. After all, even the epistles speak of differences in the early Churches as well as the solutions to such circumstances--'' Stated above; probably part of what John Gecik said is mistaken. Also:

''-- Churches have not been correct, at least according to the scriptures (and also according to basic principles of morality) and thus were required to render an apology later.'' Not so. Not within the Catholic fold.

''The principal fact that I have found lacking was the presence of the Holy Ghost,''-- Says Andrew Peoples. This ''fact'' is his own imagination. The Church founded by Jesus Christ has no worry about the ''presence'' of the Holy Ghost. --It's more than His divine presence, it's the help (Advocate, Paraclete) and the power of the Holy Spirit, as well as an abiding presence, The Catholic Church has all the fulness of these, and has invoked this power throughout her history. That was self-evident in times of heretical divisions, schisms and so called reformation. The Holy Spirit never leaves the Church. We have Christ's holy word on it.

Since we know from Scripture and Tradition Jesus Christ did not found ''churches'', but only One Church with Peter as her shepherd and guide, the Peoples' version:

''To my dismay, I realised that none of the Churches here --emphasis mine-- (many Catholic, Protestants, Methodists, ... in several states that I had been to), were actually the "true" Churches as described in the New Testament (after all, the NT is an authority for comparison);'' --is rendered false. There is no part of either Sacred Tradition or Scripture indicating autonomous churches, which apparently Andrew takes for the valid articles.

Not surprisingly, much of what he terms fact in his words to us is clearly ''I think'', and ''I discovered or found,'' or ''I studied''. Merely a private interpretation or viewpoint. Not much else than subjective judgment.

Before Andrew says here my own view is subjective, I'll state with no equivocations it can't be. I didn't realise these truths by my own lights, but by the Catholic Church's teachings only; who is guided always by the Holy Spirit; Whom Mr. Peoples denies in her. The most glaring of his personal mistakes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 19, 2003.

21st Sept. 2003

Dear Paul, Eugene and John,

I am still reading the contents of older threads. Will post a reply soon.

John, I am trying to obtain the writings of Church fathers from the site (http://ccel.org), which you have mentioned on one of your posts. Could you please provide me with some guidance on how to study them? Should I proceed chronologically or topically? Are there some works that are considered to be more important than the rest?

Thanks,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 20, 2003.

Dear John,

I am trying to obtain the writings of Church fathers from the site (http://ccel.org), which you have mentioned on one of your posts. Could you please provide me with some guidance on how to study them? Should I proceed chronologically or topically? Are there some works that are considered to be more important than the rest?

Is there any web site from where I can learn about Catholic doctrine and traditions (genuine or official ones)?

Waiting for your response,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 21, 2003.

Andrew,

I would suggest Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com They have many tracts that discuss Catholic doctrine that non-Catholic Christians teach against.

Also, EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network - Catholic TV) has a very good website. www.ewtn.com The Q&A forum is the best place to search for particular doctrines.

As far as looking over ccel.org, I would suggest picking a particular subject, such as Virgin Mary, and entering that in the search box.

God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), September 22, 2003.

Dear Glenn,

Thank you very much. I will look up the sites that you have suggested.

May God bless you too,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 23, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks, Gene and Glenn, for answering Andrew. I have been trying to get caught up here, after losing electrical power for about 40 hours. Glenn, suggesting "Catholic Answers" to Andrew was excellend, especially since about 1/2 of their essays ("tracts") contain quotations from the early Church Fathers, showing how today's Catholic doctrines can be seen being believed in the earliest centuries of Christendom. Here is a link to the helpful "Library" page at Catholic Answers.

Thanks, Andrew, for taking my suggestion and posting your mailed message here. I will take another look at it tomorrow, to see if I want to add anything to what Eugene and Glenn told you. [I hope that you noticed that three people, including myself, replied to you on September 14 also.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.

What's the immaculate conception ??

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

immaculate conception: Mary. born without the stain of original sin so that when Jesus was born he could come from absolute purity, not someone tainted by sin. protestants for the most part, however, believe that mary was not pure, or special in anyway, and affirm that Jesus was the immaculate conception. unfortunately, their wrong. but since you didnt ask for any proofs and its not like you recognize the immaculate conception in the first place, i see no need to prove the catholic side at this time.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 24, 2003.

Hi, paul. You used the phrase, "born without the stain of original sin." While this is correct, I would encourage the use of the phrase, "conceived (nine months before birth) without the stain of original sin." Hence the word "Conception" in "Immaculate Conception."
Laurent will believe in the Immaculate Conception some day.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

No John , what I left , I did it for good !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

Dear John,

You are welcome. Actually, when I responded by e-mail, it was to "personal objections."

And I thought that power failure (sometimes up to 15 hours a day regularly during summers) was something only we had to live with :-)

Yes, I have read all the posts (Sept. 14 included) on this thread.

Thanks,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 24, 2003.

Laurent, you wrote: "No John , what I left , I did it for good !!"
If I may attempt a little humor ... "You didn't do it 'for good.' You did it 'for bad.'"
I know that, by "for good," you meant, "forever." However, I have heard that kind of thing before -- mostly from people who returned to the Church. I can assure you that there is absolutely no way for you accurately to predict that you will remain (or pretend to be) atheist for the rest of your life. Things that you cannot anticipate will happen to you, and I am confident that you will change. I will simply ignore your protestations to the contrary! I've lived through too many things to take them seriously.

Thanks for the note, Andrew. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal objections." I don't think that there was anything in your e-mail to me that was of a private nature -- something that only I could answer. Most of us are very frank and unreserved here, usually allowing (even encouraging) each other freely to step in and make comments or to reply to unanswered questions -- even if seemingly addressed to someone else. Maybe that system of correspondence is too "open" or informal for your liking. Time will tell.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

John , I do like humor , so , maybe once , you'll change to and leave church & religion forever !! __ You'll never know !!

John ,

If I say I mean it , that means , I do mean it very serious !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

Yeah, John-- He hates gambling too; but he hangs around casinos. He can't stand coffee, but he loves to sit in Starbucks. You know; it smells bad to him, but he bears with it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 25, 2003.

Hi, Mr. LUG

You asked," What is the Imaculate Conception?"

Where you joking before, when you told us you where educated in a Catholic school in Belgium? You never left the Catholic Church, Mr. Lug. You where never taught the basics.

The house is only as strong, as the foundation it was built on, Mr. LUG! You need to work on the basics, as any winner will do in anything in life.

We should start with praying, and open our minds to the fact that we where created by God. And then maybe ask ourselve,"why where we created(made)? And then pray about this.

May St. Pio pray for us sinners, and pray that you open up you're closed mind.

-- . (David@excite.com), September 25, 2003.

Yeah, John-- He hates gambling too; but he hangs around casinos. He can't stand coffee, but he loves to sit in Starbucks. You know; it smells bad to him, but he bears with it.

So , you think I'm using drugs & sitting in a pub all day long ?? __ No , I never ever have used drugs !!!! __ And about visiting pubs , I don't go that often , maybe maximum 4 times a month !!

Besides , also , I'm not even drink coffee or tea , I don't smoke , don't drink !! __ So , who of you can tell me , he/she does the same ??

Yes , once in a while I gamble on the lottery , maybe 5 times each year , does that makes me EVIL ?? __ You don't even know me !!!! __ Besides , I'm not only going to metalconcerts !! __ You also think I'm hanging around on the streets , looking for troubles with everyone ?? __ I even had never troubles with the police or with anyone else !! __ But you think , every non-believer is an inhuman , Eugene open your eyes , please , we're all humans & unique !!

You know , strange enough , I really do like moments of total silence !! __ But about music: at home , I don't listen to music on my stereo , I only likes to listen to music , when I see it live or on TV , one my favourite TV music channels is SOLO TANGO & CLASSIC FM , but I don't watch that often !! __ But maybe a bit weird , I do like to play music , sometimes I pick up my guitar and also with my band , of course !! __ I really do like to play the drums , I just love it , but also , it gives me the free opportunity to get rid of all my frustrations !!

Eugene , you hate persons who don't believe or who has not the same idea about life as you !! __ And so , You like to fool them , why ??

I never said I hate you all , I only don't like religion & churches !!

------------------------------------------------

David , just for the record , my mind is open , only not for emptiness !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

Improvement of the grammar:

Never before I had any troubles with the police or with anyone else !! __ But you think , every non-believer is an inhuman , Eugene open your eyes , please , we're all humans & unique !!

Greets from a NON-BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

Nobody says you're evil. If anything, you're blind. We aren't here to pass judgment. We're here to give you the good news.

''But you think , every non-believer is an inhuman , Eugene open your eyes , please , we're all humans & unique,''

ANSWER: We're all humans, Laurent; but you reject the greatest human who ever lived. The holy Son of God, who gave his life on the cross for your salvation, & to bring you with Him into eternal life. --If you reject Jesus Christ and his truth, you have rejected your own humanity. Your unbelief hurts Him, who has loved you. But you're indifferent. You say to Jesus: I don't want you; you're no different to Larent Lug than a cup of poison. I reject poison.

He would give you eternal life. You reject life-- Poor Laurent; you find no joy in humanity if you live only to feed the worms someday.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 25, 2003.

Who says I'm poor , in fact , I'm happy , I enjoy life , I can do what I want !! __ Except for my handicap , there is nothing wrong with me !!

Nobody says you're evil. If anything, you're blind. We aren't here to pass judgment. We're here to give you the good news.

So , What's the good news ??

And how can I/you reject or hurt something that never had lived ??

btw , So you see me as poison , what in that case you would suggest me as anti-poison ??

off-topic: Do you understand the term: air-castle ??

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

laurent,

before you respond to eugene again, perhaps you should reread his previous statement about casinos and starbucks and consider what he is saying as opposed to what you are assuming.

you took his comment defensively, thinking he was insulting your moral character. that is incorrect. for all we know you might be a moral rock, and yet you do not believe, so it is for your soul that we are concerned.

what you missed in what eugene said is this... you claim to despise religion and the very concept of God, and yet you remain here with us, for whom religion is a way of life. I think the same as eugene does... you want to be saved, truly, and something brings you back here time and again. to be mildly humorous, i hope that by sitting in this starbucks long enough that you'll try the cup of coffee we're offering, and see that it is good. remember that we want the best for you here, otherwise we wouldnt bother talking to you at all.

i'll pray for you laurent. though it may not seem important for you now, i hope that one day you will be joined with us in the true church.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 25, 2003.

wow, just a minute too late to beat you to the post...

Mr Laurent, please calm yourself, i dont think eugene is trying to insult you moral character so much as to probe into why you dont believe and bring you back into the fold

if i may ask a question: since we know that you dont believe, could you please inform us as to why not? i dont think we have heard this important fact yet.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 25, 2003.

Something that never lived? Is that all?

The ox eating hay thinks that way; the cow eats and doesn't believe there is a God. Are you no higher in intelligence than oxen? You, who have been given a mind and a soul, are given a revelation. But you say ''--Who revealed anything, somebody who never existed?''

He revealed Himself to His prophets and finally in His divine Son, Jesus. -- Jesus has true existence in time. His words are recorded for us in the scriptures. His holiness is seen in the pages of the Holy Bible. Many saints and martyrs testify to the reality of Christ's life and His love for us. He is not a fairy tale. Whoever told you this lie made a fool of you. The prophet said to Israel, in the Old Testament: ''The fool says in his heart, There is no God.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 25, 2003.

for all we know you might be a moral rock, and yet you do not believe, so it is for your soul that we are concerned. Yes , I really do have a moral , but for that , you don't need religion !!

What's a soul , can you show me ??

About Eugene , he just enjoys to make fun with otherthinking persons , especially with people who don't belief in religion !!!!

What I left , I did it for good !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

if i may ask a question: since we know that you dont believe, could you please inform us as to why not? i dont think we have heard this important fact yet.

Who said I ever have believed in religion , etc ??

You can tell a little kid everything you want , but who says the kid will believe what you tell him/her ??

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

I didn't make fun, Laurent. I uncovered your negligence of God. You neglect Him; in fact, YOU make fun of GOD. Calling Him ''fairy tale'', and ''the one who never has existed.''

At least the animals don't mock God. They are merely doing what He created them to do in life. He created men and women to be His servants in life; to follow His Holy Son in this life, and to LOVE Him.

But you'd rather do what you please, as if you KNEW that God is a fairy tale.

If I say it clearly, it's not to make fun of you. It's to bring you to your senses before you die. You will die; and probably you think, all ''I'll be is a memory. I will be consumed by worms. It doesn't matter what I believe.''

But it surely matters, because you are more than an animal, who feeds the worms or another animal. You are an immortal soul, baptised into Christ. You live with your sins, instead of asking forgiveness of God.

Do you know the sacrament of baptism places an indelible mark upon your eternal soul? In hell you will still carry this mark. It will tell all the devils & damned souls that in life you were a Catholic, baptised. But there in hell, it will bring only sorrow and shame when you see it. It will remind you for eternity what you have thrown away because of pride.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 25, 2003.

Dear Laurent,

You mention a "handicap." Would I seem inquisitive if I wish to ask you about it?

Warm regards,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 25, 2003.

Who said I ever have believed in religion , etc ??

laurent, i never said this. i merely want to know WHY you dont believe. can you not tell us that?

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 25, 2003.

Paul , simple , religion on its'own doesn't interest me a bit !! __ and actually: Who said I ever have believed in religion , etc ?? __ That is the answer to your question !!

But still , I'm coming visiting this place , not to return , or to make fun of you , but sometimes there are interesting subjects on , like MARILYN MANSON , abortion , euthanasia , ....

--------------------------------------------------

Eugene , AGAIN , how can I/you reject or hurt or neglect or mock or whatever , something that never had lived/exist ??

--------------------------------------------------

Andrew , no problem you ask me about my handicaps:

A bad back , caused by a car crash (not our fault) and a bad eye- sight (both eyes) , since the day I was born , even before (a genetic problem) !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 25, 2003.

Laurent:
You presume to say what exists and never has lived. It takes monstruous pride to want to judge the question of God's reality, His existence.

I don't know where this excess of pride comes to you from. Are you a genius? Did something happen to prove God has no existence? No. You just insist on this from human egoistic pride.

God made you. God keeps you alive. The moment God wishes He can bring your life to an end. He will repay your pride with great sorrows for eternity. You won't have any escape. Your pride will be crushed.

I picture you now, replying: ''How can one who doesn't exist take my life?'' Answer-- You are already sentenced to die. You know this. Who sentenced you and me??? If He didn't exist, why should we die? It's a natural law. God makes natural law. God tells the great waterfall to fall. If He wishes, then no water falls. He brings heat and cold. He increases and diminishes the harvest. Our food and water depend on His Will. Do you think these are accidental? Did YOU or I do anything to bring food to the table of men all over the world?

He lives; therefore we live.

If He didn't, we wouldn't have life. We would not exist at all. Don't get the foolish idea we could still have life. Only He gives life. If you take away God's Will, there's nothing but death. Look at the surface of the moon. Empty. Life was never given her; God chose this place, our world; and no other. He made life. He loves us; so He gives us life. You're very ignorant indeed, if you think life came out of the air. How ignorant the unbeliever is!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 25, 2003.

I don't know where this excess of pride comes to you from. Are you a genius? Did something happen to prove God has no existence? No. You just insist on this from human egoistic pride.

Eugene , a question for you: Did something happen to prove it has existence ??

-----------------------------

Who says I'm selfish ?? __ But just as everyone else , you & I , we both have our human "egoistic" pride !! __ Well nobody has telling me to leave religion , it was something I wanted for myself , 'cause who said (I repeat) I really have believed in religion ?? __ For example: if you're a member of a club , but you can't find yourself in their ideas , what would you do:

a) stay in the club and be unhappy !!

b) leave the club and find or discover your own or a new way ??

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 26, 2003.

Jmj

Larry, you are not being honest with us.
Again and again, on this thread and others, you have said these (or similar) words:
"Who said I ever have believed in religion ??

You pretend that you have always disbelieved in God. Nonsense! When you first came here, a couple of years ago, you revealed that you stopped believing in God (and left Catholicism) in your mid-teens, because of your beloved grandmother's death. The idea is so common: If God exists, how could he do that to me? First my father, and now my grandmother.

You gave up your belief in God, Laurent. Face it. Don't pretend that you have been an atheist from the cradle. I have NEVER known a single child in a Christian household who failed to believe in God. In his simplicity, a baptized child knows that God exists and has no trouble at all believing everything that trusted adults tell him about God. That is why I am absolutely certain that you grew up as a believer, but you are just embarrassed to admit it now -- because you are a bigtime, sophisticated adult now, and God doesn't interest you!

God bless you.
John
PS: I found it interesting that you "really do like to play the drums." I recently came across this ...
Q: What do you call someone who hangs out with musicians?
A: A drummer.
Oh, then there's this too ...
Laurent: "Mom, I want to grow up and be a 'metal' star."
Mom: "Now, son, you have to pick one or the other. You can't do both."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

Dear Laurent,

Sorry to know about the accident and the eye problem.

Nice to know (through John) that you like to play the drums. I love to listen to good music, particularly Hymns and Spirituals. Actually, I may have to learn how to beat a drum too :-) Our Church youth group wanted to sing an old classic and as we have no drummer, someone had to chip in... may ask you for a few tips sometime.

I'll ask you another question (with your permission please): if you someday contemplate on your life, do you feel at peace?

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), September 26, 2003.

Quote 26-09-2003J. F. Gecik wrote

Larry, you are not being honest with us. Again and again, on this thread and others, you have said these (or similar) words: "Who said I ever have believed in religion ??

No , I wasn't an atheist from the cradle , but tell me , a baby or a kid between 0 & 15 years old , does it really believe in religion ?? __ When I was 10 already I ask my dad & mom questions , the only thing they told about church & religion & bible , it's something you just accept , just like that , no further questions !! __ I ask why , they answered , it's something you just do !! __ (??) Each time they tryed to "walk away" from this subject !! __ Later on , if I talked about I'll never marry for a church , they were furious !! __ I'm not talking lies !! __ So , now if I think about it after all those years , I never have believed in religion and I feel no regrets !!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: I found it interesting that you "really do like to play the drums." I recently came across this ... Q: What do you call someone who hangs out with musicians? A: A drummer. Oh, then there's this too ... Laurent: "Mom, I want to grow up and be a 'metal' star." Mom: "Now, son, you have to pick one or the other. You can't do both."

Be a star & musician at the same time , sometimes it works for a while , but it will kills you , and if you're a star-off , will you still be making music or you just try to start over , and try to make music again ?? __ Some stars commit suicide because of the pressure they can handle !! __ They get a lot money , they're going gets nuts , and screw up their life !!!! __ Unfortulely , like Kurt Cobain , Jimi Hendrix , ....

A star is not always a musician !!

A musician is not always a star !!

BTW , I still do play the drums in my band , I never followed lessons in music , I can't read music on paper , also I did played piano , but that's 21 years ago , I also still do play the guitar (electric & acoustic 12-string) , gi'me an instrument , it doesn't matter whichone , I will learn it to play !! __ Besides playing music is intresting & fun , you can express your feelings !!

btw , Since 1992 years , I never tune a guitar anymore with a tuner , only when playing on stage a song , than you get TOO much noise in your ears , I've tryed , but it's very difficult !! __ Yes , sometimes I still do play the guitar , when we're improvising on stage !! __ So , in the beginning I did use them , I didn't knew how to tune a guitar , but you learn to use your ears , you begin to listen , after a while it goes automatic !!

The guitar-effect I'm using:

Thisone , BOSS ME-33 has a tuner bild in , but until now , I didn't use it !!

other tuners:

John , hopefully you will succed as drummer , because it's real fun !! __ I'm using as basspedal , a twin-pedal:

John , GOOD LUCK !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 03, 2003.

Quote from 26-9-2003 Andrew wrote:

I'll ask you another question (with your permission please): if you someday contemplate on your life, do you feel at peace?

Thinking about my whole life:

Yes , I'm happy , no doubts about that !! __ But , the only thing I'm still missing is a wife , but what we can't find today , maybe we'll meet eachother tomorrow , you'll never know , that's a surprise , life is full of surprises , otherwise life wouldn't be exciting !! __________________________________________________________________

PS: tips to play the drums , just buy a cheap secondhands drumkit , let's say 125$ , and just try it , I did it the same way , only I started on moms'buckets , later on , I bought a new drumset !!

My favorite bands at the moment , new & old(er) bands:

Carcass , McGnarleys Rant (folk from can.) , Dido , Accept , Fear Of god (CH) , The Bangles , ACDC , Iron Maiden , DORO , Napalm Death , Shakira , Christina Aguilera , Extreme Noise Terror , Deathcore , Motörhead , Laura Pausini , Eros Ramazotti , Ripcord , Blood , Sugar Babes , Van Halen , At The Gates , Army Of Lovers , Excess Of Cruelty , Manowar , Milk Inc , Kate Ryan , Annihilator , Vannessa Mea , Rompeprop , ELO , Led Zeppelin , Deep Purple , Chic , The Doors , Glen Miller , Andrew Sisters , ....

But to be honest , I don't have a real favorite band , for me the music is more important , so that means , bands I normally don't like , maybe some of their songs are great and I like them !! __ Bands I really like , sometimes , some of their songs are awful !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 04, 2003.

Jmj

Laurent, you wrote: "but tell me , ...a kid between 0 & 15 years old , does it really believe in religion ??"

Simple answer: ABSOLUTELY, YES! You believed, perhaps in beautiful childlike way, but you believed. But now you are in denial because you blame God for the injuries of your life. Maybe you will "forgive" him some day (even though he really is guilty of nothing).

By the way, probably because English is not your first language, you completely missed the "punch line" in my jokes -- which are designed to make fun of drummers! Would you like me to explain them?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

Jmj
Welcome back, Andrew. Your reading accomplishment is impressive. I fear, though, that maybe nobody told you that the best place to get a "reasonably good understanding of what Catholics believe" is not our old threads, but our new (1997) Catechism of the Catholic Church. [That can be your next project!]

Before I forget, I should say that I have never heard the melody you linked in for us, but it is quite pleasant.

I'm not sure if you were seeking our comments on your numbered statements. I'll just say a couple of things ...

The word "church/Church" has several meanings within Catholicism. At the highest level, there is the universal (i.e., Catholic) Church.
At the lowest level, there are Catholic parish churches.
Then, the parish churches of a given city or region are under the jurisdiction of the head of a "local, or particular, church" (also called a diocese/archdiocese/eparchy/exarchy). [This is what St. John was talking about when he mentioned "churches" early in the Book of Revelation.] The head of a local church is usually a bishop.
Finally, the universal Church is subdivided into more than twenty groups of local churches -- mainly according to the practice of diverse and ancient liturgical rites. Thus, within the Catholic Church, we have the Latin Church (the one that is best known and most heavily populated), the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Church, more than ten Byzantine/Greek Churches, etc..

However, you are mistaken to say that the "expression 'break-up of the Church' indicates the separation of Protestant Churches from the Catholic Church ..."

The "ecclesial [churchlike] communities" within protestantism are not "churches," according to any of the Catholic meanings of that word. Mainly this is true because protestantism lacks "apostolicity." That is, it has no validly ordained bishops (successors of the Apostles), and only a bishop can head a "local church."

On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox (and a few other small, ancient Asian and African communities) do indeed have "churches" -- both in the sense of "particular churches" and groups of the same -- because they have retained apostolicity. They have true bishops, successors of the Apostles.

Therefore, the definitive separation of East from West (around 1050) was a "break-up of the Church," but the rebellions of the 1600s and beyond were not a "break-up of the Church."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

About religion , no John , I really don't deny , in emptiness I can't believe !! __ But ok , a kid may believe in a childlike way (it's a kid) , but they believe in what , that's another question !! __ It's impossible to read the mind of someone else , a kid is learning (some faster than others) , also most of the aldults are still learning !!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mom, I want to grow up and be a 'metal' star."

First you have to grow up & and than make choices , is that you what you mean ??

Please John , explain , 'cause indeed , speaking English is 1 , but Speaking English is 2 !!

Sometimes (??) , I know , my grammar is awful !! __ I just learned my English via TV (BBC 1 & 2) , ceefax , listen to UK radio's and AFN radio and meeting peoples from different countries at concerts , and family (UK & USA & AUS) , and today I'm also trying it via the internet !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 05, 2003.

Laurent, here is the first joke:

Q: What do you call someone who hangs out with musicians?
A: A drummer.

This is poking fun at all drummers. It is saying that a drummer just hangs around with musicians -- but is not a musician himself.

And here is the second joke:

Laurent: "Mom, I want to grow up and be a 'metal' star."
Mom: "Now, son, you have to pick one or the other. You can't do both."

This is poking fun at all "metal stars," calling them very immature.
The mother is saying that you have to choose either (1) to "grow up" and be adult or (2) to "be a 'metal star" [in which case you won't grow up and be an adult]. "You can't do both."

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.

John , I've got absolutly no problems with jokes , but ....

the firstone , I really still don't get it ??

---------------------------------------------------------------

the secondone , yep , is true !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 05, 2003.

John:
Lose the rocket science, Hmm?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2003.

Dear John,

Thanks. I will read the Catechism from the link that you have provided. BTW, I do have a project at hand: to study the writings of the Church fathers, downloaded from www.ccel.org/fathers2/... and its going to take a long time.

Surprise! According to the information I have, the melody is a rendition of "Ave Maria." If it isn't so, please let me know and I will change it. Any other tune will be less meaningful on this thread...

I have several questions to ask, and will present them here soon. With reference to your September 04 post addressed to me, where you have mentioned several meanings of the word 'Church,' how can I use the term local Church while mentioning "parish Churches within the Catholic Church" without causing much confusion? Is the term "diocese" more appropriate? In my previous posts, when I referred to "Churches", it was primarily in the context of The Book of Revelation where St. John has mentioned individual "Churches."

Warm regards,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 06, 2003.

Hello, Andrew.
You wrote: "how can I use the term 'local Church' while mentioning "parish Churches within the Catholic Church" without causing much confusion? Is the term 'diocese' more appropriate?"

The term "diocese" will always be understood when you use it. A diocese (or "local church" or "particular church") -- the same entity to which St. John was referring in Revelation -- is almost always the presence of the universal Church in a given geographical area. [An exception is the Archdiocese of the Military Services, which can be very widespread indeed geographically.]

A diocese/archdiocese (which typically has several to many parish churches) is overseen by a bishop/archbishop. An archbishop is just a bishop heading a large and prominent diocese (called an archdiocese). Some archbishops also have the title "cardinal."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 07, 2003.

Dear Laurent,

With reference to your October 04 post:

Thanks for the answer and the tip. I do agree that music is more important; sometimes even obscure groups may present a new song that we may take a liking to, according to our individual tastes.

Best of luck in your quest to find a wife. Had you been in India, this is one area, which you would not have found lacking! Here (generally) women are loving, caring, unwavering, very much devoted to husband and family, and probably the main reason for marriages lasting a lifetime. Unfortunately, many women receive only ingratitude in return for their affections towards their families, a trend that is now changing for the better.

True, life is full of surprises. You never know the 'wife' you are searching for may be the one to bring you back to God?

Take care

Till then,

Andrew

---

Dear John,

Thanks once again.

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 07, 2003.

True, life is full of surprises. You never know the 'wife' you are searching for may be the one to bring you back to God?

Maybe she will follow me !!

But to be honest , no matter what reason , I will not return !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 07, 2003.

Dear Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net),

In your September 14 message, you have written (emphasis mine):

Your statement ...

"However, at present I strongly believe the authenticity of the Bible and it being the true (inspired) word of God."

... is absolutely in line with Catholic teaching, word for word. However, Catholic teaching goes a step beyond that, requiring that the written Word of God, which was set down in writing through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and which was later compiled into the Bible as we know it through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can yield truth only if it is also interpreted through the Church, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It goes without saying that the Holy Spirit, God, does not contradict Himself in interpreting the Word of God, the writing of which He initially inspired. Therefore it would seem apparent that the many conflicting interpretations which come out of denominational Christianity cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot be accepted as truth with any degree of confidence. I see no way around this dilemma. Do you?

-----

Excellent question! On several other threads, regular Catholics have often quoted a similar query. I agree that many verses in the Bible can be interpreted differently by each of us. I also accept that it is because of the early church that we have the Bible available with Christians.

After having read more than a hundred threads, using some of the assertions by Catholics on various threads, I had constructed a "20-page answer" to your query. A few days back, I deleted most of the 20 pages, which were painstakingly written over a 3 week period, while referring to numerous messages on the Catholic forum. Why ?

Because, while reading some of the messages, one can infer that "such (traditional) beliefs help bind Catholics to the authority and authenticity of the Church as well as help them identify with it." If there could be any doubt about any one tenet, then it would leave little scope for faith in other Church teachings that are explicitly not mentioned in the Bible.
One message (on another thread) in particular, contained the following statement (November 16, 2002) by a staunch Catholic regular on this forum:
"...it is not that Catholic teaching says 'that Mary HAD to be sinless,' but rather that it was FITTING that she be sinless ..."
Having read that, I was reconciled (to an extent) with the teaching concerning Mary's perpetual virginity.

In addition, I encountered a lot of disagreement among Catholics over issues such as the old versus current rite of the mass, Vatican II, use of Latin during the mass, scandal among clergy, SSPX, traditionalism against modernism, etc. To be honest, I had no knowledge about many of these problems (and differences among Catholics) before visiting this forum, apart from a little information through the media. The worst part is that most "news items" are generally used to depict Christians in a bad light here.

However, my purpose is not to contend, but to help consolidate and to spread God's Word – contrary to what you might observe, there are still millions who have absolutely no idea about Jesus or our faith.

Andrew

---

To all,

My questions remain unanswered though (after deleting the original message), but before asking them, I wish to summarise some of my beliefs:

What I believe in:

Salvation is only through God: Our Heavenly Father, because of His love, sent His son Jesus to die on the cross and take away the sin of the world.

Anyone who has true faith in Jesus can be saved. Once a person believes in God, repents of all sins, asks for forgiveness, turns with all his heart towards God, acknowledges that Jesus is Christ (who died to save him and rose from the dead), trusts in the Lord for everything... then God because of His mercy may forgive the penitent sinner.
And God does send His Spirit – the Holy Ghost upon every true believer.

The Holy Ghost may endow the sincere Christian with several gifts. However, the Holy Ghost, within a person always leads him towards God, away from sin. If a true Christian ever does commit any "sin", he grieves the Holy Spirit of God indwelling within him resulting in his feeling of wretchedness and remorse. Jesus has promised that whenever a true Christian is to be tempted, our Lord himself will strengthen him, so that he may overcome and not sin. Hence, a true Christian may make (a few) mistakes, but will never go on sinning! A true Christian can never enjoy sin; rather, he only delights in obeying God.

The manifestation of faith of a Christian is the fruit that he produces. His works are in a way the measurement of his faith. And without faith a person cannot be saved. When a person, filled with the Holy Ghost, produces the fruit (works) of his faith, the Lord 'prunes' him so that he may produce more fruit. Thus a true Christian always grows in the Lord, with the Spirit of God within him to guide him till his last breath...

Many Christians are baptised as infants, and so cannot directly 'confess' their faith in God during baptism. Nevertheless, there comes a time in every Christian's life (natural life-span), either during Confirmation or otherwise, when he has to make the choice of following God or not. And the cost of following God can even mean losing one's life, which is possible only if one has deep conviction and faith in God. Such are the true Christians, who turn neither to the right nor to the left, but continue on the "narrow path – the way of our Lord."
The rest are all chaff, wolves in sheep clothing, that give a bad name to Christianity.
Every Christian has to strive for his salvation; each individual has to give an account of his own sins.

---

Several important articles of our faith and the Church are not mentioned in the above paragraph. Previously, in one of my messages listed above, the usage of the term "Church" was mistaken. That is why the focus in on an individual.

As recommended by some of the regular contributors, I am going to post a few questions at a time, and those with a related theme. For the remaining queries, will try to start a new thread:

Q1: Why didn't the early Church include all doctrine in the Bible itself?

The Bible is the primary religious book of Christians. Catholics say that "not all teachings are present in the Bible; one has to depend upon tradition and doctrine, which was known since the time of the apostles, and handed down through the generations by word of mouth (and later written)."

The apostle John stated that Jesus did and said much more than what he (John) wrote about. John was Jesus' most beloved disciple and remained with Jesus throughout his ministry. If John knew something else that was necessary for salvation or as true doctrine, why didn't he write it? The same goes for other writers of the Gospels.
Similarly, Paul presented an excellent treatise of Christian theology through his various epistles. He even expected some of his epistles to be read in (diocese) Churches. Much of his work was intended for gentile believers and their posterity, who were less acquainted with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why didn't he write everything that was required?

Moreover, the (first) Church council in Jerusalem (Acts, Chapter 15) emphasised that Gentiles, like Jews, are saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (as God gave them the Holy Ghost too: verses 6- 11). In that council the elders listed several "essential" requirements to be observed by Christians (Acts 15: 19-29) so as to prevent unnecessary burden being placed on a believer. Why didn't the first Church council specify everything (since the original doctrine since the time of the apostles has not changed)?

During the early Church fathers period, there was no Bible in existence; only the Hebrew Old Testament and individual books of the New Testament were available with the Church. The Books of Old Testament and some of the writings of the apostles or early believers were selected for inclusion by a council of the Church, into what we now know as the Bible, hundreds of years after Christ (and the last apostolic writing).

The question is, since some of people who proposed doctrine and wrote it were also involved in the selection of the final books of canon, could they not append their writings to it too?

Q2: Does the oral word have more authority than the Bible?

The writers of the books of the New Testament lived during a period of persecution of Christians - initially by the Jews and subsequently by the Roman Empire. Their writings primarily concentrated on witness (Gospels) and instruction (Epistles). Aware of their hostile surroundings, could the apostles and early preachers only have depended upon the "oral word" to convey all the important doctrines? They may have preached orally, yet to preserve knowledge about Jesus and salvation through Him, was it not more appropriate for them to "provide a written account of what they preached?" [Most of their writings were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament?]

The Holy Ghost inspired the authors of the Bible. If anyone sincerely seeks the Lord, will not that person understand (to an extent) what is written in the Bible? Why did God allow the Bible to be written in the first place if hardly anyone can understand it and the result is only division (different interpretation)? Incidentally, some Catholic posters on this forum have incorrectly quoted Catholic Church doctrine in their messages. They are corrected by other Catholics (ref. thread "Mary and Jesus" about purgatory). Just as the (written) Bible can be misinterpreted, misquoted and manipulated to prove a particular viewpoint, can't the same happen to the oral word?
If the written explanations on this forum are subject to errors, even though most Catholics are 'expected' to know the correct doctrine of the Church, is it not possible that the (oral) traditions and doctrine could likewise get modified over the centuries?

Q3: What does the Catholic Church teach about Jesus' baptism?

One of my statements in a previous post, which nobody answered? What does the Catholic Church teach about this:

According to the Bible, after Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost) descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove and God gave testimony about His beloved son (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34).

Q4: Why did Mary have to undergo purification?

In my previous post, this question remains unanswered. What does the Catholic Church say about Mary having to be purified (Luke 2:22-24) according to the Law of Moses?
[Note: Someone has mentioned that "Mary was the first Christian?"]

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 09, 2003.

It's always hard to respond to screeds of argument; but we try. One point at a time.

''If there could be any __doubt__ --about any one tenet, then it would leave little scope for faith in other Church teachings that are explicitly not mentioned in the Bible.'' Reply- (Actually, doubt is not the problem; doubt might be natural. We overcome doubt by faith. If you could rebut with certainty any tenet? Possibly you thought that would overturn other ones? Do you expect to refute something?) ''One message, ---snip--- contained the following statement; It is not that Catholic teaching says 'that Mary HAD to be sinless,' but rather that it was fitting that she be sinless.'' Having read that, I was reconciled (to an extent) with the teaching concerning Mary's perpetual virginity.''

Well, Andrew; it would matter only for your faith if you weren't reconciled, since the Church always teaches the truth. We must simply trust in the Holy Spirit.

You could not have cast any doubt on the truth (in the case of Mary's virginity) without denying the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church. Jesus said very apropos this matter: ''But when He the Spirit of truth has come, He will teach you all the truth.'' (John, 16 :13) --Other tenets, even if you think they would be suspect once you disproved a particular one, are known to the Church by that same guidance, the Spirit of truth.

You see, Andrew; the Catholic faith is ''bullet- proof''; once we face squarely the original intent of her Founder. Which was to give her eternal truths; to help her in this world until the day he returns in glory. This was His assurance to the apostles; who are the germ from which that Church grew and still lives.

Above you've said, ''. . . teachings that are explicitly not mentioned in the Bible'' (To you) come down to us with an ''unofficial'' drawback, maybe a lack of credibility. You think this is a weakness, and oppose them to an irrefutable authority, the Bible.

However, the Holy Bible itself is spurious enough for absolute truth unless Christ's Holy Church vouches for it. This is how some of those diverse holy writings of antiquity came to be this Bible; by the guidance of the Holy Spirit; inspiring men through the same Church. The Bible is clearly God's personal property entrusted to the Church! Both the Bible and the Church are part of God's spiritual wealth given to this world. They cannot be seen as opposing forces. God's Holy Will is not a house divided, it's Perfection. The Church and the Bible both come from God's hand; and the Bible came first to the Catholic Church. We know this is true; the Holy Spirit abiding in His Church makes it true!

I'll pause here; maybe allow another Catholic to answer you, and return later to play serve and volley once more. Hope you see it as helpful. God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 09, 2003.

Q4: Why did Mary have to undergo purification? What does the Catholic Church say about Mary having to be purified (Luke 2:22-24) according to the Law of Moses?

Common sense answer: Mary was NOT in need of purification --from any fault or uncleanness. For anyone to suggest this, first he must totally deny Jesus is divine. Being Divine, Jesus, even in the flesh, could not make a virgin like His holy mother ''impure''.

It was totally ritualistic, a sign of their solidarity with Israel. Jesus, as God had no need for circumcision. He was circumcised like any other Jew because the ritual was imposed on all Jews, not to save Him. Mary went through a ritual purification in much the same way; to observe that rule of the Law. After all, the new Covenant was yet to be, when Christ's own blood would seal it. Yet, it existed already in His Person, mystically. Mary's holiness had no necessity of deriving from any ritual, but she observed it anyway, for the sake of Israel.

She was a daughter of Israel; indeed still is. But God made her Full of Grace because she would contribute willingly and faithfully in God's Incarnation. God demanded no ritual except Mary's true love for Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 09, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

Your answer:
"It was totally ritualistic, a sign of their solidarity with Israel. Jesus, as God had no need for circumcision. He was circumcised like any other Jew because the ritual was imposed on all Jews, not to save Him. Mary went through a ritual purification in much the same way; to observe that rule of the Law. After all, the new Covenant was yet to be, when Christ's own blood would seal it. Yet, it existed already in His Person, mystically. Mary's holiness had no necessity of deriving from any ritual, but she observed it anyway, for the sake of Israel. "

My query:
So Jesus and Mary, both of whom had no need of observance of the rituals of the Law, since the former was God incarnate and the latter preserved from sin, did obey the requirements of God's Law, and left an example for us. Then as Christians don't we need to do much more? For, Christians claim to truly love God and worship Him in the Spirit (unlike many who only pay lip service).

In my previous message, dated Oct 09, the text after Question No. 1 (concerning the Bible and doctrine) refers to the first Church council (mentioned in Acts), wherein a decision was taken concerning the "requirements and observances" for Christians. Is the message of that "first" council, having for decision-makers the apostles, elders and St. Paul, less relevant today?

Still learning,

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 10, 2003.

Catholics believe Our Saviour fulfilled once for all the Law of Moses per se; which imposed many ritual obligations. God's ten commandments, though, are in force forever; Christ made it a point to His followers.

Subsequent laws lifted or laid by councils of the Church were also authorised by Christ with the Holy Spirit. He told Peter and the others so in Matt 16 :18, 19. These points are seen easily in scripture. You allude to our Church's tenets not clarified in the Bible.

I had cause to defend one, the Purification of Our Blessed Mother; in case you expected that to become a stumbling-block. Now you see, it can't be. The same as Christ's circumcision doesn't mean what it meant to sinners. --Mary's purification likewise, is no sign of impurity in her body or her immaculate soul.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 10, 2003.

Your statement (emphasis mine):

"Subsequent laws lifted or laid by councils of the Church were also authorised by Christ with the Holy Spirit. He told Peter and the others so in Matt 16 :18, 19. "

Matthew 16:18-19 reads (Douay Rheims Bible):
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


I don't understand, there is no mention of changing The Law of God. Secondly, why didn't Peter change anything during the first Church council? If the Church Dogma and Tradition (T) is the same since the time of the apostles, instead of officially declaring Tenets during various councils over the centuries, the first council could have done it then itself (for the major ones at least)?

Q 5. Was not Jesus speaking the truth when He said the following, unless doctrine teaches otherwise (emphasis mine)?
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.
He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
- Matthew 5:17-19 (Douay Rheims Bible)

"Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass." - Matthew 24:35 (Douay Rheims Bible)


Q 6. If the Church councils can change "laws" then how do we know what is actually correct? Have not some Popes repealed "laws" set by their predecessors? How could you or I know the difference? At least the Bible (Douay Rheims, etc.) has not been modified.


Note: Some books of the Bible notably Revelation, Daniel, Gospels, etc. tell us that when the "falling away" occurs, "false christs" will come saying "I am he" and will decieve many. What about the "wolves in sheep clothing" (members who are not actually members)?

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andew222@sancharnet.in), October 11, 2003.

Off!

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 11, 2003.

Your premise is unclear. Are you saying the Church wasn't given the power to teach a new gospel, or upset the older norms? Everything the Church has done was in obedience to the holy Spirit. There are no reversals of the Law; Christ was our Saviour. The Law is fulfilled in Him.

A council convened in the Holy Spirit has every power Christ conceded to Peter in Matt: 16 :18, 19.

By your reasoning, we all had the obligation to accept circumcision, ritual sacrifice, abstinence from ''unclean'' food, etc.,

What then do you suppose, Andrew?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 11, 2003.

"I don't understand, there is no mention of changing The Law of God."

A: There is no mention of changing the Law of God because the Church cannot change the Law of God. The Law of God is eternal and universal, and the Church has no authority over it. The Church does have the solemn responsibility before God to preserve and preach the Law of God as it was given to the Church, until the end of time.

"If the Church Dogma and Tradition (T) is the same since the time of the apostles, instead of officially declaring Tenets during various councils over the centuries, the first council could have done it then itself (for the major ones at least)?"

A: There is no need to formally define a doctrine of the faith as long as it is universally accepted by the faithful. The formal definition of a doctrine by a Council occurs as a response to a specific situation, usually a prominent heresy which directly attacks the doctrine in question. In such a case the Church calls a Council to formally and authoritatively define exactly what the given doctrine means and doesn't mean, in order to clarify that which the heresy seeks to confuse or destroy. Most of the principle doctrines of the faith have never been formally defined in this manner even today, because there has never been a specific reason to do so. "If the Church councils can change "laws" then how do we know what is actually correct? Have not some Popes repealed "laws" set by their predecessors? How could you or I know the difference? At least the Bible (Douay Rheims, etc.) has not been modified".

A: The Church can change laws which were made by the Church, in response to changing needs within the Church. It cannot change laws made by God. When such a law or regulation or discipline is changed, there is no question of which law is "correct". The older regulation was correct when it was in place, and the new law is now correct for the current members of the Church. We are not talking about changing beliefs or doctrines. Doctrines cannot change, ever. If someone changed a doctrine, obviously the previous form of the doctrine and the new form could not both be true. But the Church does not and cannot change its doctrines, since they are of divine origin. Rules and regulations on the other hand must change to enable the Church to continue to fulfill its mission in a changing world.

"Some books of the Bible notably Revelation, Daniel, Gospels, etc. tell us that when the "falling away" occurs, "false christs" will come saying "I am he" and will decieve many. What about the "wolves in sheep clothing" (members who are not actually members)?"

A: Has this not already occurred? Each Protestant denomination was started by a human founder who said "Do not listen to the Church of the Apostles. Rather, listen to me." And millions have thus been deceived, drawn into a manmade tradition filled with untruth, as demonstrated by the widespread contradiction and doctrinal chaos which has developed there. Jesus said "may they all be ONE". False teachers say "leave unity behind, and come follow me".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

I am using the following format to reply to the messages above:

[Eugene] Your premise is unclear...
[Andrew] Which one?
I have listed "what I believe in" in my message dated October 09. May I assume that you have not found anything contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, as you did not reject any of those statements?

[Eugene] A council convened in the Holy Spirit has every power Christ conceded to Peter in Matt: 16: 18, 19.
[Andrew] From your statement it appears that the Church can change any law. I have quoted the Bible passage you refer to, above. Concerning our present discussion, I do not accept that the Church or anyone has the authority to change the Law of God! However, the Church does have authority to issue decrees, rules and regulations related to the changing times. (For example, condemning the use of human embryo for scientific tests)
The Church and council are expected to follow and uphold the Law, not change it! That is why none of the apostles or elders, etc. ever changed the Gospel, Law of God, etc. If they did change anything that was necessary, it would have been mentioned in the Bible as the rest of things are – for we both believe that the Holy Ghost was the inspirer of the writers of the books of the Bible. And the Holy Ghost would never have left out anything that was worth mentioning.
Moreover, do you agree that the passage Matthew 16:18,19 is depicted as being fulfilled (at least partially) in the book of Acts, particularly chapter 2?

[Eugene] By your reasoning, we all had the obligation to accept circumcision, ritual sacrifice, abstinence from ''unclean'' food, etc.,
[Andrew] I have never suggested any such thing. Please read Q 1 that I have asked in my Oct. 09 post. Under it, I have referred to the first Church council (Acts, chapter 15) that listed the essential requirements to be followed by Christians.
What I am questioning is "all the doctrine and tradition taught by the Catholic Church that cannot be validated by the Bible itself." According to some Catholic posters on this forum, "one has to accept all doctrine even if it is not present in the Bible just because the Catholic Church teaches it." In addition, they implicitly assert that not doing so can result in the loss of salvation!
On contemplation, it causes me to ask, "Are all Christians under obligation to accept every teachings of the Catholic Church and not just the Bible?"

If someone sincerely wants to observe the Old Testament rites while following Jesus and obeying his commandments, then doing so will not cause the person to loose his salvation! However, we are not required to follow Old Testament rituals, because by themselves, such rituals cannot provide salvation; instead, as St. Peter emphasised during the first council, "We are saved by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." Amen.


[Paul M.] There is no mention of changing the Law of God because the Church cannot change the Law of God. The Law of God is eternal and universal, and the Church has no authority over it. The Church does have the solemn responsibility before God to preserve and preach the Law of God as it was given to the Church, until the end of time
[Andrew] True. I believe every word of it.

[Paul M.] Has this not already occurred? Each Protestant denomination was started by a human founder who said "Do not listen to the Church of the Apostles. Rather, listen to me."
[Andrew] Please note that I do not approve of separation (desertion) from the Original Church, just because some of its members (clergy?) have become corrupt, etc! I have made this clear in my posts above. However, I do support (according to 1 Corinthians, chapter 5) removal (excommunication) of both clergy and lay if they are found to be living "according to the flesh" so that the true (Christians) members of the Church are not deceived into following their example. Unfortunately, by the New Testament's standards, that would leave very few members within the Church today?
Before the schism, the Catholic and Orthodox churches were one. Similarly, the earliest Protestants were originally Catholics. What about those who are opposed to some "teaching or tenet" of the Church and never leave it? For example, there are plenty of dissenters even among Catholics (please refer to the fourth paragraph of my reply to you in Oct. 09 post). Take for example traditionalists versus modernists. Both sides provide very convincing arguments and (generally) back it up with references to the Bible, catechism, ecumenical councils or encyclicals, etc.
How do you account for them?

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 13, 2003.

On every philosophical issue there exists a broad range of views, typically including two minority extremist positions. These may be characterized as right and left; liberal and conservative; traditionalist and modernist; or any number of other ways. Both modernists and tradionalists do quote scripture and church fathers and ecumenical councils and encyclicals. But hold on, you are getting ahead of yourself. Protestants quote the scriptures too, and doing so leads them ever farther from truth. Why? Because the first step in their approach to Christian belief is to reject the God-given authority of the Church, as expressed through the Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ. Once you do that, nothing you say or quote has any authority behind it. Protestants claim that the Bible is their only authority, but we know that a book, in and of itself holds no authority unless interpreted by an authoritative body. The Constitution of the United States has no authority apart from the government and particularly the Supreme Court's interpretation. Without that, it is just words on paper. Without the authoritative interpretation of the Church, the scriptures are just words on paper. People may derive some nice thoughts from reading them, but there is no reason to believe that any of those thoughts are true or correct, since they have no authoritative source, each individual reader being his/her own self-appointed authority.

Traditionalist extremists and modernist extremists both adopt the Protestant approach. They include additional sources besides the Bible - writings of the fathers, papal bulls, encyclicals, etc., but up front they have rejected the authority of the Church as expressed through the Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ. Having done that, nothing they say or quote has any authority behind it. The various documents they quote hold no authority unless interpreted by an authoritative body. Having appointed themselves as supreme authority, all they have to offer is their personal guesses as to what such writings might mean - and what do you know! According to each group's personal guesswork, such writings line up beautifully with their own respective viewpoints, even though the viewpoints of the two extremist groups are diametrically opposed! None of this nonsense constitutes "convincing arguments", because real Catholics - those who listen to the Pope and the Magisterium - recognize it as utterly unauthoritative; and person opinon is just not that convincing, especially when it contradicts what we know to be true by divine decree. This is the Protestant way. Both traditionalists and modernists are inches away from denominationalism, the inevitable result of separation from true authority. Without authority there cannot be unity, and without unity there cannot be truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2003.

Andrew:
One of the reasons I asked what your premise is is the profusion of relevant AND irrelevant pitches you keep throwing. They're hard to juggle. In your thesis there are, of course, many good statements which any Catholic would endorse. There among them, though, are some howlers. You seem to think the whole is positive, but it isn't.

''Jesus has promised that whenever a true Christian is to be tempted, our Lord himself will strengthen him, so that he may overcome and not sin. Hence, a true Christian may make (a few) mistakes, but will never go on sinning! A true Christian can never enjoy sin; rather, he only delights in obeying God.'' Here is irrelevancy crossed on false exegesis. You say a true Christian; and I know you mean just that. But for a man to misconstrue (even innocently) the messages of Christ's Gospel is to change the premise. You cannot be true to Christ and ignore or alter His message and the teachings of His apostles. This is NOT being a true Christian, it's merely hoping in Jesus Christ. Which makes great sense. Nevertheless, His message still has to get across before you can be a true Christian.

I don't mean to split hairs, but-- when a Christian adamantly denies many VALID interpretations of that same scripture, he places himself outside the Church. His word against the apostles? Furthermore, a Catholic is taught from childhood, when you sin, you lose that grace which is your eternal salvation. Grace is restored by repentence and absolution in the Church; and whether you're a true Christian or a pretend Christian, you can't forgive YOURSELF. The forgiveness for a grave sin is retained until we confess before Christ's ordained minister. That is, the Church. (John 20, :22-:23) Which makes much of what you write above, sadly, irrelevant.

I select just one-two of the various choices you give me to answer, since I don't like to give a superficial answer to important questions. So doing, I pass over a few others that seem at least irrelevant for now. First we should come to a correct definition of biblical truth. You oppose the Church's teachings with only your private bible interpretations. There is no authority for them; even if you thought you had the Holy Spirit to keep you from error. Because, I regret to tell you, you haven't, Andrew. The Holy Spirit abides in the Catholic Church. -- + Pray to the Holy Spirit, Andrew, for His mercy and guidance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.

Ever since my childhood, I have been in search of God; and most of what I believe is based on what is written in the Bible. However, being born in a Christian family is not the only reason that I am a Christian; indeed it more on account of the indescribable and powerful presence of God that I have felt throughout my life.

It never occurred to me that what the Bible teaches can in any way be erroneous. Although I have a lot of Catholic friends (some of them grew up with me), not one of them ever told me that the Catholic Church places greater emphasis on the oral word and tradition for its doctrine. In fact, after discovering such a lot about the Catholic Church through this forum, and augmenting my knowledge through the writings of Church fathers, Vatican archives, etc., I might be "better educated" about Catholic doctrine than my associates!

I have tried to faithfully apply the message of the Bible to my life; and have found that sincere compliance to its blessed teachings (sometimes difficult) has always drawn me nearer to God. This has been my experience for the entire duration of my life, and in spite of the criticism and ridicule from various quarters on account of it, the Bible will continue to remain a guiding light to me!

Having said that let me proceed with the above messages...

---

I have quoted only a few words to identify the statement(s) that I am addressing:

[Paul M.] On every philosophical... two minority extremist positions... Protestants quote scriptures too...

[Andrew] Yes, I am beginning to realise the consequences – differences that lead to division!


[Paul M.] Because the first... reject God given authority... Church expressed... Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ.

[Andrew] That is exactly the concern: you are stressing that only the interpretation given by the "teaching authority of the Church" and the Pope is genuine. But if this is true why are there several instances of the misuse of this function? To prevent misunderstanding, please consider this: other Catholics affirm that the reason why the Pope and Magisterium have to be always correct is because of the authority of the Holy Ghost, even though the Pope and others are not perfect themselves and may make mistakes in other spheres of life. So if the Holy Ghost always upholds them in this function, there should never have done anything in this capacity that required to be changed or revoked (e.g. teachings behind sale of indulgences). For how can the Holy Ghost (God) be inconsistent in what He sanctions?


[Paul M.] Traditional extremists and modernists... those who listen to the Pope and the Magisterium... Without authority there cannot be unity, and without unity there cannot be truth.

[Andrew] How can members within the Catholic Church be drawn into so many differences, as they are expected to have the authority and guidance of the Pope and the Magisterium? Secondly, if every Catholic is taught the same "official teaching" of the Church, how can they have any disagreement in the first place?

However, I agree with most of what you have written.


[Eugene] One of the... seem to think the whole is positive, but it isn't.

[Andrew] Yes, I do "think" that the "partial thesis" is positive. No Christian, Catholic or otherwise ever told me that it isn't, before I chanced upon this forum. And it is to refine "my faith" that I am spending hours studying what your companions have suggested (concerning Catholicism) as well as debating with you.


[Eugene] Here is irrelevancy... before you can be a true Christian.

[Andrew] The "little" knowledge that I have about Christ's Gospel is essentially founded on the Bible and related studies. I never knew anyone knowledgeable enough to ask questions from, and as I didn't know that Catholics follow a different interpretation, never specifically asked any of the Catholic Priests that I met.

However, if what I have learnt is a "partial interpretation" of the Scriptures without the guidance of the Catholic Church's teachings, and if it does tally to an extent with other interpretations, then perhaps you need to contemplate whether or not the Bible by itself can be used as a means to come closer to God?

Please note that I do not endorse forming "one man churches" on the basis of the Bible. Instead, I only desire that the Bible is recognised and granted its due place as authoritative.


[Eugene] I don't mean to... sadly, irrelevant.

[Andrew] With reference to your previous paragraph, if your statements mean:

(a) That "outside the Catholic Church, if a person attempts to follow God, loves and obeys Him, etc. even then such a person may not be saved just because of lack of association with the Catholic Church."
This is understandable in view of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

(b) On the other hand, if you imply that a person who does follow God (etc.), yet is outside the Catholic Church (and thus may not accept Catholic Church interpretations on some issues) can never really love God as such a person "ignores" some of the teachings of Jesus (Catholic doctrine). Then by the same scales (measurement), Catholics are also guilty of "not truly loving God" whenever they have ignored any of the teachings of Jesus.
Thus you cannot have one and ignore the other if the rules remain same. Either both are at fault or none is!

Next, you speak about sin, loss of grace, forfeit of salvation, confession before a minister, repentance and absolution through the Church, grace recovered, and thus redemption. The only person missing in those lines of yours is God. That should be the focus, without ignoring the rest.

Yes, I agree I cannot forgive myself. Nevertheless, I do ask God for forgiveness every day (since childhood). Whether He forgives me or not is His prerogative. For all the disadvantages that I have being unable to confess to a minister of the Catholic Church, there is one sure benefit: never will our Lord use the contrition to coerce me. Could you be so sure about an ordained minister?

Remember how Jesus forgave the sins of people; "pick up your mat and walk," said He to one. And the apostles were able to do many miracles too. Now, I am yet to see Catholic ministers say as easily as Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven, pick up your mat and walk." They may declare the former and even cause the person to undergo some form of penance. However, the power is clearly missing!

Why do they lack the ability to perform miracles as effortlessly as Jesus did? After all, if they can forgive a repentant sinner, which is originally the "exclusive right" of God, then why can't they also do miracles? [One of the reasons that the Israelites opposed Jesus was because He claimed to be able to forgive sins and thus equal God; and not on account of the miracles...]

So which one is greater: the capacity to forgive sins or the ability to do miracles?

Concerning the ability to perform miracles, Jesus said (emphasis mine):

Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake.
Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do. Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. If you love me, keep my commandments.
– John 14:11-15 (Douay Rheims Bible)


[Eugene] I select just .. His mercy and guidance.

[Andrew] Yes, the Holy Spirit abides in the Church. But how do you know that every Catholic does have the Holy Spirit indwelling within him and is truly a member of the Church? And how could you tell the difference if anyone does have the Holy Spirit or not? Do we hear the sound of a "mighty wind" or observe "parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one" (Acts 2:2-3) when a person is baptised or confirmed?


At length, it may seem easy for you to get others to accept your viewpoint with the statements "because the Church teaches so" or "I know the truth being a Catholic" etc. Nevertheless, it is very difficult for someone to change, particularly on matters of faith, and even more if one's disposition towards God is steadfast.
In addition, if an individual can be easily made to believe almost anything, then such a person may not be worth much as a Christian!

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 15, 2003.

Dear Andrew:
I'm glad to see your level-headed and on the whole healthy skepticism toward some of the things I told you. Because so doing, you pin-point some information I didn't know you lacked. Now is our opportunity to carry through.

''Not one of them ever told me that the Catholic Church places greater emphasis on oral word and tradition for its doctrine.''Reply, All doctrine has to be directly revealed by Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Church passes on to us ONLY Christ's doctrine. In the early centuries, no canon existed to show the Church what was or wasn't inspired. (The books.) This was clearly no problem to the apostles. They spread the Gospel orally. It was retained as truth because they were Christ's saints, everyone TRADITIONALLY acknowledged it.

They performed great signs, & accepted martyrdom, the ultimate witness to God's truth. The existence of a Sacred Tradition within the Church never caused problems either; everyone knew the Holy Spirit was in that same Church. Not at large or with each soul particularly, but in the ecclesia, His Church as a faith. The Holy Spirit thereby authenticated what Tradition gave them, the Holy Gospel. Among those traditional blessings, the sacramental life of the Church, which drew every soul into a Communion of Saints; around one universal worship, each Lord's Day. This is the Holy Mass in communion, or fellowship. Saint Paul explains it in early form in 1 Cor 11:23-:29. We call it the Sacrament of the Eucharist, given us by Christ. (Matt, 26, :26.) Another is Penance; or confession to our ordained minister. It's entirely documented in John's gospel; so no one can claim Tradition alone supports it. (John 20, :22, :23)All men ever called to the holy priesthood of jesus Christ are the ordained successors of the apostles.

This was already familiar, or ''traditional'', Andrew, before the Bible ever reached the faithful even in its diverse manuscripts. Tradition, then, pre-dates the written Word and any canon.

But that isn't to say Catholics favor Tradition OVER the Bible; far from it. The Scriptures and Tradition (in His Church) are each truly from God; and many traditions in the early Church are holy; although not every one is binding on our consciences. --It is the CHURCH that proclaims the Gospel. Her twin pronouncements throughout history are the Scriptures and Tradition; and she is Christ's sole emissary, beginning with the first apostles until today's clergy and Pope. All other Christian sects are more recent and simply pretenders. How else will we truly know the proper interpretations of the missive; except by the teachings of its appointed missionary? God didn't appoint any church but the Church of the apostles. The Catholic Church. You ask:

''However, if what I have learnt is a partial interpretation of the Scriptures without the guidance of the Catholic Church's teachings, and if it does tally to an extent with other interpretations, then perhaps you need to contemplate whether or not the Bible by itself can be used as a means to come closer to God?''

Andrew, anybody can SEE the Bible has brought you closer to God. No one denies that. But, if you remain separated from the teachings of His Church, the real interpretations of many passages may fail to meet your expectations; since you've selected many simple verses as definitive. Those verses, which seem to make the gospel a foregone conclusion: such as ''All who believe on Him shall be saved.'' Making His Word one-dimensional; and his Church superflous or unattractive to free lancers.

You must never believe that Jesus Christ left for you ANYTHING superflous, or of little importance. His Church was definitely built on Peter and the apostles-- a VISIBLE, operating Church. It's scripturally indisputable. (Matt, 16 :18.) He didn't do it so His followers should not care. He gave it so that all His followers should have everlasting life; and He left us every mystery (sacrament) that everlasting life requires for me & you in this lifetime, in that Church !

From birth--Baptism the other sacraments-- To death: Confession and remittance of sin, and last rites. --Nothing was spared for us; and it is all obtained in grace; stemming from His passion, death and glorious resurrection. The Catholic Church gives us access to His grace. The Bible leads you to His Church, His grace, and his truth. Catholics love the holy Bible; just as we love Christ and His Church!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

I am happy to see that after the clearing up of (some) misunderstandings, we can discuss these topics in a friendly manner, just like two Christians should.

There is such a lot that I need to know, and to discover. The internet is a vast repository of knowledge, yet I never used it to check out articles of our faith, because of sometimes ambiguous and conflicting alternatives. The Bible, Commentaries, References, Hymns, etc. was all that I accessed since I could always confirm their authenticity through printed or other resources.

For the last 5 years, I have been "suppressing" a great urge to spread the Word of God. Earlier, the notion that "one needs to be nearly perfect to proclaim the Gospel," held me back. Still, on account of my name and background, since childhood, I have been 'favoured' by our Lord to be a witness to His Gospel to those who do not know him. But now, when I try to explain His message, few accept it or want to hear it. [And I feel completely out of place among Christian as well as uninformed peers. Perhaps a life of pleasure holds more sway for most than the sufferings of a cross...]

However, through this forum, a new pursuit has arisen in my life, " to determine if the form of expression of my faith is correct after all?" Moreover, God may have already provided a way for me: next week I may get an opportunity to attend a Catholic event, and several Priests are likely to be present.

Your message is very positive and encouraging, but since it concerns matters of faith, I would like to discern it in greater depth (still have a lot of questions to ask :-)
I would like to channel my available time for the upcoming event and may not post messages for some time, although will continue to read posts. BTW, is the melody a rendering of "Ave Maria?"

Thank you for the time you have taken in answering my "relevant and irrelevant pitches"

Andrew

-- Andrew W. Peoples (andrew222@sancharnet.in), October 18, 2003.

Andrew:
It isn't yet apparent to you; since all you have learned might be from sola scriptura;

But a Catholic priest will immediately tell you, he is not who spreads the Gospel out of his perceptions or inclinations. The Holy Spirit acts in him.

The Holy Spirit is with His Church from Penetecost, 33 A.D. onwards. He isn't truly within the pages of the Holy Bible.

You go where He is; and there the Bible is inerrantly interpreted.

You say, ''I have been "suppressing" a great urge to spread the Word of God.'' OK, why not? But if you love God, and I'm sure you do, it will one day be the Holy Spirit who does it in you, his anointed minister. It will be His fire, and His teachings not just the readership you now share with millions of the Bible.

In order for you to work in the glow of the Spirit first you must hear His complete truth; His undefiled, eternal truth.

It will be in the true Church. Or else, it won't be the undefiled full truth. It will be, I'm sorry, a quasi-truth and a watered down gospel which you will be spreading.

That's what I'm attempting to show you. By stressing what your own blessed ancestors knew: there is ONE Church; the Catholic Church. Where she is, is Peter. Where Peter is, is the truth of the Holy Spirit. We must pray for you fervently; and for your true vocation. I'm very willing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 18, 2003.