I recently went to a funeral mass for a friend who was catholic. Actually, he never professed to be much of a catholic and certaintly not a born-again, blood bought Christian. Yet the priest said he was now 'with God.' Almost as bad, friends got up and gave eulogies in which they told off-color jokes.

-- Joe Thornton (mrprotestant97@yahoo.com), December 24, 2003

Answers

The jokes we do not condone. In today's ''eulogies'', we are often subjected to a lot of banalities; just forget them.

As for ''blood-bought'' you're mouthing a banality yourself. ''Born again'' is simply baptised, FYI; and why you wonder or not who is ''blood-bought'', I wish I knew. You are either in the Church or you aren't. The man whose funeral you attended clearly was in the Church, sinner though he may have been.

If his sins were forgiven before he left this life, God will accept him for the sake of His Divine Son. But we aren't in a position to judge. His confessor will have absolved him; and God is always there to forgive him if he truly repents. What sinner could ask for more?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 24, 2003.

He seldom went to church and I think never to confession. How can the priest say that a person who was not born again is "with God" after death.

Of course, I make no opinion on the state of this man's soul.

-- Joe Thornton (mrprotestant97@yahoo.com), December 24, 2003.

Uh, when we die we do too meet with God, yes? It's after our meeting that we stay or stray from His presence, yes?

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 24, 2003.

If he was baptised as a child, he was born again. If he did not live in the faith, his salvation was either lost or endangered. We do not know, do we; if he was repentent in the last days of his life? If not, he's damned. Only NOBODY can truly say. If you're without sin, you get to cast the first stone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 24, 2003.

This is a Catholic forum, and Catholics believe Jesus Christ is God; the Second Person of the Trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Three Divine Persons in One Godhead).

As for the man who recently passed away, may the Divine Mercy of Christ merit his salvation, for even whose sins are as scarlet can be forgiven in the unfathomable ocean of Christ's Mercy. May Almighty God have mercy on him, and grant consolation to his loved ones.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna (flower@youknow.com), December 25, 2003.

Mr. Chavez,

I don't know if he repented. But the priest doesn't know either.

-- Joe Thornton (mrprotestant97@yahoo.com), December 26, 2003.

No, the fact is you misinterpret the word of God. Being born again is precisely that sacrament we call BAPTISM. -- Faith is our gift from God, and baptism is essential for that rebirth Saint Paul teaches us in Rom 6 :4, :5 --

''For we were buried with Him by means of BAPTISM into death, in order that, just as Christ has risen from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also may walk in newness of life. Newness of life means a new birth, BORN AGAIN. So, whoever receives baptism is born again. DEFINITELY; this is the teaching of the holy apostles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 26, 2003.

Both of you are grasping at straws. Paul certainly DID refer to baptism as being born again, and the only baptism we've ever known is by water and formulary, ''Father, Son, Holy Spirit''. Do not try to confuse others with your ''spirit'' baptism, it never existed prior to the 16th century. It still doesn't.

''Physical ritual,'' as you would disparage it, is TRUE BAPTISM. There's nothing wrong with ritual, it was instituted by the Son of God Himself. It has come down to us in Christ's own Church. Why would you expect Paul, the apostle of Jesus, to point to any other baptism but the baptism of Christ's holy Church?

If the way the Good Thief was granted salvation, dying together with Jesus on a cross-- is open to question in some way, as opposed to baptism by Christ's Church (being re-born of water & the spirit;) all you have to remember is:

Baptism in the Church (water) and any singular salvation coming personally from Jesus cannot be in conflict or contradictory, --

Both these means proceed from Christ's own power: the Will of God. Jesus is free to give it without intermediaries (Church) as a personal and direct gift. He is AUTHOR and SOURCE of all grace and salvation. Salvation is available only as we have it from HIM. He chooses to grant it to us by way of His Church as the norm. But He personally made exceptions at will, being God. There is no contradiction at all. Christ cannot contradict His own divine Will.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 26, 2003.

We do as the holy apostles taught us. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us in the Church. Not your interpretations of anything. A sacramnet is both the SIGN of an action and the true action of God imparting the grace associated with that sign. Therefore, baptism as the apostles gave it to us is form plus matter. Water, and the words. No other form is adequate. Thanks for trying. Don't say anymore.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

We would worry about it if you had some authority to teach. You don't. Bye!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

The Church's authority is from Jesus Christ, and scripturally documented. You have nothing to call authority. You might as well talk to yourself. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

You have not believed the truth. Therefore, you can't call yourself a true believer. You have no authority whatsoever. You're a practicing heretic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

There's no ''your'' truth; nor is there some truth you believe. There's the truth taught by the apostles. They went out to the world as the Church. The Catholic Church with the Holy Gospel. We must believe the truth THEY taught us; not anybody else's. You don't believe the Gospel taught by the holy apostles. Therefore, you aren't a ''believer''. Skip the explanations. We know what they are, and we know you haven't authority either to interpret the Bible, or teach us from it. When you try to do that, you're merely another false prophet. Ciao-- So sorry!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

We all here are capable of answering you. The answers are plain and simple. It's too bad you won't accept them but they're true nevertheless.

Since you haven't any authority, (and obviously would show the authority if you had some,) all I can say is I'm sorry. The answers will not change. You're trying very hard for nothing, I'm afraid. Happy New Year!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

OK; I feel bad for you. You are content with LEAD, and you could have had GOLD. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

Faith,

Authority rests with the holder of the keys to the kingdom, from whom you have separated yourself. Your "ease at biblical understanding" is frankly ludicrous - just like the "ease at biblical understanding" which every other Protestant sect claims for itself. Unfortunately, each sect's "understanding" conflicts with every other sect's "understanding", since none of them has any authority to interpret the Word of God. Don't worry, Catholics know who Christ came for. The Catholic Church taught the fullness of the Good News of Jesus Christ for more than 1,500 years, in unity and in truth, before your unauthorized, manmade semi-Christian sect was founded, and will continue to do so until the end of time, just as the Bible states. Any truth you possess is already present in Catholic teaching, for that's where you got it. And anything you believe that contradicts Catholic teaching is, by definition, untruth. You have nothing to offer here. Christians trapped in denominational religion, like yourself, are welcome here if they are seeking to learn or discuss the fullness of truth as taught by the Catholic Church. However, your feeble attempts at prosyletizing are not welcome here. Please refrain from such postings or I will have no choice but to ban you from the forum.

Moderator

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2003.

You are simply too full of yourself, ''faith''. To call a Catholic pompous because his faith is unwavering. Of all the lame premises: ''since you use Matthew to support your position. why can't others recognize that you may be misinterpreting it?''

Catholics know the church in more ways than by Matthew's gospel. You pretend to know a better interpretation of Matthew (it isn't) and think a catholic won't be able to defend the church?

The church is an historical presence and has a great wealth of historic documents all substantiating what the bible shows. The true doctrines of Christ's holy Church. Her Popes are the necessary touchstones of authentic descent from the apostles. Not just one chapter in the Bible. (A chapter you conveniently disown altogether, because to acknowledge what it truly reveals is to confess the Catholic faith is divine truth.) We know historically a line of descent from Peter to our present Pope is documented and unbroken. No other church can claim this. In addition we can name countless saints and martyrs who testified with their blood to the true faith. Their martyrdom is proof of Christ's grace abiding within the Church from the start. He prophesied their sufferings as His holy disciples. They all died faithful to Him in the Catholic faith. But we don't glory in their earthly accomplishments. We glory in the truth which all of them were so certain of that not even death could shake that faith.

You presume to tell Paul: ''why can't others recognize that you may be misinterpreting it?''--

Others like YOU ? YOU won't ''recognise'' error coming from the Catholic Church, because to do so you'd need first to HAVE truth in your possession. What you have is total ignorance, not truth. As I said in that analogy: what you possess is base metal; lead. How will your metal ever be what pure GOLD is ? ? ? You have no currency. Jesus Christ gave the truth to the very Church you're vainly opposed to. In order for you & your church to throw the Catholic faith away, you have to reject the truth.

This is why I had to tell you you are NOT a true believer. You believe false doctrines. What you call true isn't the teaching of Christ's apostles; so it's easy for us to reject your claims. The proper reading of scriptures also gives us easy rebuttals of your unwise beliefs.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 27, 2003.

"Let me ask you this Paul..... What convinces you that your Church has the authority it claims?"

A: The Word of God

"If your answer is the Scriptures--and it necessarily is, since you use Matthew to support your position...why can't others recognize that you may be misinterpreting it?"

A: It isn't a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of recognizing the historical fact that the Catholic Church and it alone can demonstrate historically that it is the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, and therefore the Church which has the power of binding and loosing and the guarantee of true teaching, whose human head alone holds the keys to the kingdom. "I" cannot be misinterpreting the scriptures for one simple reason - "I" don't even try to interpret the scriptures. If I did, my personal interpretations wouldn't be worth any more than yours. The guarantee of true teaching (which includes true scriptural interpretation) belongs to the Magisterium of His Church. That's why His Church remains unified and strong after 2,000 years, while your manmade tradition continues its ongoing process of fragmentation into more and more conflicting denominations. Get your own house in order, then come back and speak to the pillar and foundation of truth.

"I think I am a good debater and I feel that I am respectful".

A: Being "a good debater" necessitates having somthing worth debating. No debater, however talented, can make a worthwhile case if the position they are proposing is that the sun orbits the earth. That's the position you are in. You may or may not possess debating skills, but your positions are so clearly fallacious that nothing you could possibly say about them could make them sound credible to people who actually know the truth. And your futile attempts to do so are simply annoyances to people who would like to be able to have meaningful discussions on real issues. So, why bother?

"If you want to ban me, that is your choice, but I won't abandon my faith and pretend to believe something I don't--just so to be aloud to continue to post here."

A: I wouldn't expect you to. Which is why I suggested the obvious alternative - posting your pseudochristian ideas on sites where someone might take them seriously. Of course, you wouldn't find much greater acceptance on a Protestant site either, since Protestants, using exactly the same means of defining "truth" that you use, can't agree with one another on a single point of doctrinal belief.

"How boring a place would this be if everyone just patted each other on the back in agreement. I shouldn't be a threat to you, and we should be able to find some common ground."

A: You are not a threat, just an annoyance. The only common ground we have is those Catholic truths which your human founders did not reject. Thank God for those, or you could not be considered Christian in any sense. However, your many heretical beliefs, based on nothing more than private guesses about the possible meanings of Catholic writings, really have no place here. Go and debate them with other denominational Christians whose private guesses clash with yours. Test your "debating skills" there. The teaching of the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men remains solid, unified, complete, pure and true, with an absolute guarantee of divine guidance until the end of time. You are simply out of your league.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Now that last paragraph and sentence... that's one attitude that you're going to have to avoid if you wish to be something of an influence upon the poster "Faith" and an effective representative of the Catholic Faith.

Remember, God owes us nothing as we deserve nothing, and all our genuine insights come from the direction of His mercy only. The minute we wield them to our own benefit, we will lose possession of them.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 28, 2003.

Faith insists:''I consider the Word of God my authority--where as you do not, even though the Word of God was your answer to my question.

''Because the Word of God tells us all that we need to know, but you seem to need man-made documents and other men's opinions to determine for you what to believe., I would say that the Bible is secondary to you.''

However: Faith is infatuated with the BOOK; and has passed on the Word of God. What she calls her authority and God's Word, and ''all that's necessary'' is only her version of it.

Which means, Faith hasn't heard the Word of God. She believes in the SHAM WORD, a denial of God's Holy Word. Faith can't even see this; since there's no impartial judge who can change her mind or correct her. In other words, no Church. She has only that abridged Bible and pride in her natural ability.

An ability that till now was never challenged. We challenge it; and doing so, drive her to say, ''the Bible is secondary to you.''

No, Faith; your sham Bible wisdom is what is secondary; and in fact totally false. So full of pride in this error is Faith, she even wonders why no one cares to dispute with her now. Nobody's impressed by her ''career'' choice; to convert Catholics. She delights in preaching to us and supposedly wants us to be delighted with her wisdom. But, with no intent to hurt Faith's feelings or rob her of her self-respect; --She's boring. Her idea of the truth is hollow-sounding and just anti-Catholic. No more, no less.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

''You are believing your version-- or, should I say, someone's version. What or who makes your version better?''

Good question. If I answer it, you'll just continue in your denial. BUT, LET'S TRY: The ''someone'' whose version Catholics believe; of proper meanings of the scriptures, is above all the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent by Christ to be with His CHURCH. That is, with the Church He founded upon Peter.

The ''version'' then, is the APOSTLE'S version of all that is written; not to be confused with the dishonest interpretive spin put on scripture by --ANTI-CATHOLICS!

Who are these? The ''reformers'' first, and then the offshoots of their heresy, who split up into diverse opposed sects calling themselves ''Christians''. They called themselves that to claim a distinction from Catholics, the historic Christian community from antiquity. They deny that Catholics are the original Christians, and are all true Christians to this day. But they are. They will be until Christ their Lord returns one day to judge the living and the dead.

There is the reason our ''version'' or interpretation of the scriptures is ''better''. It must be better, since it's true, and without human error. When the truth is guarded and held in the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ's true Church, it can have no rival version. No other ''truth'' to mislead the faithful.

You are not among the faithful, even if you call yourself ''faith''. So, the Holy Spirit does not guard you from reading gross error into your biblical interpretation. You interpret the Holy Bible NOT to find the whole truth; but to contradict another faith, the faith of the holy apostles. You cannot permit yourselves the liberty of an HONEST interpretation, because to do so is to fall back into the Church Christ promised Himself to until the end of the world. You must DENY that Church, so by necessity you deny the obvous messages of the scriptures and invent new ones to suit your lost faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

Your claim of "circular logic" is an incorrect one, Faith. For you to keep bringing it up is proof that you have never been reading carefully here in the past.

One last time, I am going to repeat for you what I and others have told you before, when you apparently weren't "listening." If you don't get it this time, and if you continue to proselytize, you will really need to leave the forum -- voluntarily or forcibly.

Up above, you stated (with my bolding added), What convinces you that your Church has the authority it claims? If your answer is the Scriptures -- and it necessarily is, since you use Matthew to support your position... why can't others recognize that you may be misinterpreting it? In other words ... your supposed claim to authority comes to you from man's interpretation just the same as mine does."

The problem, Faith, is that, because you turn only to Scriptures for religious truth, you assume that we do too. WRONG!!! What I put in bold type is an incorrect assumption on your part. Our "answer" is not "necessarily" "the Scriptures."

We know that the Church has authority, but not merely because the Bible says it does, and not merely because of some personal interpretation of the Bible that we may have. We know first of the Church's authority in a different way.

Earlier, you asked, What convinces you that your Church has the authority it claims?
The response you got was, "The Word of God."
You then assumed that the person responding was referring to the Bible. You were wrong!

The "Word of God" is Jesus Christ.

The "Word of God" is also the way in which the Incarnate Word chose to deliver the truth from God to man -- first by word of mouth.

Immediately after the Ascension of Jesus, the "Word of God" on Earth was the teaching of Jesus, as communicated to mankind by spoken teaching. After a couple of decades had passed, parts of this spoken "Word of God" -- i.e., many of its key elements -- were written down in documents that survive today as the books of the New Testament.

But a major part of Jesus's spoken teaching -- the "deposit of the faith" relayed by the Apostles -- was not written down in the books that much later were gathered together as the N.T.. And within the unwritten part of the "Word of God" (the deposit of the Christian faith) are various truths that you, Faith, fail to know or recognize.

Since you look only to the written portion of the Word of God, you and all other Protestants are in a terribly disadvantaged condition -- especially in some major ways:

1. A portion of the spoken Word of God that was not written down by the Apostles contains whole truths that you are missing from your personal creed. (An example is the need to pray for the souls of the dead that have not yet reached Heaven.) Since you go by "Bible only," you don't have all of the truths revealed by God, so you are impoverished in your partial Christianity. But the Catholic Church has all the truths revealed by God.

2. A portion of the spoken Word of God that was not written down by the Apostles tells Christians how we are to worship God until the end of time -- presenting anew to the Father in Heaven the merits of the one Sacrifice of His Son on Calvary. You don't have the Mass, so you lack the way of worshiping that God revealed he wanted all Christians to use.

2. A portion of the spoken Word of God that was not written down by the Apostles provides Catholics with the proper understanding of the passages in the written Word of God. It was impossible for the Apostles to write down all of what Jesus had revealed to them. There was too much! Even what was written down was extremely slow and expensive to copy. Not only that, but they could not provide a detailed, written commentary on what they had written down -- explaining permissible meanings, etc..

Who, then, preserved that part of Jesus's revelation that was not written down?
Who, then, has always had a "living memory" of the way in which Jesus revealed we should worship?
Who, then, preserved the only completely authentic, totally dependable, infallible interpretations of what was written down by the Apostles?

I'll give you one guess ... Right! The Catholic Church -- the Body of Christ -- against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Our faith tells us that God created man, that God is perfectly good and loving, and would thus have revealed himself to man. History tells that Jesus worked miracles, rose from the dead, and founded only one Church, the Catholic Church. So, it stands to reason that God would have revealed the truth to the Church through Jesus, his Son, and so he did, as history again shows us. It also stands to reason that a good God would not have left man with a Church that could disintegrate and start to teach errors. It follows that the Church Jesus founded is incapable of teaching error.

So, I repeat, there is no "circular logic" involved. We don't look to the Bible to prove the existence and reliability of Jesus's Church. The Catholic Church herself produced the New Testament and "canonized" the Old. So, we look to the Catholic Church to explain the Bible and teach us what it does not contain (but which Jesus taught the Apostles), to teach us the meaning of what it does contain, and to teach us how we are to worship God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 28, 2003.

Faith:
You said, '' I understand Christ's Church to be very different than you think. The Holy Spirit was given to believers at the moment that they receive Jesus Christ into their hearts...........read what happened at Pentecost.........''

You understand incorrectly. It's not ''what I think' or what anybody ''thinks''. It's revealed by God, and only to the Church Christ clearly founded to last for the ages. Not to any book, necessarily. The Bible doesn't contain any instruction about reading for yourself what is God's Will. It is in fact the CHURCH to whom the Bible leads men of good will.

As to your saying, ''The Holy Spirit was given to believers at the moment that they receive Jesus Christ into their hearts,'' --that's not scriptural nor is it any description of YOUR heart. Your heart has assimilated errors invented by men. Since you accept erroneous doctrines from a heretical source, you are wrong to think the Holy Spirit guides you. WHY? You aren't a true believer! What you believe is tainted by the evil indoctrination of precisely those who opposed themselves to Christ's Holy Church. You've had a corrupt faith induced upon you. Not just Bible teachings that fail altogether; but adamant opposition to the truth given mankind by Christ's apostles.

In sum, everything you believe is false. Particularly the notion you belong to a real Church. You are one of Christ's lost sheep. SO-- Correction: You have no Holy Spirit. Nor are you a true believer. Let us charitably say in your behalf; You are in ignorance and don't realise it. --Ciao, and God have mercy on you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

I know you'll argue till the cows come home ''faith''. It makes no difference. Call me a ranter; I've given you the message and you can't say you aren't forewarned.

And repeating once again: I feel bad for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

I feel sorry for you, ''faith''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

"I am sorry...but the Word of God is Jesus Christ and the spoken word as recorded in the Scriptures... We read in John that if every thing that Jesus ever said was recorded there wouldn't be enough room to house all the books -- but that everything needed to be understood *is* recorded that we may know all that is necessary. This unequivocally means that if it isn't recorded--it isn't necessary."

Faith, you have just proved once again that you lack the ability to interpret scripture accurately!

The only good thing about your post to me (which I just copied in full) is that, by not accusing me of "circular logic," you realize that I do make my point by valid argumentation, not by fallacy. I do show that the Church is the only authoritative interpreter of the Bible, but without resorting to the Bible for evidence of that fact.

Unfortunately, though, you failed to grasp all the implications of what I explained to you -- and you fell back on your own fallacious methods. You paraphrased St. John and tossed in another paraphrase from somewhere, mixed it in your mental blender of private and unguided interpretation, and came out with ... a useless product: "This unequivocally means that if it isn't recorded -- it isn't necessary."

You have been reminded a thousand times that your private interpretations are no better than any other Protestant's interpretations that contradict yours. How can you possibly expect me to respect your erroneous interpretation, when I have just shown you that mine are based on true authority?

The conclusion you concocted is an embarrassment to you. The written Word of God is not all that is "necessary." It is "sufficient," but not completely "sufficient." Here's what I mean ...

When someone has the Written Word, that Written Word is only "materially" sufficient. That is, it is enough "material" -- enough "stuff" -- from which a person might be able to come to know what is necessary for salvation. But he cannot come to really know what God wants him to know -- fully and without error -- unless the Written Word is taught along with the Oral Word of God BY the authentic teacher, the Catholic Church. Just reading the Written Word -- without the teaching Church communicating the Oral Word too -- results in errors and omissions in your head. That falls far short of what God wants for you.

Some autos manufacturer could deliver to you all the thousands of parts and tools needed to build one of their cars. That would be all that is "materially sufficient" -- as the Bible (or even far less than the Bible) could be enough "material" to help a person toward salvation. But if you don't have an expert teaching you how to use the tools and put the auto parts together, you will probably come up with no car at all. This is analogous to the huge number of non-Christians who do not convert even after reading the Bible. Lacking the expert help with those auto parts and tools, you may, at best, assemble a horrendous piece of junk that can coast downhill for a while -- but it is not going to be the "real thing." It is not going to be a real automobile, any more than your "sola scriptura protestantism" is the "real thing" -- the fullness of the Christian faith that God intended for you to have. Only in the Catholic Church will you ever find the fullness of the truth and the fullness of the means of sanctifying grace that will give you the complete opportunity that God wants you to have to be saved.

"Faith," unless you suddenly turn yourself around in response to what Eugene and I have just told you, it really will be time for you to say "goodbye" to the forum.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 28, 2003.

Faith,
The purpose of having a voice here is so that your views may help or correct others. That's the reason I answer the repeated challenges you come here with. To help you & push you in the right direction.

Your own posts are worth nothing at all. They neither teach us anything new, nor do they correct any teaching of the Church. They can't; they clash with most of them.

Your purpose, then, is not to help or instruct or correct. You're only here to contradict Catholic doctrine. We have to see you as a would-be antagonist of Christs's Church. This is clearly why John says ''turn yourself around in response to what Eugene and I have just told you, or say "goodbye" to the forum.''

What else can a faithful Catholic tell you? You wore out your welcome long ago.

Don't keep coming back with more of your exhibitionism. You are just a heretic; it's been said, and that finishes your claim to our attention. Go in peace!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 28, 2003.

Faith,

I noticed on "the other forum" that you promote a book entitled "A woman rides the beast." I read that book some time ago as a Protestant, and I thought it was a bunch of bunk even then. At any rate, since you are a follower of Anti-Catholic bigot, Dave Hunt, it is clear to me that you came here to try to make "converts" to one of your mis-leaders. Uhhh, John Hagee, come on, that guy is a complete nut case. You follow end-times gurus, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, who are leading countless millions into a doctrine that was only invented in the 1800's, lulling people into a false sense of security wherein only peace and prosperity is promised -- Christianity without tribulation -- IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO Matthew where Christ states "AFTER THAT TRIBULATION you will see the sign of the Son of Man appear." Fellow believers in other countries have been facing tribulation the likes of which we CANNOT EVEN imagine, and yet here we are in America "waiting for our ride to come."

You seem like a nice enough person, and at least you are respectful, but I am afraid you are fighting a loosing battle here. These folks are not only Biblically literate but historically literate as well. You see our faith IS the faith of our fathers. We do not divorce ourselves from our ancestors in the faith to follow the "latest pet doctrine of the day." Our faith is built on the Rock, Jesus Christ and Christ instituted a CHURCH that was authoritative. If you believe scripture as you say you do, then what of "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" not scripture, as you and your friends believe.

Do you really think Christ would institute a Church, but then say "I know it's a long time, guys, but you'll have to wait until the N.T. canon is complete and canonized (say around 397), and then you'll have to wait until the printing presses are invented in the 1500's before you'll understand what truth is? That is patently RIDICULOUS. Christ instituted a Church. He lead that Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. That Church kept records of its bishops, dating all the way back to Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Augustine. Even secular historians record the organic growth of the apostolic Church and behold she is CATHOLIC.

How does Protestantism answer Christ's prayer that "they all be one"? How does Protestantism fullfill St. Paul's admonition NOT to divide and create schism found in Corinthians? Where in all of scripture, ANYWHERE, do you see Christ giving authority to every man to create his own church based on his own interpretations of scripture? Where? Where does scripture give directions for forming a denomination, with Presidents, board of directors? Where does Christ give authority to a congregation to oust a pastor if he doesn't live up to its expectation?

You see, Faith, your belief system has many many problems. I'm sure you have good motives "saving us Catholics from the fiery darts of hell," but you do not understand scripture as well as you think you do. Because there are NO SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS for the questions I posed, unless you think that you can contort them, twist them, disect them into your own image.

Respectfully (and in love)

Gail

P.S. Oh, and as to Dave Hunt's "Woman," it hardly seems likely that the Anti-Christ would be at the helm of an institution that proclaims Jesus Christ as the only Lord, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ was crucified, died and buried, that Jesus Christ rose on the third day in fullfillment of scripture." I would think the Anti-Christ would have a hard time making that confession, wouldn't you?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Stop lying, Faith. You are not "open to" anything. You are here to ridicule Catholicism and to preach a false "gospel." You are totally closed to learning anything from anyone here -- which is why you must go, voluntarily or forcibly.

I explained to you months ago that the Greek grammar shows that the "pillar and foundation of the truth" can only be the Church. How can you lie and bring up the contrary as a possibility again? You show yourself totally unworthy of conversing with people here by your dishonesty.

Then you say, "But even if the literary writing requires that it is the church -- I still see no reason to assume that that church is the ... Catholic Church." In saying this, you lie again, because you know perfectly well that there was no other Church that St. Paul could have meant. The Catholic Church was the only one in existence.

Then you say, "Has the Catholic theologian attempted to understand Revelation yet? Or are they still of the notion that it can't be understood because of all the symbolism and that we shouldn't even try?" In saying this, you are dishonest again, because you know perfectly well that a Catholic wrote Revelation and that the Fathers of the Church -- and many Catholic scholars since then -- have studied and written at length about the symbolism in Revelation. You have even seen the titles and Catholic authors of recent books on Revelation here recently.

Then you say, "I was raised Catholic." Baloney! If you had truly been raised Catholic, you would not be so horrendously ignorant, and you would never have left the Church. You are either lying totally, or you were given an insufficient upbringing in the Church -- being only "nominally Catholic" -- leaving you vulnerable to the wiles of satan who tempted you to leave the Church.

A few posts back, you wrote to me:
" the Word of God is Jesus Christ and the spoken word as recorded in the Scriptures... We read in John that if every thing that Jesus ever said was recorded there wouldn't be enough room to house all the books -- but that everything needed to be understood *is* recorded that we may know all that is necessary. This unequivocally means that if it isn't recorded -- it isn't necessary."

I then objected to these words of yours by saying:
"You paraphrased St. John and tossed in another paraphrase from somewhere, mixed it in your mental blender of private and unguided interpretation, and came out with ... a useless product: 'This unequivocally means that if it isn't recorded -- it isn't necessary.'"

In response to me, you now have stated this (with your emphasis shown):
"Here is the actual quote I was concentrating on: 'Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these *are* written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have eternal life.' John 20:30-31"

The only way for me to respond is to say ...
"You've got to be kidding!"

You cannot actually mean to be telling us that you take the word, "believing" in a literal, superficial sense only, can you?
Are you that much of a Bible-thumping, red-necked, mindless, Fundamentalist rube?
Do you actually think that all it takes, in order to be saved, is "believing" -- in the sense of a mere mental acceptance of -- the fact that Jesus is divine?

If so, it's no wonder we have been spinning our wheels, wasting our time in trying to talk to you.
If so -- and I think it is so -- you don't even have the most basic truth under your belt. You prove again that you are dangerous when you have the Bible in your hands. You are incapable of interpreting it correctly, so you come up with ludicrous ideas.

But how can even you -- as a sola-scripturist -- know that your verses from St. John don't mean what you are suggesting they mean?
You can know because so many other verses tell you that your salvation depends on much more than merely "believing" that Jesus is the Son of God. The one that comes to my mind first is this:
"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder." (James 2:19)

No, Faith. It takes a heck of a lot more than "head-belief" in Jesus. The problem is that you fail to realize that St. John meant an active "belief" in Jesus -- what St. Paul called the "obedience of faith." We have to put our faith, our "believing" into good action -- which the demons will not do. Then the question becomes, "Well, what must I do to put my believing into good action?" And so on. To understand your verses from John properly ... and then to know how to integrate their meaning into a Christian life, you need the help of the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church.

Anyway, this has been a simple way for me to show you what you have been shown many times before -- that you cannot get along without the only infallible teaching Church (the Catholic Church), because you cannot interpret the Bible correctly on your own. Even on something so simple as this matter of "believing" and its implications, you botched it badly.

God bless you.
John
PS: Proving once again that you are unable to interpret the Bible correctly, you have shown that you don't really understand what the Bereans were doing.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.

Of course, you aren't open to any understanding. That's exactly why we ask you to go in peace. All you want is a platform for your false doctrine. You also keep making patently absurd statements. There's no end to your sophistry.

''And is it not possible that the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth? (Why? because the Church doesn't strike your fancy?) ''But even if the literary writing requires that it is the church--I still see no reason to assume that that church is the Roman Catholic Church.'' NO? And if it WERE? Where would that leave your little mind? High and dry, I'd say. It seems you think all the others ''assume'' it was the Catholic Church; and all were wrong for 2,000 years? While you came along and ''saw no reason to assume'' such was true? It's really EMBARRASSING to see your naked ignorance, Faith. You're hanging on to a failed pretense around here. You don't fool a soul!

''I think that the way Christ's church is kept from dividing is that it is a spiritual and universal body of believers--free from religion.''

There again is pure sophistry unsupported by logic or theology. YOUR churches, the denominations, are certainly NOT kept from dividing; open your eyes. ''YOU THINK'' that the way Christ's Church is kept from dividing is that it is a spiritual and universal body of believers--free from religion,'' But, it's obvious you're wrong. HOW ? ? ?

Because the plain fact is, Christ's holy Church exists in YOUR world, as evident and permanent as any Christian could wish. There is a holy Church saving souls by the millions now for two millennia! The Catholic Church! No matter WHAT ''you think.''

The mere error that you won't recognize her as a historical, visible, and holy Church DOES NOT make some other figment of your imagination the ''invisible'' church! And why should all ''believers'' exist all of a sudden after 2,000 years as a dispersed, invisible, Christian church, with no unity of belief or evidence of holiness?

You show us absolutely nothing HOLY about your faith. It's based on pure speculations and mistaken interpretations of a truncated Bible. Nothing at all holy exists about it, and all your sectarian denominations are VISIBLE. Not ''spiritual'' and INVISIBLE.

Show us ONE single passage in the holy scriptures where it points to an ''invisible'' body of believers. That's ridiculous. You are embarrassing yourself on the Internet, ''Faith''. Another inane statement you make:

''I believe we have the apostolic teachings contained within the Scriptures and I wouldn't rely on tradition or the word of mouth to keep God's message free from error. God didn't trust that either and that is why we have the Bible.''

Well, that means you don't believe the words of Jesus Christ. He said the Holy Spirit would teach His Church all the truth. When Jesus says 'all the truth'', it means WITH NO ERROR. And He never commanded you to study the Bible. But you trust neither in Christ or the Holy Spirit. All you trust is Bible study. ''No thanks, Jesus. Keep Your Holy Spirit and your Church. I'm fine with just this Bible!''

Also- - and you keep on ignoring this: WHO told you Jesus Christ didn't want RELIGION? What great message did you receive from heaven to say Christ's Church would be only a spiritual and universal body of believers ''--free from religion ? ? ? '' What a presumption of yours!

Jesus gave us His HOLY RELIGION in a New Covenant. --How can you continue in such blindness?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 29, 2003.

Hi Faith, You said "I don't necessarily promote any of those books..and actually, they are all a little different in their opinions as to who is this *woman* on the beast, or even as to *who* or *where* mystery Babylon is,"

ANSWER: But you recommended them on another forum.

You said, "In my opinion, God gave us the Bible to be understood. It may take some effort and we may not always like what it means, but it is detrimental to us and to ignore some very important warnings found within the pages of Scripture is probably not smart."

ANSWER: The Church ENCOURAGEES Bible readings, and studies, but does not promote "private interpretation" over the Magisterium of the Church. The Church has authority in matters of faith, given to it by Christ; First to Peter, as the head hauncho of the early church, and then passed down through the Church to this very day. Apostolic Succession is was it is called. Our lineage can be traced directly back to Peter through secular and Church history. (Believe me, I checked!!)

You said, "This is all I do..I study and consider the Bible--with my church, with other theologians and on my own as well. I can't allow the private interpretaion of a group of men from behind closed doors tell me what God is saying. Our study should be open to scrutiny."

ANSWER: Yes, I used to be involved in many Protestant Bible studies, and find they always lead to division, confusion, anger and uncertainty. Why? Because there is no Magisterium, or central authority, to set the record straight. Scripture actually warns us against wrangling over words. And in Peter, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

You said, "Even in the early days, people were of the mind to double- check even what Paul was teaching, to be sure it was true. The Bereans checked the Scritures every day in order to be sure that Paul wasn't teaching something other than what God had revealed in His Word."

ANSWER: Yes, the Bereans were checking O.T. scriptures concerning the prophetic fullfillment of Messiah. And whether or not they checked, and no matter what they thought, St. Paul and St. Peter had "authority" given to them by God. The Apostles were given divine authority and direction in matters of faith. Great for the Bereans, but so what?

You said, "I think the problem stems in our different understanding as to just who is the church. The Scriptures teach that Christ's true church is His body of believers--those who have received Him in faith and believe that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

ANSWER: No you are incorrect. Jesus instituted a visible authoritative Church, one which grievances could be aired and decided. He instituted a Church with the power to forgive or retain sins. (See John, Chapter 20:23). He gave the Shepherd's Mantle to Peter and no one else! He gave the keys to Peter, and no one else! Those keys were passed down from the Church's first leader, Peter, to Clement, and on and on. (I can provide you a list of the succession if you are interested.)

You said," I was raised Catholic and all of my family and most of my older friends are all Catholic. Surely I do not hate Catholics as Eugene would assert, and I am not really anti-Catholic as much as I just prefer the Scriptures."

ANSWER: I am sorry that you were not catechized better as a young person. I don't mean that facetiously but you apparently did not have very good instruction in the faith.

Here's my quote: "Fellow believers in other countries have been facing tribulation the likes of which we CANNOT EVEN imagine, and yet here we are in America "waiting for our ride to come." Then you said, "I am not quite sure what your point here is? Are you saying that because the world is crazy, we can't recognize the signs when they do appear? Jesus Christ tells us what they are for a reason, and I think we will know--without a doubt--when they come... Fortunately for Christ's church--tribulation is designed for unbelievers....."

ANSWER: Matthew 24, beginning at vs. 29: But immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and THEN the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (It really can't be clearer can it?)

Then in Thessalonians we see that Christ will not return until AFTER the AntiChrist appears, which is completely counter to what the Left Behind series teaches. See Thessalonians Chapter 2. (I know people using the Left Behind series as SUNDAY SCHOOL CURRICULUM)

My comments concerning the Christians in other countries, is that they are in "tribulation" NOW and have been for a long long time. It is disgraceful that we fat-and-happy Americans are "looking for a way of escape," lest tribulation reach our front doors, and hence inventing sensational, book-selling doctrines to "tickle the ears."

Then you said, "My Bible reads like this: 'if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' 1 Tim 3:15

ANSWER: That's what my Bible says too. The subject of this sentence, grammatically, is "God's household" which is "the Church of the Living God", the "pillar and foundation of the truth." You see, I don't have to bend the sentence around. I don't have to twist it or churn it. It says what it says, and I have not found one Protestant who can turn it into something it's not.

Then you said, "I still see no reason to assume that that church is the Roman Catholic Church." I certainly would not expect you to "assume" anything.

ANSWER: It took me two years of intense study to finally allow myself to "believe the unbelievable," i.e., that the Catholic Church is who she says she is; i.e., The organic outgrowth of the Church formed at Pentecost. I read the Church Fathers. I read Augustine. I read Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. I read Jerome. I read Athanasius. I read Iraneus. What struck me right in the face when reading these guys was that they were unequivocally, without-a-doubt, CATHOLIC to the core. From the VERY FIRST generation of Christianity right on down the line. The Celebration of the Eucharist was practiced by the VERY FIRST disciples. This was not some goofy doctrine that some pope penned from the Vatican, as I was lead to believe. Faith, the notion of SOLA SCRIPTURA, by Bible alone, has ALWAYS BEEN DEEMED TO BE A MAJOR HERESY BY EVEN THE EARLIEST CHURCH LEADERS! What a shocker that was to my Protestant, sola fide self. I remember literally being speechless at reading what my ancestors in the faith had to say about "scripture alone" as my authority.

You said, "I believe we have the apostolic teachings contained within the Scriptures and I wouldn't rely on tradition or the word of mouth to keep God's message free from error."

ANSWER: Really? Then explain to me what these scriptures mean:

2 Thess, 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thess, Chapt 3 vs, 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (There's tradition in a positive light).

Then you said, "God didn't trust that either and that is why we have the Bible."

ANSWER: But my dear Faith, you do realize that it was Catholic Bishops in 397 A.D. at the councils of Hippo and Carthage who CANONIZED that N.T. that you have? Prior to that the letters of the Apostles, along with numerous other Church Father writings, were being handing around from parish to parish and read at mass. My point is, God LEAD THE BISHOPS TO CANONIZE the right books, just as he has lead the Church into "all the truth," just like He said he would.

So, according to your thinking, you would have to believe that God needed the N.T. because He couldn't trust those darn Bishops. So it was just too dang bad for anyone living before the printing presses were invented to know the truth. Faith, God used the Church to proclaim the gospel faithfully for the past 2,000 years. The Church is the only LIVING INSTITUTION to survive the Middle Ages. It is the oldest LIVING SINGLE INSTITUTION EVER KNOWN TO MAN!

You said, "I think that the way Christ's church is kept from dividing is that it is a spiritual and universal body of believers-- free from religion...."

ANSWER: Faith, come on! No divisions!! It is downright SCANDALOUS how many divisions there are within Protestantism. "I am of Luther." "I am of Wesley" "I am of Calvin" "I am of Kenneth Hagin." St. Paul had something to say about this, didn't he?

Well, I am worn out. I do hope you will spend the time to read through all of this. As to Revelations, most of the Book of Revelations has already been fullfilled once. Some of it may be fullfilled again. I better cut this off now, I'm writing a book. We can talk about Revelations on another thread perhaps.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2003.

"This journey did not lead me back to the Catholic Church."

It will eventually, though, Faith. You seem genuine enough to me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2003.

Hi Faith and HI EMERALD! Long time no talk to!

I'm going to start a continuation of this thread under a new title since this is getting so long. It'll be called Continuation of conversation with Faith! Okay?

See ya there,

Gail

P.S. Faith (aka Susan) God is calling you back into His holy church!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2003.