How can we continue to ignore the message of Cana? Christ sat content to party with his disciples, until Mary ignored His wishes and went to the wine steward and said, “Do whatever He tells you!” and the rest as they say is history. How can we ignore the role she played that day for the wedding couple and, for all of humanity? She called Jesus into action. She forced Jesus into action. Not because Jesus, who was God and man, couldn’t do it Himself, but because the Divine Author was trying to tell us something. There are some who say, “I don’t need Mary. I can go directly to God. I don’t need an intermediary. If God is God then He must be listening to me, I can go to Him and speak to Him directly.” Yes, we can do that, and we should do that. But that does not alter the fact that God did not do that Himself. God could have come with a legion of angels on a gleaming white chariot in all His majesty to proclaim the Truth, but He didn’t did he? He came through an intermediary, an intercessor, He came through a humble sinless woman, a woman named Mary. God didn’t need an intermediary for Himself; but, He knew He needed one for us! He used an intermediary. He used a woman. Who are we to tell God that He made a mistake? There are those who would quote scripture endlessly to prove other points of debate, and yet when we talk of Mary, it seems the gospels don’t exist. We don’t remember Cana, we don’t remember the visit of the Annunciation, we don’t remember Bethlehem and all the lessons learned from these passages. Let’s go to the scriptures and learn from God Himself. If God used this woman in this way, if God chose this women as a conduit for salvation, who are we to say to Him, “You were wrong, You should have done it directly! If You are God, You should have come to me and You should have said, ‘I am your God. Period! We do not need a woman as and intermediary!” But you see, God has a lot more sense than that. He knows how we are made. He knows that we are human. He knows that it is much easier for us to understand Him through human terms we are more familiar with. He knows how we think. He knows that it is easier for us to accept Him when He comes to us in a natural way, a normal way. And so, He was born of a woman, and He gives His mother to all of us. We all need a mother; Jesus knew that, so He gave us Mary. Mary shows us the way to her Son. That is Mary’s task. Who are we to say to her, “No, we don’t want you. We are going to go to God directly. We don’t need your intermediary function. We don’t need your intercession. We will go to God directly. I’m going to do it by myself"? This sounds to me like a child who refuses to learn a lesson, “I don’t need you, I can grow up myself. I don’t need you to nurse me, I don’t need you to take care of me. I don’t need you to teach me. I’m going to do it all by myself.” Does a child tie its laces for the first time all by him/herself? No! The child is taught from the beginning. God knows exactly what our human psyche needs. A child is nursed, counseled and guided by its mother. When a child is raised without a mother, the chances of that child turning into a normal, responsible, mature adult are far less than those who were. We encounter Mary, again, at the foot of the cross. She is there witnessing the death of her Son, Jesus. And what does she say? “Why is this happening to me? Why is this happening to my son? What has He done that you are putting Him on a cross?” No, she doesn’t say that. She repeats once again in her heart, “Let it be done unto me according to your word!” This too is part of the plan. Mary’s role in the passion of Jesus is quite clear. Mary is teaching us by example. The example of humility, and complete acceptance of the will of God. She knew it. She came to understand it. That her divine Son was sent into the world to redeem the world and He was going to do it according to God’s plan not our plan. She knew it and accepted it, not a word of complaint, “Let it be done unto me according to your word!.” And how did Mary deal with the friends of after the crucifixion? What should a mother say to friends of her son who have deserted Him, who have betrayed Him, who have denied Him, forgotten Him, rejected Him? She said not a word. We find Mary in the upper room of the last supper, praying in a cenacle together with those very apostles who had abandoned her Son. Despite her grief, she was doing precisely what a mother does, healing, consoling, comforting, praying, interceding on their behalf with the Father. I am sure the apostles felt too disgraced to face their God on their own. Once again we find Mary acting out the role of mother. A mother brings her children back from the point of despair with love and comfort. A mother does not divide, does not split, does not put one against the other. She could have said, “the only one I will recognize as a friend of my Son is John, because John was there with me at the foot of the Cross. Where were the rest of you when I needed you?” I tell you, God gave us this woman for a reason. In giving this woman to us as a mother He enables us to say, “Teach me, teach me how to come to Jesus, teach me how to love Him, teach me how to forgive and how to forget. Teach me how to love!” That is what the job of a mother is. It was no accident Mary was there on Pentecost, at the beginning of the Church. What a gift, our mother Mary! At the very least, those of us who cannot appreciate Mary’s role in salvation history should grant her the respect that any and all mother deserves. No mother should have to endure the criticisms Mary has for exercising her role as a mother, especially the Mother of God!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 19, 2001

Answers

Good post over all long but good. One line I didn't like however was "She forced Jesus into action." Even the Cross was a free choice of His.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), January 19, 2001.

Br. Rich:

You are indeed correct. I should have chosen a word more in keeping with what I was intending to say. Perhaps I should have used, "prodded", "encouraged", "urged". I did not mean to give the impression that God is "forced" into anything. What I meant to imply was that Mary "kick-started" his ministry and there is a lesson to be learned about the relationship Jesus has with His mother. I apologize for the length.

Your brother in Christ, Jesus!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 19, 2001.

Hi, Bro. Rich--
Your point can be overlooked, even if literally you're correct. Mary forces nothing on God, and yet, His Divine Will bowed to hers in the marriage at Cana. Recall Jesus answered her rather bluntly: ''My hour is not yet come.''

To Mary, it was time! And, in a supreme act of His own humility, Jesus repaid her audacity by moving His hour back! To me, this is amazing! When Peter tried the same, reproving Our Lord, ''Peter taking Him aside, began to chide Him, saying, Far be it from Thee, O Lord! This will never happen,'' (Matt, 16:22) Jesus roundly told him to go to hell-- So, we see the manner in which Jesus can include Mary in His temporal decisions; given that she was not ''called'' as an Apostle to serve Him. *She* was ''called'' by His own Eternal Father Himself; a most exalted calling, to be the Messiah's own mother.
Brother Rich; I'm well aware that I have no reason to instruct you. You are a well-prepared and loving person that puts Jesus first in everything. I put Him second to none as well.
But we read the account of the marriage feast of Cana, and the special favor in which Jesus holds His mother can't be denied.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 19, 2001.

Eugene,

I also hold a special place for Cana. It shows us that Jesus was respectful to his mother in a way that a son should be, and also that Mary had the relationship with her son that a mother does. What son wouldn't do as his mother asked? From this brief scene I think we get a good glimpse of the family life of Jesus, and the influence of Mary in his daily life, if not his overall destiny.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2001.

Cana is relete with great lessons for us, Frank. You are so right. The strong biblical proof of Mary's grace, and readiness to help her children. The special manner in which her Divine Son acts toward Mary as intercessor--

There are some minor but important facts established in the marriage feast episodes, which meditation will reveal, if God gives us the grace.

1.) Jesus is gathered with many others in celebration of lawful marriage! How easy this is to overlook. His blessing is bestowed on a bride and groom; not on illicit relations. Not on homosexual or multiple marriages. There are bounds as well as the bond in Holy Matrimony! His approval is clear as this episode unfolds.

2.) He partakes of wine, an alcoholic beverage. It would amaze you if you knew how many odd opinions there are about this detail. Many Bible Christians and even some Protestant preachers insist it wasn't wine. It had to be ''grape juice'', because drinking wine is sinful!!! Jesus teaches everyone that will understand Him; wine is for making the heart merry! It isn't a sin to drink-- Sobriety and wine aren't incompatible, as Our Lord demonstrates by supplying this wedding party with ''the best wine''.

To get drunk is a sin; whether at a wedding, or at home, or a bar! To drink moderately is actually fine by Jesus!

3.) A great lesson is: If Our Lord is able to change H-2-O, plain water, into the finest wine-- Who can dispute His own Blood is given us, under the appearance of sacramental wine-- at the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist? It is celebrated at His own command. Nobody else has told us to do it; and His Precious Blood is exactly what He gives us to drink; as well as His Body under the appearance of bread. He can do it all, just as He changed one substance into another at Cana! What a revelation these great passages from Scripture have proven to be!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 19, 2001.

Ed,

“No, we don’t want you. We are going to go to God directly. We don’t need your intermediary function. We don’t need your intercession. We will go to God directly. I’m going to do it by myself"?

Are you forgetting 2 Timothy 2:5? 'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus'.

-- Joshua Wells (jwells@mindspring.com), January 19, 2001.

+
Timothy is right, Joshua; Jesus is the Mediator for His people with God Almighty, His Father. Our Church teaches all to believe under penalty of mortal sin, that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, and that's what Timothy indicated to the Church. His mother the Virgin Mary is our intermediary with Jesus her Son. She is in no position equal to Christ's. Her prayers go UP to the heavenly throne, she doesn't sit at the right hand of the Father. She's a creature, and her only role as our Mother in heaven is to PRAY FOR US! What is so hard to accept about that? Don't you pray for others to God?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 19, 2001.

Eugene Chavez,

A good reply. Mind you I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus refers to Mary as His Mother, but of course she was His birth mother. Therefore it is somewhat confusing.

In Matthew 12:46-50 it says 'While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to speak with Him. 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 towards His diciples 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".'

I do pray for other people but we are still of this earth and are in sin whereas Mary is in heaven and people in heaven are free from sin. Also the people I pray for cannot hear me and I can't hear them if they are not present. I guess what you're saying is that Mary must be able to hear our prayers. However I can't see anywhere in the Bible where that is the case. Perhaps I have missed it. Is there a passage in the Bible that says Mary can hear us? if so I would appreciate it if someone could point it out to me.

Thanks for your trouble.

-- Joshua Wells (jwells@mindspring.com), January 19, 2001.

Thanks, Joshua.
I'm sure that several of us Catholics will be happy to respond to your direct questions, but (either before or after we do so) could you please show us where in the Bible God states that every claim of religious truth must be prove-able from the Bible? In other words, where does the Bible teach "sola scriptura" -- the doctrine that the Bible alone is the source of all the truths of faith? I ask this because you have required Eugene to produce a verse for you specifically to prove what he said.

I can assure you that the Bible itself does not teach that doctrine, but actually teaches the contrary -- that there is religious truth available from one infallible source that is outside the pages of Scripture. And so, since you will not be able to quote a biblical text that requires Eugene to prove his claim to you from some other biblical text -- it automatically follows, by logic, that "sola scriptura" is false.

Besides being a non-scriptural theory, "sola scriptura" is a non-historical theory [not believed by anyone until the 16th century] and a non-workable theory [because it led to the splintering of Protestantism into 20,000 separate denominations, each claiming to have the right interpretations of the biblical texts].

God bless you.
John
PS: Please do not be tempted to quote 2 Timothy 3:16, because that only tells us that the Bible is materially sufficient. It does not tell us that we are unable to learn religious truths from a source that is outside the Bible.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 19, 2001.

Ed,

It is interesting to note Jesus' reply when Mary mentioned there was no more wine. He said "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come" John 2:4.

Is it not the thin end of the wedge to make Mary out to be a prayer intercessor based on the wedding at Cana when different people also at different times implored Jesus to help others? For example in Luke 9:38 'Sudenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, "Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child". This person clearly acted as an intercessor for his son by asking Christ to help, yet (and rightly so) he is not deemed to be an eternal intercessor in prayer.

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 19, 2001.

John,

I know your question to Joshua was not directed at me but I can't help putting my oar in, so to speak. I suppose that you are going to say that the Catholic church is the final authority on scripture :-). However I think the Bible gives us several very important messages that the Bible is the sole authority on the word of God.

I believe that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture as in "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13

And also in "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12

When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people:

"... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

Why are Christians commanded to memorize the Scriptures if they can't understand them?

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11 "Keep my commandments, and live... write them upon the table of thine heart." Proverbs 7:2-3 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." John 16:13

Why does Paul instruct us to study the Bible if we can't interpret it?

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

The Lord Jesus Christ said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35),

The following verses of Scripture should ring alarm bells for anyone who believes they need a church to interpret the Bible for them:

"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie , and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26-27

To me it is crystal clear that it is the Holy Spirit which teaches us scripture and not a church.

Regards Steve

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 19, 2001.

John Gecik,

Thank you for replying to my message. I have been looking for a new church to go to. After what you wrote I know the Catholic church is not for me. All sorts of cults say that the Bible isn't the only source of God's will for us and that definately gives me the creeps.

-- Joshua Wells (jwells@mindspring.com), January 19, 2001.

Dear Steven,
I have to admire you for your Bible reference strengths. What you deduce from them can be taken out of context, as I myself might take them, without the Church. I have an authority to fall back on where there is ambiguity. You don't. Hey-- you're doing your level best with what you think God gave you. However, he did not send the Holy Spirit for that end to anyone outside the Catholic Church. How do I know? The Catholic Church is from the Apostles! The first Christians were all Catholics.

You may well believe the Holy Spirit teaches you an interpretation, but you have only your own subjective notion. If you have a correct interpretation, or if you don't-- neither you NOR I know; because outside the Holy Catholic Church all is man's wisdom. You quote a passage, Quoting a passage / the Holy Spirit will guide the reader-- but when the Scriptures were first written-- everybody in the Christian world was a Catholic! You're forgetting that, Steve!

The early disciples had no written form of the New Testament to read at all, till about 150 years (I can check) after Christ's death. Paul and the others read the Old Testament, obviously-- for what it prophesied regarding the Messiah, and God's presence with His people. To infer they were advising a disciple to read the New Testament is forgetting the anachronism of such a thing. They may have had some of its material, but it was not a N.T. Bible. Not that we shouldn't read it today. With proper respect for its interpretation. ''The Scripture cannot be broken?'' Correct, Sir! The Catholic Church is the guardian of the Holy Scriptures, and is the One which originally told us which of countless books were truly inspired by God. It can't be broken, once the Church has proclaimed it Holy. May God bless and enlighte you, Steven.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 19, 2001.

Ed, I am always willing to be instructed. This thread has given me many things to ponder. I don't think I will look at the Cana story the same again. Mary is not any different then any of of in the respect of "attempting to change God's mind" when we pray prayers of petition. We do not really change God's mind for I believe that He was ready to do as we ask all along. He was just waiting for us to ask Him.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), January 20, 2001.

Dear Joshua,

The Catholic church is *not* a cult. Cults are marked by their secretiveness; only initiates know what goes on in them. Cults are not mainstream, as Catholicism definitely is (and has been for a LONG time). Cults try to take total control over their members' lives. People who join cults often disappear from their friends and families. It is also very hard to leave a cult. Catholics are free to go. In fact, the Catholic Church is very conscientious about making sure its members are Catholics out of choice. For instance, the confirmation class at my church lasts more than 6 months. We learn about the church and Catholic theology. At any time, we could leave. No one is forcing us to go. The Church does not demand that we change our hair or clothing styles or leave our familiies and jobs. I hope that you find the truth you are seeking, and that your new church will bring you closer to the Lord. But please, do not fear Catholics and Catholicism. We care about our religion, but we're really not a cult.

Great discussion of the wedding feast of Cana by the way. I love how it shows Mary and Christ's relationship. The love and trust there are so beautiful. The Bible lets us see only glimpses of what people's personalities were, but whenever it does, I want to know those people better. Sometimes I wish I could have been there, and walked with Jesus, and heard him preach. I would have liked to know the apostles and Mary and Jesus' friends. They are never weak or watered-down, but passionate and bold and exciting.

By the way, Br. Rich, what order are you in? And what does SFO mean?

Thanks -Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.

Joshua:

I would like to respond to the first comment you posted in this thread: “Are you forgetting 2 Timothy 2:5? 'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”. Since its so short allow me to quote it here: “An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” Joshua, I was not forgetting about this passage as a matter of fact the points I were making are directly backed up by this passage. Joshua, one of the most important parts of an athlete’s bid for “victory” is the “role” of his “coach” is it not? Catholics have a coach! Her name is Mary! This passage demonstrates, in an excellent way, how the Divine Author makes His point if we allow our hearts and minds to be open. What does a coach do if not provide the following: inspiration, motivation, consolation, guidance, education, friendship, discipline, scheduling, training regimen, timing, the list goes on and on, but I think you get the point. While the coach doesn’t win the game for the athlete, he is an integral part of the athlete’s degree of success or lack of it. Every athlete who is worth his weight in chalk dust has a coach he trusts implicitly and places his life in the hands of. And during the game, what does a coach do? The coach stands on the sidelines and cheers the athlete on, and lives and dies a thousand deaths with every play, sending in new strategy, revising the game plan as conditions change, all the while offering words of encouragement. The coach gives the athlete all of the tools and provides him with the optimum conditions for victory. That’s what Mary does! It’s Mary’s job to keep us “athletes” on course so that when the final gun sounds we are victorious. And once victorious who does the athlete turn to and give full credit for the victory? His coach! I thank you for reminding me of this passage! You must have been inspired by the Holy Spirit! The analogy of a successful athlete exemplifies Mary’s role in salvation history in a way like no other. Joshua, if you will permit me to say you are misinterpreting this passage, Jesus is not the “mediator” as you stated above. Joshua, can you not see it! He is the "CROWN"!

God bless!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 20, 2001.

Joshua:

In your second post of this thread, you brought up two points I would like to address. Firstly, you said, “ I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus refers to Mary as His Mother, but of course she was His birth mother.” Although you recognize Mary is the mother of Jesus, there is a subtle insinuation here that if Jesus didn’t say it then it cannot be true! What are you saying here? Are you taking “sola scriptura” one step further and discounting all others truths if they were not uttered by Jesus, Himself? An insinuation has no value when debating unless you are prepared to stand behind it and defend it. It is generally used as a crass ploy to gain a psychological advantage in an argument, and is often employed when physical evidence is lacking. The second point I would like to raise is your comment “I guess what you're saying is that Mary must be able to hear our prayers. However I can't see anywhere in the Bible where that is the case.” Our Church, the Catholic Church, is a Church of Heaven and Earth. We also refer to it as the Mystical Body of Christ wherein all souls on earth, in purgatory and in heaven share the same charity toward God and one another. This charity that is shared with God and with one another is reinforced by an exchange of spiritual goods: by the blood of Jesus (this is Jesus’ intermediary role you referred to in an earlier post in this thread) (1 Tim. 2:5). In His blood all souls in heaven, in purgatory and on earth are united. Catholics do not pay lip service to this very important aspect of the “Body of Christ”. The entire Church is strengthened by this fraternal charity or concern for one another. It makes us one in a stronger, more profound way. Just as our Eucharist unites us all together in Christ, so too does our “communion” or mutual love and concern we share with the saints and one another unite us all together in Christ. It is a union of the living and the dead, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all who is above and in all and through all” (Eph. 4:4-6). There is your direct reference to a union, a communion, with those who have passed on and continue to play a vital role in the destiny of those who remain here on earth. There is not three bodies, one in heaven, one in purgatory and one on earth. Oh no! Beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is but one body, the Body of Our Lord and Saviour! We all partake in equal shares though each of us are at varying stages of redemption. Our Father is “in all, through all”. He completes our “union”. You cannot separate out those who are not living in this world. Similarly, those who are alive and would pray for you are not praying in vain, their words are being heard and responded to. To claim otherwise is to insult the Holy Sacrifice! By virtue of the sharing in His Blood, our oneness, Jesus is an intermediary, I am an intermediary, you are and intermediary, the saints are intermediaries, and yes, Mary is an intermediary! If I am one with Jesus, then how can I not be an intermediary if we acknowledge that Jesus is? All children of God have a redemptive power in their prayer bestowed upon them by the Blood of the Lamb! Wether they are alive or dead! We can all intercede for each other by virtue of the love we share as children of the Lamb. “Be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved and gave Himself up for us...” (Eph. 5:1-2) Would a kind and loving God cut off, or turn a deaf ear, to the prayers of those who have passed on? To do so would be to admit their lives after death are meaningless, that they do not share equally in the Kingdom of God, that they are no longer one with God.

God Bless,

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 20, 2001.

Steven:

I’m glad you put your oar in the water. I was snoozing in the bottom of the boat when I felt your ripples and since they woke me up I hope you don’t mind if I comment on the thread you posted. I am in total agreement that the Holy Spirit is both the author and the conveyor of the Holy Word. However, it is my humble opinion that “sola scripturists” continue to take passages of Scripture out of context or isolate them, to prove a point. Scripture can not be taken literally and one needs to pray for inspiration from the “Paraclete”. You cannot take one part of scripture, in isolation, literally to suit your own needs. One must take into account all of the Scriptures, (as well as other teachings of the Church, but in the interest of brevity, I won't tackle that issure here)in order to test “their” interpretation against what the Sacred Author truly intended. If the test against other similar references holds up then it can be safely assumed that your interpretation is correct. If it doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of other passages then one should re- examine their interpretation for its accuracy and quality. The Catholic Church has been doing this for 2000 years and it has served her well. You will notice that when I referred to the Church I referred to “her” in the singular. When you speak of the Church you refer to her as “the church” implying she is an inanimate object interfering with our ability to decipher true inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Please read my earlier comments about what our :Church” means to us as Catholics. I am referring to my comments about the “Mystical Body of Christ” and the “Communion of Saints”. When you refer to my Church when addressing me I am understanding you to mean what the Church means to me, more particularly, Jesus, those in heaven, those in purgatory and those here on earth. The Church to me does not mean those infamous leaders of the church who lock themselves into dark rooms in the bowels of the Vatican and plot dastardly deeds to strengthen and maintain control the mind of every Catholic on the planet that so many non-Catholics allude to. So, you see Steven, when you said, “To me it is crystal clear that it is the Holy Spirit which teaches us scripture and not a church.” your statement was both puzzling and very telling in terms of your understanding of the Catholic faith. But it makes sense to me that you are confused, for as a “sola scripturist” nowhere in scripture can you find the word “catholic” so any propositions offered with a “catholic” flavour is destined for outright rejection, or in the least, beyond your realm of acceptance. But I would like for you to answer me one question. It’s a question that I have asked before and have never received a reply. It is a question that is in no way intended to slight what you believe in but rather, is designed to help clear up a question in my mind as to how you can possibly rationalize your stand of “sola scriptura”. While I fully realize this is not a “catholic”-oriented question and may not qualify for this forum, an answer would go a long way in helping me understand the different direction non-Catholics approach the same passage of Scripture as Catholics do. Here is the question. If you genuinely believe the Bible is the only source of inspiration by the Holy Spirit then please tell me, why did the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, lie dormant for fifteen hundred years with this “correct” interpretation of the Bible and therefore the correct interpretation of Jesus’ Church? Where was this fool-proof, inspired interpretation of the Word of God, known as “sola scriptura” for fifteen hundred years if God said He would be with His Church always?

God Bless,

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 20, 2001.

Jmj

Thank you, Ed, Eugene, Hannah, and Rich, for responding to Joshua (and also Steven), as I predicted you would.
I look forward to reading the answer to that always-unanswered question you just raised, Ed.

I would like to see your question answered with "highest priority," Ed. But I also am still waiting for a direct answer to the question I posed to Joshua. He seems to have fled from Catholicism and the forum, rather than try to answer it.

I will pose my question again, worded a few different ways, to avoid misunderstanding:
"Please show us where, in the Bible, God states that every Christian religious doctrine must be explicitly found in the Bible? Where does the Bible say that there must be a quote-able verse to prove everything that the Catholic Church teaches? Where does the Bible tell us that we are unable to learn religious truths from a source that is outside the Bible?"

Steven tried to answer by posting various scriptural verses, but none of them directly answers my question. He stated, "I think the Bible gives us several very important messages that the Bible is the sole authority on the word of God ... To me it is crystal clear that it is the Holy Spirit which teaches us scripture and not a church."
I think that he did not understand that I was referring to the fact that we not only learn truths from the Bible, but also (1) we learn Christian truths passed down by oral teaching [Sacred Tradition, as referred to more than once by St. Paul] and (2) we have truths made more clear to us through "development of doctrine" (approved by the Magisterium).

Steven's quotations repeatedly referred to the role of the Holy Spirit helping men to understand the Bible. But, as I tried to point out earlier, all Protestants think that they can simply turn to the Holy Spirit. We see that this is clearly not what God has in mind, because non-Catholics have come up with 20,000+ different denominational combinations of doctrines by relying on that method alone.
Also, I have to reject Steven's "circular reasoning." As you may have noticed, he said that the Bible tells us that "the Bible is the sole authority" about itself. That does not stand up to logical scrutiny. (A Latter-Day-Saint or a Moslem could make the same claim about the Book of Mormon or the Koran's claiming "sole authority" for itself. So-called "self-authentication" proves nothing.) Instead, there had to be an infallible authority outside the Bible that declared what ancient books composed the Bible, that declared that those books were inspired by God, that teaches us what is the meaning of crucial verses that can be misinterpreted, etc.. That authority was/is the Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 20, 2001.

Ed,

An excellent question but while I ponder my reply I would like to ask you kind people a question of my own. If Peter was the first Pope and supposedly head of the early church, why did the Apostle Paul never make reference to that fact? Moreover Paul gave instruction on how a church should be conducted as one in authority from Christ.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 20, 2001.

I would like to say also it is Sunday here in New Zealand and the day will be spent with family and church therefore I may not be able to get back to you until Monday or Tuesday. Thank you for your patience.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 20, 2001.

"If Peter was the first Pope and supposedly head of the early church, why did the Apostle Paul never make reference to that fact? Moreover Paul gave instruction on how a church should be conducted as one in authority from Christ." (Steven)

Thanks, Steven.
First, it is important to know that the Catholic Church now has about 4,000 bishops worldwide (maybe 3,000 active and 1,000 retired), successors of the apostles. Though the pope is called the "universal pastor," the vast majority of day-to-day authority exercised in the Church is that which is exercised by the local bishops. Neither the pope nor his closest advisors at the Vatican are involved in "micro-managing" the distant dioceses. They get involved only in rare, special cases. All this is because the Church teaches and practices a principle called "subsidiarity," whereby a task is to be carried out at the lowest effective level -- as close to the ordinary believer in the pew as possible. Contrary to the perceptions that the liberal media try to leave, the pope is not a tyrant.

Now I mentioned all of the above as a way of introducing my answer to your comment that followed your question. St. Paul received a commission to share the gospel with the Gentiles. Because of "subsidiarity," practiced from the start, he had the authority to give "instruction on how a local church should be conducted." As a sort of missionary bishop himself, St. Paul received the authority to ordain other bishops, presbyters/elders, and deacons -- and to teach those men their duties. And the Holy Spirit, recognizing his talent for writing [obviously, he (a Pharisee) would be better at that than a fisherman], chose him to be the author of numerous important scriptural texts that have come down to us.

Now, as to your question about why St. Paul "never" made reference to the fact that St. Peter was the first "head of the early Church" (or "vicar of Christ") after the Ascension of Jesus ...
It is not really correct to say that St. Paul never referred to the leadership of St. Peter. He may have told of St. Peter orally hundreds of times while on his travels. It would have been a natural thing to do, and having done it, there would not have been reason to mention him directly in the epistles. However, I am convinced that he did indirectly mention St. Peter's leadership in writing several times.

Let's start with Galatians 2:9, which says: "James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

Of course, Cephas is Peter. [John 1:42, describing Jesus's first meeting with Simon Peter, says, "Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter)."] Actually, "Cephas" is the Grecized form of the word Jesus had actually used in the Aramaic language -- "kefa," which means "rock." And so, we come to realize that Jesus's prediction in John 1 ("You shall be called Cephas") came to pass, as recorded in a controversial passage in Matthew 16. Jesus (speaking in his native tongue, Aramaic) said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona [Aramaic for 'son of John']! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are KEFA [ROCK], and on this KEFA [ROCK] I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now, returning to Galatians 2:7-9 ... Through contact with James and ROCK/Cephas and John, who were "reputed to be pillars," St. Paul received earthly confirmation of his divine mission to journey to the Gentiles. So we see St. Paul's indirect reference to Peter being in a position of authority. I would argue that the the placement of his name, ROCK, between the names of the sons of Zebedee, indicates that the latter are his right- and left-hand men. And I would reinforce that argument by referring to St. Paul's statement in Galatians 1. There he says that, following his conversion and some years of wandering, he "went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." I consider his mentioning a 15-day visit to one of the "pillars" of the Church very significant.

All right. Next we see the famous episode, also in Galatians 2, of St. Paul opposing St. "Cephas/Rock" to his face when the latter acted hypocritically. The very fact that he mentions this episode, in my opinion, calls attention to the fact that St. Peter was of the highest rank -- yet could sin, as St. Paul wants the Galatians not to do. If a less important apostle had been involved, I don't believe that he would have mentioned the episode.

Next we see that St. Paul tells the Corinthians that Jesus, having risen from the dead, "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." I believe this to be yet another indirect reference to the headship of ROCK, who saw his Lord before the remaining apostles.

Some non-Catholics, rather than seek to assert a silence by St. Paul about St. Peter (as you did), say that the writings of St. Peter indicate that he could not have exercised ecclesial headship. It's pretty clear that St. Peter, after Pentecost, seems to have been a humble man who was a quiet leader. We see him (1 Pet 5) referring to himself simply as a "fellow presbyter." It has been interesting for me to notice that modern-day popes do something similar, deriving their greatest joy from knowing that God simply called them to the priesthood, an vocation that lasts until death. [The word "priest" is derived from "presbyteros," the Greek word for "elder."] Ironically, I see the humility shown by St. Peter in his epistles as yet another indirect reference to his leadership. He made it a point not to "lord it over" the Church -- giving example to all, by obeying Jesus's instructions: "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." (And so it is that one of the pope's titles has been "Servus Servorum Dei" -- Servant of the servants of God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 21, 2001.

I hope others have prepared some reply to Steven by the time he returns here. Here's a note; and maybe you friends will build on it, or think of something I overlooked.

Steven, as always, in the New testament, it's what Jesus Christ intended for His Church which most matters. We know , for instance, His Apostles were ordered by Him to go out to the whole world, (Matt 28:19) evangelize, and teach all nations. This is well before Saint Paul's conversion; and Matthew and the eleven at this point had no idea Paul would be an apostle to the Gentiles. You would conclude from these verses not even Jesus expected His own Church to make a place for Paul! But why then must you look for Paul to declare Peter or anyone of them the Vicar of Christ on earth? The Church was in its formative stages. It was only some time later Peter went on to Rome. I believe he was previously bishop of Antioch, but I'm relying on memory. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is the appointments we see in Matt:16, 18-19 and John 21:15-19. In these, Our Lord is speaking directly to His future Vicar on earth, the Shepherd or Pastor of all His flock. Here Jesus, not Paul-- is announcing in Scripture to all of us what Peter's office was to be. When we have the words of Jesus on a question, why demand a ratification from Paul? There's one other passage with its inference that Jesus wanted Peter to lead the rest of the disciples, and that's Luke 22:31-32 / It took place just before the Lord warned Peter He would deny Him later on!

He told Peter, ''Satan has desired you (All the Apostles), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, (to Peter himself) that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again --strengthen thy brethren.'' Peter was given responsibility for the others; by the Lord Himself. In all these passages, Peter has been selected by Our Lord to be leader of the Church to come. This was decided by Jesus before any epistle of Paul was ever written, at a time when Paul was still a Pharisee named ''Saul''--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2001.

Eugene & John, may I compliment you on two excellent posts. I have learned a great deal from what you have written. It is amazing how subtleties in Scripture found by minute observations of others can make the Scriptures jump off the page at you. I too, would also like to comment briefly on Steven’s question, “If Peter was the first Pope and supposedly head of the early church, why did the Apostle Paul never make reference to that fact?” I agree that because it was not written anywhere that this doesn’t make it not necessarily so. I won’t go into all the references I have found clearly indicating that Jesus wanted Peter as leader of the fledgling Church and if Peter was good enough for Jesus than who are we to second-guess. Does it matter that Paul never mentioned this to his readers? Does it prove anything? Clearly Peter was in charge. At Pentecost, after the apostles had been in hiding, it was Peter, who “raised his voice” and said, “receive the Holy Spirit!” In Acts, it is Peter who obviously assumes Jesus’ role as leader of the ministry by performing several miracles demonstrating the power that has been bestowed on him. Firstly, he heals the cripple at the temple, and we are told that as “Peter” (no mention of the other apostles) went by, the people laid their sick in the street so the his “shadow might be cast upon them” giving us more indication Peter has taken on new importance, a new persona, one, almost “Christ-like” in the new Christian community. He is beginning to receive the notoriety that followed Jesus wherever He went. Miracle will do that, no one else seems to be performing them like Peter is. In Acts 9:40 Peter “puts everyone outside” and alone in the room prays “Tabitha rise” and Tabitha opens her eyes and sits up. In Acts 10 before Peter meets with Cornelius, God puts Him in a trance and tells him to “slaughter and eat” which Peter at this point considers profane. God is telling His representative on earth that methods and customs must change and that He wants His leader to include all men in His Kingdom. Peter says, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.” It has been revealed to him as leader, that the Church has been commissioned to seek out all souls. In Acts 10:45 we are told, “And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” providing further confirmation the circumcised recognize that Peter has the authority by virtue of the Holy Spirit over all men including the gentiles and disproving the notion that Peter was placed in charge of the Jews and Paul in charge of the Gentiles. This gap that is bridged, the gap that now puts Peter squarely in charge of both Jews and Gentiles alike, Eugene & John may I congratulate you on two excellent posts. I have learned a great deal from what you have written. It is amazing how subtleties of the Scriptures found by the minute observations of others can make the Scriptures jump off the page at you. I would also like to comment briefly on Steven’s question, “If Peter was the first Pope and supposedly head of the early church, why did the Apostle Paul never make reference to that fact?” I agree that because it was not written anywhere that this, doesn’t make it not necessarily so. I won’t go into all the references I have found clearly indicating that Jesus wanted Peter as leader of the fledgling Church. If Peter was good enough for Jesus than who are we to second-guess Him. Does it matter that Paul never mentioned this to his readers? Clearly Peter was in charge. At Pentecost, after the apostles had been in hiding, it was Peter, who “raised his voice” and said, “receive the Holy Spirit!” In Acts, it is Peter who obviously assumes Jesus’ role as leader of the ministry by performing several miracles demonstrating the power that has been bestowed on him. Firstly, he heals the cripple at the temple, and we are told that as “Peter” (no mention of the other apostles) went by, the people laid their sick in the street so the his “shadow might be cast upon them” giving us more indication Peter has taken on new importance, a new persona, one, almost “Christ-like” in the new Christian community. He is beginning to receive the notoriety that followed Jesus wherever He went. In Acts 9:40 Peter “puts everyone outside” and alone in the room prays “Tabitha rise” and Tabitha opens her eyes and sits up. In Acts 10 before Peter meets with Cornelius, God puts Him in a trance and tells him to “slaughter and eat” which Peter at this point considers profane. God is telling His representative on earth that methods and customs must change and that He wants His leader to include all men in His Kingdom. Peter says, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.” It has been revealed to him as leader, that the Church has been commissioned to seek out all souls. In Acts 10:45 we are told, “And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” providing further confirmation the circumcised recognize that Peter has the authority by virtue of the Holy Spirit over all men including the gentiles and disproving the notion that Peter was placed in charge of the Jews and Paul in charge of the Gentiles. This gap that is bridged, the gap that now puts Peter squarely in charge of both Jews and Gentiles alike, by the power of the Holy Spirit, leaves no doubt about his universal authority. No similar episodes of divine intervention are experienced by Paul showing that our heavenly Father has another role, other than leader, in mind for him.

God bless all,

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 21, 2001.

To all:

Sorry about this double post. A lot can happen with one click of a mouse!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 21, 2001.

Don't apologize, Ed. I enjoyed your post so much that I read through the "echo section" as an encore. (And thanks for your kind words to Eugene and me. Maybe "someone" who reads this thread will see how much we love and take care to study the Bible.)
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Thanks for your fine post, Ed. It shows your understanding of the greatness of Saint Peter. We Catholics always mention Peter and Paul in tandem; in God's eyes it's plain their contributions to the Church are very simply matchless.

I had the opportunity last year to visit Santiago Compostela in northern Spain. There the shrine of Saint James, and his mortal remains attracts millions of pilgrims since the conversion of that country --shortly after Christ dispatched the apostles to take the gospel to all the nations. James was an apostle on a par with Peter and Paul; and is the patron saint of Spain. He accomplished an almost impossible (in human terms) evangelization of those lands. The barbaric natives of northern Spain in that era were strictly unapproachable and very fierce. James was in desperate straits for years, laboring with no success. He was sure they would eventually kill him for his preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In his sorrows he called up to Our Lord in prayer-- He prayed for his work to be blessed by God, but lamented the intolerable conditions in which he was trapped there; crying out for mercy. Remember, James was a close relative of Jesus and Mary--

In answer to his prayers, the oldest traditions of Spain have it that he received a visit from Our Blessed Mother herself-- and she still was living at the time. She was there miraculously, it is called bi-location; the miracle being when a person is permitted by God to be in more than one place, not a spirit, but an actual person!

This is not an approved fact as when the Church acknowledges it for truth; but a legend or tradition, which cannot be proven. Nevertheless, the faithful are neither advised to place faith in it, nor to reject it. It's a matter of personal faith, something we have no obligation to believe, one way or another.

So-- MARY, in this apparition to St James, is known by the title Our Lady the Virgin of the Pillar-- because she was seated on a throne atop a marble pedestal, or ''pilar'' as they call it in Spanish. She told St James his prayers had been answered by the Almighty; that he would be given the complete faith of the inhabitants of this land, in a conversion so great, that no greater one in the world would ever be seen again! And, it was just exactly as she promised him. James brought the entire Iberian peninsula, and even larger territories around it, into the early Catholic Church. It must be true, Ed. Because to our own day, the Spanish are acknowledged to be about the most faithful of all Catholics. How much truth there is in the old legend, who can say. But they still come to the cathedral of Santiago from all over the world. We were there, and we'll never forget it, my wife and I. It's the 3rd greatest holy shrine in the world, after Rome and the Holy Land.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 22, 2001.

Eugene:

What a great anecdote! What a great story of inspiration! I hadn’t heard the story of St. James told from this perspective before. You know, as I was reading, although to a lesser degree, your story drew stark similarities to the work some of us do in this forum. If you will indulge me for a moment and allow me to paraphrase some of your comments I will explain. Sometimes the visitors to this room can be “strictly unapproachable and very fierce”. At times one might even consider some of them spiritually “barbaric” or blasphemous. Some of us, at times, have considered ourselves “in desperate straits for years, labouring with no success”. You, John, and Chris, in particular, come to mind. Inadvertently, you have pointedly reminded me of what I must do whenever I feel despondent about not being able to clearly explain our faith to those who are genuinely seeking Truth! Without knowing, you reminded me that we must “call up to Our Lord in prayer”; we must “pray for our work to be blessed by God!” We must be “close to Mary”, ask for her intercession, and perhaps Our Almighty God will "answer our prayers" and the nay-sayers will be “given” or delivered up to the “inhabitants” of this forum. In light of the above, I propose the following: 1. That St. James be unofficially adopted as the patron saint of this forum, and of all who visit this forum seeking genuine enlightenment regardless of religious persuasion! 2. That this room be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that, by her intercession, all who visit may be transformed into more loving, compassionate and understanding human beings; and that we, who reside in this room and continue in our resolve to bring Truth to everyone, no matter the risk, draw from her example; and imitate her unwavering patience and understanding toward all who visit this forum genuinely seeking knowledge; and that we imitate her faith and dedication to her Son, "in prosperity and adversity, in joy and in sorrow, in health and in sickness, in life and in death".

St. James, resolute, determined and faithful apostle of those unapproachable, and

Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of all intercessors,

(Would all those in favour signify their approval by responding to this thread in this manner:) “Pray for us!”

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 22, 2001.

Say, Ed
You have a sensational idea. I hadn't imagined you could apply a saint's example to our forum's situation, but you have made an excellent point!

I would never presume to impose the idea on others here; but if a survey were taken, in which the pros or cons could be weighed, I'd come down in favor. For sure!

It's unfortunately true. Many enter this page with no other intention than to disagree and pour scorn on our words. A smaller number wish to know more about the Catholic faith. We have to invoke God and His saints, if we ever hope to change an unfriendly opinion, or strengthen the soft faith of a wavering Catholic! I'm absolutely certain every single apostle spent many hours daily praying for help from God and Mary the Blessed Virgin, for help in the work of spreading the Holy Gospel!

Even if we (I) are far from apostolic, we are armed with the same TRUTH, the same faith as they were. +++ Dearest Mother of Jesus, Our Mother-- and Glorious Apostles of Jesus Christ, with Saint James-- Pray for this humble endeavor; Holy Lord, Jesus Christ, Have Mercy on Us! AMEN! +++

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 22, 2001.

Thank you, Ed. I am in great need of the holy ones' help.
St. James, pray for us.
St. Edward, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, wrap us in your mantle of love and protection.

Jesus, we join all these saints to love and adore Thee.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 22, 2001.

Dear John,
May I ask why you said you're in great need of the Holy Ones' help? If that is personal, I'll understand. --Another thing, and pardon me prying: desc.dla.mil, means?

God bless you, John,

Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. James, Be with us, and pray for us. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.

didn't the Lord teach us that persistence and faith are two of the primary keys for having prayers answered?

and did he not teach us that all of his children have a role in intercession much as Aaron and Moses demonstrated on multiple occasions turning away God's wrath, in effect changing his mind?

did he not allow himself to be persuaded and to change his mind when the canaanite woman said to him, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table" and he responded, "woman, you have great faith! your request is granted."? the canaanite's petition is especially significant in that it persuaded the Lord to heal and demonstrate his power to those outside the house of israel.

how is Mary's action any more significant than the canaanite's?

why do you distort Mary's role at cana magnifying it beyond all proportion? why draw such eternal and grandiose conclusions other than to satisfy your desparate need to find some scrap of scripture that could possibly be stretched to support modern marian beliefs.

Mary exercised her understanding of the principles and priviledges of prayer and intercession that all believers are called into? nothing more. was she effective? absolutely, as are all righteous believers!

-- truth detector (somewhere@outhere.com), January 26, 2001.

JFG,

What's up? Or if you don't wish to discuss it, we'll add you to our prayers anyway.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2001.

A truth detector asks, ''What does Mary have that the Canaanite woman didn't have? Well, Sir. For one thing Mary is the Mother of God. In a particular way, she ranks just a bit higher than the other supplicants at Jesus' feet. However, if you think that same Canaanite Lady, who succeeded in getting her petition answered --can help you just as well as Our Blessed Mother, by all means, pray to HER! But I would place my own confidence in the Blessed Mother of Our Lord as a good intercessor. She has, in fact, a formidable track record in the last two millennia, for answering prayers. Ask any Catholic /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.

eugene: that's not the question i asked or the point of my post. i did not compare Mary to the canaanite woman. i said, "how is Mary's action any more significant than the canaanite's?" there's a big difference!

you've framed your response to avoid actually confronting the obvious. if one trys to use Mary's act of intercession at cana to justify any of the current marian doctrines, then one must apply the same accord to the canaanite and all of the others who had similar results in gaining God's favor and answers to prayer. what Mary did at cana is not unique in scripture and can in no way be used to justify elevating her above the the other saints.

-- truth detector (somewhere@outhere.com), January 26, 2001.

"truth detector", you said,

what Mary did at cana is not unique in scripture and can in no way be used to justify elevating her above the the other saints.

I beg to differ. Compare the tone of what Mary did in John 2 with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The difference *I* see is that everyone else in the Bible BUT Mary pleads with Jesus to work a miracle for them, whereas Mary, while she doesn't *order* Jesus to change the water into wine, sure acts more like a normal parent "asking" their child to do something than the other people Jesus performs miracles for.

To me this is a VERY big difference. In the same way I'd look at a Horatio Alger who worked his way from poverty to a millionaire with respect for his accomplisment, I'd look differently at someone who became a millionaire by winning the lottery. One earned their money, the other got lucky.

I don't think the difference is in the result (a miracle was performed), but in the route taken to GET to the miracle. Mary to me *clearly* had an influence in Jesus' life that others did NOT have, which by implication means that if you want to have someone pray to Jesus WITH you, she'd be a better bet than the Canaanite woman.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2001.

Ed,

You asked me the following question a week or more ago. I'm sorry I haven't been able to get back to you on this, as I have been very busy all week.

If you genuinely believe the Bible is the only source of inspiration by the Holy Spirit then please tell me, why did the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, lie dormant for fifteen hundred years with this “correct” interpretation of the Bible and therefore the correct interpretation of Jesus’ Church? Where was this fool-proof, inspired interpretation of the Word of God, known as “sola scriptura” for fifteen hundred years if God said He would be with His Church always?

I have attempted to within time constraints do some research on your excellent question. The conclusions that I have to draw from this limited research is that there are many, many answers to your question from a protestant perspective, just as there are many opposite viewpoints in answer from pro Catholic webb sites.

When I asked a colleague, who used to be Catholic, your question, he responded with "the people of those times lived in fear of disobedience to the Roman Catholic church. If they dared step out of line or disagreed with the churches' view they were ruthlessly persecuted and in some cases murdered, as in the St Bartholomew's massacre. There is much evidence from a historical viewpoint to support the fact that the Vatican wielded it's power unmercifully on those who disagreed with it by having alternative viewpoints. I didn't ask the pastor of my local church your question (he too used to be a Catholic) because by then I had realized there is no definative answer to it.

Let me explain further. The Catholic church has some solid answers to it's detractors concerning 'sola Scripture', just as it's defenders have many solid answers. The same thing applies for the Catholic claim that it is the one true church etc. mentioned by you in your question "if God said He would be with His Church always?" My personal belief is that Jesus Christ's Church is his redeemed people, Catholic, Protestant or whoever. We could argue till the cows come home on this point like countless others have done, but it would serve no purpose because I no doubt probably wouldn't change my mind and you no doubt wouldn't change your's.

It comes down to in whom do you believe, writers/Catholic church itself defending it's anti 'sola scripture' stance or the writers/Protestant institutions defending the Protestant viewpoint on 'Sola Scripture'. Therefore the answer to your question is that it cannot be answered by me or by any man or institution definatively because there is so much contrary evidence on both sides of the fence.

If that seems like some kind of cop out, it's not, it's just as honest as I can be on the matter.

I would like to thank those who replied to the question I had asked you guys which was "if Peter was the first Pope and supposedly head of the early church, why did the Apostle Paul never make reference to that fact? Moreover Paul gave instruction on how a church should be conducted as one in authority from Christ." I don't necessarily agree with you on all of what you wrote, but at least I can appreciate how you see things from a Catholic viewpoint.

I will have restrict my activities on this forum because I haven't the time to be involved. However I will pop in from time to time.

My our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in peace and happiness until He comes.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 27, 2001.

Mr. Davis is guided by the statements of ''a friend who used to be a Catholic.'' Yeah-- we have a few in this forum, too.

Why anyone like Steven would care to enter this forum, if such are his pre-conceptions, I wish I knew. To boot-- allowing for the ''truth'' of a Church which could keep its faithful subject through fear and ruthless persecution-- how does it keep them in line today? Why change the strategy, now that the Church has power and influence like no other church? In fact, why bother with doctrine and charities and education at all, if fear and persecution can do the job?

Doesn't Steven at least know almost all the major universities of the western world were originally founded and maintained by the Catholic Church and its clergy? --Did they do it through fear?

That friend who ''was a Catholic'' has Steven under a spell, I guess. He ought to ask Steven for the keys to his safety-deposit box! Steven trusts him with the keys to his immortal soul; what's a few bucks?
Immaculate Virgin Mary, Pray for us! Dear Saint James, Apostle; Pray for us! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 27, 2001.

Eugene,

I fail to see your logic here. I never asserted that I believed what my colleague had said was true or not true. If you would care to examine what I said a little closer you would see I actually said "because by then I had realized there is no definitive answer to it." Does that sound like someone who is guided by the statements of a friend who used to be a Catholic? I mentioned my colleagues viewpoint because it is probably one held by many Protestants and may be helpful to Ed in understanding in part, a non Catholic persons reasons for adherence to 'Sola Scripture'.

Moreover your rather belligerent statements concernng me apparently stem from a lack of tolerance of someone elses point of view. I was after all attempting to answer Ed's question. If you are riled by the historical fact that the Catholic church persecuted people don't take it out on me. There are plenty of anti Jewish people who try to deny the 'Holocaust' but it still happened. If you ask a non Catholic person a question don't expect to receive Catholic dogma in return.

As for your claim that "almost all the major universities of the western world were originally founded and maintained by the Catholic Church and its clergy" I will have to take your word for it, although something tells me it is an exaggeration. Quite frankly I don't really care one way or the other.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 28, 2001.

Dear Steven, It isn't because I can't tolerate another person's views. You make exasperating statements! Plus, it may not seem to you there is any definitive answer. In fact I may not know a definitive answer, but God does. In God's definitive view, I dare say, any who claim the Catholic Church has ascended by force or fear to become the Church we know today is blinded by prejudice.

Know why I make this statement? I have it on the authority of hundreds upon hundreds of SAINTS and thousands of MARTYRS in her history, who testified with their blood to the truth. Starting with the Apostles Peter and Paul (both Catholics) and down to our own day, Mother Theresa, Padre Pio, and various other holy Catholics.

And if Steven Davis wishes to believe it, God favor him. Not believe it; I'm sorry for him. Amen!
Mary, Mother of Our Redeemer, Pray for us-- and St. James, Holy Apostle, Pray for this forum and Holy Mother Church! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 28, 2001.

steve,

Yes, sadly persecutions went on (although your citings are quite an innacurate). But anyway, my point...the Church had been persecuted, her leaders enslaved or martyred, for centuries of her earliest years. It was not until the Carolingians that she even *began* to approach any semblance of the power she held during the middle ages. That was over 700 years after her founding, long after current practices and beliefs were well established. In short, if the Church needed to browbeat its members, it would have never lasted longer than a generation or two, as she didn't have the power to do that until long after all the things you mentioned were taught, accepted, and commonplace. Your friend needs to answer for the 700 year gap in his timeline, or abandon his theory.

aaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.

Ed,

If you genuinely want an answer to your question try these two sites.

http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html http://www.christiantruth.com/bahnsen.html

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 28, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, folks.
Steven, you made a most interesting statement. You wrote: "My personal belief is that Jesus Christ's Church is his redeemed people, Catholic, Protestant or whoever. We could argue till the cows come home on this point like countless others have done, but it would serve no purpose because I no doubt probably wouldn't change my mind and you no doubt wouldn't change your's."

But Steven, what you say is your "personal belief" is not a tenable belief, because it implies that God tolerates both truth and untruth. What does St. Paul say about "Jesus Christ's Church?" ... "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her ... that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

Therefore, the Church of Jesus must have the truth and nothing but the truth. It is impossible, then, for some of her members to hold to one set of doctrines, only some of which overlap with the doctrines of other members. There must be unity of doctrine. Such is not possible if, as you say, "Jesus Christ's Church is his redeemed people, Catholic, Protestan, or whoever." No, Steven, the time has come to make a choice, not to be wishy-washy. If you are in a quandary, keep seeking and knocking. If you pray that the Holy Spirit would open your mind, you will "find" and the "door will be opened to you." (Please pray for the grace not to cling to past prejudices. That is very important. Anti-Catholic prejudices will lock a mind as tightly closed as it can be.)

Steven, you also wrote about us Catholics taking an "anti-sola-scriptura" stance while Protestants take a "pro-sola-scriptura" stance. You stated: "Therefore the answer to your question is that it cannot be answered by me or by any man or institution definatively because there is so much contrary evidence on both sides of the fence."
Here is where I have to ask you, Steven, to do a more careful job of analyzing the arguments. I hope that you have a little training in logic to help you. Only the Catholic position on "sola scriptura" stands up to scrutiny. The non-Catholic position is indefensible. It breaks down for any open-minded person who uses God's gift of reason. This can be seen in any number of threads posted here in the past two weeks -- not to mention the past three years -- and at EVERY Catholic apologetics site worth its salt. Steven, if you commit yourself to studying this, your will become a Catholic (or at least cease to be a "sola scriptura Protestant" for starters).

I would like to recommend to Steven and all respectful Protestants to visit the "Coming Home Network" site, where they can hook up with people who used to be of their "persuasion," but are now Catholics. Here is a link to CHN. Read the "eMailing List" section on this page.

May Jesus hear the prayers of Our Lady and St. James on our behalf.
God bless you.
John
PS: Steven, I just noticed that you made the following erroneous statement: " If you are riled by the historical fact that the Catholic church persecuted people, don't take it out on me." It is not the "Church" that persecuted anyone, but certain specific individual members of the Church that committed sins of persecution. There is a major difference. The "Church," as the spotless bride of Christ, cannot sin and cannot err.
PPS: I haven't been ignoring you, Ed and Eugene. I just could not connect here for a very long time.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2001.

John,

Thank you for your reply. I am not a Protestant nor am I a Catholic, however I am a Christian just like many other millions of non- denominational Christians. I am not interested in joining a denomination, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise. You wrote "What does St. Paul say about "Jesus Christ's Church?" ... "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her ... that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." The church referred to here is the body of Christ, which consists of all the redeemed believers. I don't agree that it is referring to the Catholic church.

I looked at the above web sites recommended by Mary Derek and it makes good sense, however I will state again that I am not interested in joining a religious organisation. I have a close personal relationship with Christ and that is good enough for me.

Thanks anyway for your concern.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 29, 2001.

Dear Steven:

My question has been asked for five hundred years now. In this forum, I can safely predict that it will be asked for many years to come. It goes to the very foundation of the separation that keeps us (you and I) apart. We, the Catholics, are not the “wicked ones, sent forth by the evil one, to wreak havoc on the world”. Our charge was given to us by Jesus Christ, Himself, and you can read all about it in YOUR Holy Book.

Each time we ask this question to non-Catholics who enter this forum with the intention of converting us all, we invariably get the same response, albeit in a wide variety of commentary. The response usually goes something like this: “Well I don’t know the answer to that question, but I know I am right! (usually emphatic) If you really want to know the answer then you can “go to this site” on the Internet or you can “purchase this book” and you will be given all the truths that I don’t possess, don't understand &/or can't articlulate.” If we continue to press further, we get the “the best defence is a good offense” method of response where we, the Catholics, are put on the defensive about all the evil things the Church has done over the centuries, ergo it must be wrong. Our question NEVER gets answered. A clear pattern is evident every single time this matter is discussed. Casey suggested we buy some books to become enlightened; Mary has recommended two sites on the Internet which will require 24 pages of reading by myself. I will eventually get to reading those pages; but I can tell you, unfortunately, that when I have completed reading these articles, I will probably know more about her faith than she does. I don’t think, judging by your responses, particularly Casey’s and Mary’s that you have bothered to read these articles yourselves. I am not a “sola scripturist” but even I could present better arguments than what you have all presented here in this forum. It might be time to quit spewing out or cut & pasting someone else’s words that are fed to you and identify the infrastructure of your own faith before going out and telling everyone else they have it all wrong.

Steven, Mary, Casey et al, I say this will all respect, doesn’t this type of response from you raise some sort of flag in your own minds when, in search of Truth, you come up empty or hollow? Can you not hear yourselves? Can you not see that you are empty of Truth, that you sound like hollow “resounding gongs and clashing cymbals” to borrow a phase from this past Sunday’s readings from our Holy Mass? Don’t you wonder why you cannot defend your faith in “your own words” instead of the words of some Internet site or published book? Don’t you ask yourselves “why haven’t I interiorized this Truth yet, why I am not able to absorb it and pass it on like Jesus wanted me to?” I can save you a lot of soul searching and time and tell you why! If you read the Holy Book that many of you so often quote here in this forum, you will easily and quickly see how your interpretation of the Truth, “discovered” fifteen hundred years after Jesus, doesn’t hold up! Every time you get backed into a corner your “interpretation” unravels and is exposed for what it really is - a mis-interpretation of what Jesus really wanted, and a result of individuals who were very bitter and angry at the Church for doing some horrible and atrocious things. Could the “one true faith” be founded by mere mortals fifteen hundred years after God manifested Himself to us in human form? Did it take both your and my ancestors fifteen hundred years to get it right? Were they stupid? Could no one “see the light” for fifteen hundred years? Truth, real truth, starts from within, it is found in Jesus! You cannot find the answers in someone else’s words. To reject some or all that Jesus taught is to reject Truth itself. To change Truth or to manipulate it to suit one’s needs, (ie. divorce, birth control, etc.), to delete certain books and passages from His Holy Word to justify a new-found faith, is to be no more noble than the Jews who rejected Jesus. Simply because the Church did some terrible things in the past, is no good reason to discount the Truth? Catholics didn’t give you the Truth, your God did! You can’t change Scripture just because you don’t like what a group of people did to you in the past or you needed to change the Word to suit a new lifestyle. I will now tell you one of the most important principle in the spiritual life. “Physician heal thyself!” There are many things wrong in the Church today, but Catholics, good Catholics don’t go out and find a new faith. We start with ourselves, we interiorize Christ’s message of love for us and others and as we are healed, through the “Communion of Saints” or the “mystical Body of Christ”, the entire Church is healed mystically. St. Francis realized this. In his own time, he was set aside by his own order. He could see many things that were wrong with the Church; but he didn’t rebel and begin a new religion, a new faith. The Church was in dire need of reform then as it is today. St. Francis’ solution for what he saw wrong around him was to go away and do penance for his sins, not for anyone else’s. In doing this St. Francis became a reformer of the Church. His humility, his obedience, gained him importance in the Church and what happened? The entire Church was healed mystically by his devotion to his faith!

Outside of the Eucharist, do you know what keeps me firmly entrenched in the Catholic faith? It’s the fact the EVERY single time I have had a question about my faith and sought out an answer; not only did I receive an answer, but the answer was so spectacular and revealing that it plunged me deeper into the faith. I am not the same Catholic I was yesterday, last month, last year, or ten years ago. The Holy Spirit is truly alive and at work in the Catholic Church, the one true Church, the Church founded by Christ! Jesus did not found many Churches. He founded one Church and it is up to all men to accept it, not change it, or distort it. It is not a question, nor has it ever been a question of Protestant writers vs. Catholic writers. There are many independent writers with whom the historical facts can be corroborated. Do you really think Henry VIII was genuinely interested in reform of the Catholic Church? The main and most important author is a writer common to both of us, the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Author! He is the source of all Truth! With all due respect, your faith appears to be founded on sand and not “rock”, like the other 27,000 Christian faiths that have been founded in the last five hundred years. It appears to be founded on the whims and desires of mere mortals. This should be your first clue!

Steven, I must say discussing this question with you has been enjoyable. You are one of the few that have at least, been honest and forthright when you have said that you don’t have all the answers. I would caution you however, to never accept your statement that “there is no definitive answer”. Real truth is absolute, it cannot be denied or ignored without consequence! My argument supports John’s earlier argument about your beliefs not being “tenable”. Continue to search for the Truth, and if you have eyes for Truth I know where it will lead you.

I too, like you, am pressed for time and do not have the opportunity to respond to all the posts I would like to. I would invite you to visit the forum often in the future to discover more about what Catholics believe, if nothing more than to promote understanding between the two of us.

St. James, St. Francis, and Mary Our Mother, pray for us and all who seek Truth!

God bless,

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 29, 2001.

Dear Steven,
Please don't take this as anything else but common sense advice. Forget what I said to you before. If I understand your Jan 29 reply to John Gecik, you use the argument that ''Christ's Church is the Body of Christ, comprised of all redeemed believers, i.e., not the Catholic Church''. A truthful (unerring) Church does exist; but not necessarily of Catholic persuasion?

Is that not side-stepping John's very premise --the Church must have UNITY to be Christ's Church?

If all the believer has to do is form his/her private judgment (Sola Scr) and becomes therein a redeemed member of the Body of Christ-- what about the one who falls into grave error? By your logic, he is also saved without any claims to unity with anyone else! You have failed to consider John's very point. Please return to his statement, read it again, and you'll see that only the Catholic Church has ever exhibited unity. All Sola Scriptura has resulted in is a wholesale shattering of the unity of all ''redeemed believers'' !

Mind you, the Catholic Church's unity has not been at the expense of Christ's commands and teachings. Many protestant persuasions have abandoned forever any belief in His Resurrection, in His Divinity, and even His historical existence! All from their distortions of Holy Scripture. But the Church of Rome continues to teach what it taught in the beginning: Christ's Divine Truth. /

God bless you Steven, and bring you at last-- back into the Church of all your ancestors. Some of whom most surely gave their own lives for the Faith! Therefore the answer to your question is that it cannot be answered by me or by any man or institution definatively because there is so much contrary evidence on both sides of the fence.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 29, 2001.

Ed,

You write well, with conviction and sincerity. I also perceive from your writings that you are a gentle man, who loves God but also who loves a system. Let me say just briefly, because I really don't have time for lengthy replies, that I have examined the Catholic faith over several years and have come to the conclusion that it is at odds with the Bible in many areas. This is why I believe the reformation took place. The gradual slide away from many of it's early teachings into some totally different doctrine. The elevation of Mary for example.

I have also examined many of the Protestant faiths such as the Baptists and find that by and large I agree with most of what they preach but I don't agree with some of their add on's or stipulations etc. that don't appear in the Bible.

I am not trying to convert anyone. If you wish to be a Catholic then good on you. I would defend to the death your right to choose how you approach God. I am a New Zealander and like Americans and people from other free nations, absolutely believe and insist upon freedom of choice. Let's leave it at that.

-- steven davis (sdavis@ihug.co.nz), January 29, 2001.

Thank you, Steven and good luck!
Another one declines the offer. In a foregoing post ''truth detector'' was making much, as well, of the Church's ''deviating'' from Bible truth, in giving Mary more than she was worthy of!

''. . . Others -- had similar results in gaining God's favor and answers to prayer. what Mary did at cana is not unique in scripture and can in no way be used to justify elevating her above the the other saints. ''[I've copied/pasted his words] The truth detector (?) can't understand Catholics' interpreting the Marriage Feast at Caana in a way that''elevates'' her above other Christians. Mary wasn't elevated, I suppose, when the Archangel called her ''Full of Grace.''? Her importance was purely utilitarian, becoming ''the handmaid of the Lord'', and because ''All generations'' have called her ''Blessed''? Yes. In fact, the Bible has never said we should love Mary! Therefore, if we love Mary, we've done contrary to Bible teaching! I have to ask: How can a ''truth detector'' not come to terms with the truth that private judgment of Scripture is not feasible outside Church authority; and never was required of any Christian? The Church is the infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture. Detect yourself, Mr. Detector! Pride is the problem. Lucifer once cried, ''Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!''

Mary concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee! Pray for this forum, beloved apostle St.James! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 29, 2001.

Steven:

I share with you many common interests. I share a love of God with you. I share a love of freedom with you, but only to a point. Did you know that freedom has a price? Freedom is very much misunderstood. Freedom is not doing what you want to do. That's not freedom, if that's what you've been told, that's a lie! Freedom is doing what you “ought” to do. As “free” Christians we have obligations to one another. As lovers of Christ, we are all called to holiness. The primary purpose of all Christians is to someday be united with our Creator. But, it doesn’t end there. By virtue of our Christian baptism, by virtue of our love for Jesus, we are all called to the love and service of others. Jesus said, “I have come to serve!” If we are to be imitators of Christ, we cannot each go our separate ways taking our own paths to immortality, independent of one another. We are community by virtue of the Blood of the Lamb that was shed on the Cross for all. This is our destiny. We share a common purpose. To love and serve others is to love Christ, to be one in him. When you love someone you desire the highest and best for the sake of the beloved. The highest and best for anyone is Heaven. Jesus doesn’t want any half-hearted lovers for His spouses. We are to give ourselves freely and totally, without counting the cost, as He did. Freely we have received and freely we are to give! We have an obligation to seek out the Truth and act according to the way Jesus would have us act. If we can do that then we can begin to experience real freedom. Steven, I respect your right not to accept what I say, but you will have to respect my right to continue to try and convince you, for this is my obligation as a “free” Christian. I won't discuss some of the other points you raise in your most recent post. From your writing I can see that due to the time constraints you have, it wouldn't be fair to you. They can wait for another day. May God bless you and keep you Steven, and may He make His light to shine upon you!

St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, watch over Steven and his family, show them the responsibilities that come with the freedom of knowing Jesus Christ and, pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 29, 2001.

Hi Ed,

I like alot of what you just said to Steven. About Freedom.

The Freedom that we as "true believers" have in Jesus Christ, is freedom from sin. When Jesus gave up His life and took onto Himself all of our sins. He paid the price for us.He purchased us.

Jesus came to serve, not be served. When we accept Him as our Lord, we belong to Him. We become His servants and are to serve others. With Jesus dwelling in us, we can be sinless - through Him. Without Him we will always sin again.

There's a wonderful song...." Freedoms Never Free " By: Phillips,Craig & Dean ( three Christian Pastors) It's on a CD titled "Restoration".

These are the words:

Standing on a hillside/ Where the river meets the sea/ White crosses without number/ Line the fields of peace/ Each one a silent witness/ Staring back at me. Every cross a story/ Of another place in time/ Where young men thought it worthy/ To give their life for mine/ And for the sake of honor/ Left their dreams behind. And for the price they paid/ I'm forever in their debt/ Their memory will not die/ Cause I will not forget: I will stand/ and hold my head up high/ I will dedicate my life/ To the glory of the ones who had to die/ I will live/ Live what I believe/ For if no one else but me/ I will remember/ That freedoms never free. It was on another hillside/ Outside the city gates/ Battle lines were drawn/ As soldiers took their place/ The Father watched in silence as a cross was raised. With freedom drawing closer/ He took His final breath/ He drank our cup of guilt/ And took the sting from death/ Heavens finest soldier clothed in human flesh. And for the price He paid/ I'm forever in His debt/ The cross will never die/ 'Cause I will not forget. I will walk free/ I will stay free/ I will live free/ I will die free.

In Christ,

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Susan:

It's good to see that we share common ground. Let us build on this with honest and open dialogue and maybe one day we will all be of one true faith.

St. James and Mary, Mother of God, pray for us that we may appreciate, honour and respect the opinions of others while holding steadfast to those principles Jesus gave us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 29, 2001.

Bump!

-- Mary (mary@intercession.com), February 26, 2003.

Mary what a fantastic thread to bump! Ive read many of the old threads but this one is a beaut! Eugene, JFG and Ed have posted some truely great insights here, the old boys were on fire! I hope some of our protestant friends have a read.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 26, 2003.

Thanks, Mary!

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 26, 2003.