Apostatized From Rome

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Apostatized From Rome

Post #1

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was unacceptable with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its catechism, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 48 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Life In The Eucharist

Post #2

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Something I wasn't taught in catechism is that the kind of life obtained by
correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, is eternal
life.

†. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

Note the grammatical tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present
tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his
flesh, and correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay
and no waiting period.

The thing is: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life that's impervious to
death, decay, and the aging process.

That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting
Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever
wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to be
perishable; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible.

So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it
again seeing as how eternal life is imperishable-- and seeing as how it's
imperishable, then it's impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23) which
means there should be no danger of someone losing their eternal life
between confessions and/or between doses of Eucharist.

Christ compared himself to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in
the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was
nourishing, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it didn't have any
life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna
couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people
couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily
basis or risk starvation.

In contrast, Christ is far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body
and blood aren't common sustenance, they are life; and the quality of the
life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live
forever-- they don't have to keep eating and drinking his blood over and
over and over again as if it were manna.

Now, as I see it: the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of
Christ's flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain
eternal life; ergo: they risk passing on with only human life; which is a
perishable kind of life that will not survive the Great White Throne event
depicted at Rev 20:10-15.

Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literal or transubstantiated, they are going to have to first
make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ
rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood
(Lev 7:26-27).

So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would have led them
into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the position of the
least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

The words that Christ spoke in that section of John were cryptic. Though his
words look like ordinary language and grammar; they said things that the
human mind would find difficult to unravel.

†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Apostolic Succession

Post #3

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Rome has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all
the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should
never be trusted by serious students of the Holy Bible; because even while
the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing
Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g. Gal
1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19).

Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical
successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In
fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900
years than it is today. I believe the Roman Church to be the end product of
some of those early apostates.


OBJECTION: That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the
apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people
wouldn't follow the apostates.


OBJECTION: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if
there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news
stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and
country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to
designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it
have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Just because those
early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from
proliferating?

Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide
spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown
from just one man in 1820 to approximately 15 million today; and that
figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and
died during the 196 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those 15
million Mormons are those of today, not the past.

Mormonism's belief system incorporates the Holy Bible. In point of fact, the
Mormon Church offers free Bibles to anybody who requests one.

The Watch Tower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one
man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million today; and that figure doesn't
factor in the numbers of Watch Tower Society members who have come and
gone during the 135 years since the movement began. The Society bases its
Christology on the New Testament.

The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that
at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in
power at the same time.

In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two
factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as
the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement
VII as the infallible Head of the Church.

That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI
was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope
Clement VII— called, historically, the Anti-Pope —was succeeded by Pope
Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries,
claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of
the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.

Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially
excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident
was resolved. For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the
Encyclopedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy".

That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more
than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another
faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing
infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection
of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.

What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly
going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so
bitterly divided in the past.


NOTE: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes;
there would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in
conclave. Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than
unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the
minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Rome's Non Savior

Post #4

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
The New Testament Greek noun for "gospel" is euaggelion (yoo-ang-ghel'
ee-on); which means: a good message-- the contents of the message; viz:
good news.

Its complimentary action verb is euaggelizo (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo) which
means: to announce a good message; viz: to announce good news; like this:

†. Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby,
keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to
them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.
But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of great
joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior has
been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord.

Not every Christian religion has a gospel that qualifies as "good news of
great joy". Several announce a version that is neither good nor joyful at all;
but is actually bad news indeed because their message-- although
adequately announcing the reality of Divine retribution --fails to tell of a
guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments
proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God.
Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity,
can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes.

Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world-- including
Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors --prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his
funeral. Let me point out something that should go without saying: if
someone has already gone on to eternal life; is it really necessary to
continue praying for them? Of course not. They'd be home free. The millions
of Catholics left behind would the ones in need of prayer; not Mr. Wojtyla.
But the sad reality is: no Catholic, not even a Pope, knows for sure where
they're going when they cross over to the other side.

If Popes are in danger of missing out on eternal life, then what "great joy"
does news like Rome's gospel have to offer John Q and Jane Doe pew
warmer? None, no joy at all.

So then, truly good news should be exciting and beneficial to everyone who
hears it; regardless of whether they're sinners or saints, Jew or Gentile,
male or female, adult or child, rich or poor, slave or free, smart or dumb,
educated or ignorant, literate or illiterate.

The angel of Luke 2:8-12 announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines
a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- firemen,
cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and
mountain rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing
imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything
about it.

Of what real benefit would the savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if
he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten
Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the
wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent
ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants
it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin
proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God
proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection
from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy? I
think you would have to agree with me that news like that would not only
most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and for ecstatic
happiness.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Patron Saints

Post #5

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
During my years as an active Catholic, I was never actually taught to
worship patron saints; but rather, to look to them for support, guidance,
protection, and comfort; viz: pray to them for providence. Unfortunately,
patron saints compete with God for humanity's affections; which is of course
unacceptable.

†. Deut 6:5 . .You shall love Yhvh your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your might.

†. Mark 12:30 . .You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

"you shall" is neither a suggestion nor an option, no; it's mandatory.

When people pray to celestial beings like departed saints and/or angels for
providence; they're not really loving God with all their heart, all their soul,
all their mind, and with all their strength. No, their loyalties are divided; viz:
they're allotting God a piece of their loyalty, but not 100% of it.

†. Ex 34:14 . .You shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose
name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Webster's defines "jealous" as: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness

A number of other gods vied for humanity's affections in Jacob's day; and
out of all the available options, he selected Yhvh (contingent, in Jacob's
spiritually immature mind, upon Yhvh's reliability as a provider).

†. Gen 28:20-21 . . Jacob then made a vow, saying: If God remains with
me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread
to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house-- Yhvh
shall be my god.

What did Jacob say? Yhvh wasn't his god up to that point? Not necessarily. It
wasn't uncommon in those days for people to communicate with other gods
right along with Yhvh. This practice was later strictly forbidden by the first of
the Ten Commandments.

†. Ex 20:1-3 . . And God spoke all these words: I am Yhvh your god, who
brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other
gods in my sight.

Jacob's uncle Laban was notorious for polytheism. On the one hand, he
recognized Yhvh as a legitimate deity (Gen 24:50, Gen 31:29) while on the
other hand he harbored a collection of patron gods in his home (Gen 31:19,
Gen 31:30). In the ancient Semitic world; patron gods were equivalent to
Catholicism's patron saints-- objects of devotion; venerated as special
guardians, intercessors, protectors, and/or supporters; viz: alternate sources
of providence.

Jacob's vow reflects a personal decision of his own volition to make Yhvh the
sole source of his providence to the exclusion of all the other gods that
people commonly looked to in his day. So Gen 28:20-21 could be
paraphrased to read like this:

"If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am
making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe
to my father’s house-- Yhvh shall be my only patron."

So, although I didn't worship patron saints, nevertheless, I practiced
polytheism just like uncle Laban because of my devotion to God's
competitors rather than narrowing the field down to just the one benefactor
like Jacob did.

That was a very important milestone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle
for John and Jane Doe pew warmer to overcome because most of them feel
far more comfortable looking to after-market providers such as Christ's mom
and departed saints rather than looking to the Holy Bible's God alone for all
their needs.

Q: What about Rev 5:8 where it talks about the prayers of the saints.
Doesn't that indicate they pray for us?

A: Even if Rev 5:8 did indicate that departed saints pray for people down
here on the earth, it doesn't eo ipso indicate it's okay for people on the earth
to reciprocate with prayers either to them or for them.

However, when that passage in Revelation is read with care, it's easily seen
that the prayers in question are not the active prayers of saints; but rather,
archived prayers.

†. Rev 5:8 . . And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the
twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they
were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the
saints.

You see, the bowls in that passage are already full; strongly suggesting that
those particular prayers were prayed in this life; not in the next; and it also
indicates that no new prayers will fit in the bowls because they are already
to capacity.

The details of the prayers in those bowls aren't stated; so it would be purely
conjecture to allege they're intercessory prayers. It's likely the current
prayers of departed saints are for justice and vindication (e.g. Rev 6:10).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Prayer

Post #6

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Christ's believing followers don't pray to his mom because the spirit of God's
son compels them to pray elsewhere.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

Abba is an Aramaic word that means, among other things, dad, daddy, pop,
papa, padre, dada, or father, et al. Abba isn't a formal title; it's a filial
vocative. For example: when I'm out in the garage working, and my son and
his mother are in the kitchen talking about me, the noun "dad" merely tells
my wife who my son is talking about. But when he wants to get my attention
by calling out: Dad! Where are you? Then "dad" is a vocative.

Anyway; what it boils down to is this: the spirit of God's son always compels
Christ's believing followers to call out to his Father, never to his mother, and
the reason for that is actually quite simple. Christ always prays to his
Father; never to his mother; ergo: the Father's children exhibit the very
same behavior because the spirit of Christ compels them to pray like he
does.

That, by the way, is a pretty good litmus test. If somebody is comfortable
praying to Christ's mom, they give away the fact that they lack the spirit of
God's son; which means of course that they have not yet undergone
adoption into His home.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

The Bible says to pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18, Jude 1:20). When people pray
in the Spirit; they pray in accordance with Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15. In other
words: they don't pray to Mary and/or angels and departed saints; no, they
pray to God

Bottom line: God's kin should feel an overwhelming compulsion to pray to
their adoptive Father without their having to be told to. It should come
naturally (so to speak), just as naturally as it came to Jesus. And they
should feel an equally overwhelming revulsion praying to somebody else.

So then, people with a habit of praying to Mary, and/or angels and departed
saints; obviously have neither the spirit of God's son in their heart, nor the
spirit of adoption; and that is very serious condition to be in.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

The Father vs. The Mother

Post #7

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
†. Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
finished, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, just as John
taught his disciples. He said to them: When you pray, say: Mother of God

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or afterlife
human beings; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to afterlife human beings, nor to any deities
other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.

†. Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; him shall you serve, and
by his name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.

Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.

†. Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.

If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix between himself and
humanity, it would certainly be developed in the New Testament because
that would be a really big deal; but it is nowhere even so much as hinted.
Therefore, in accordance with Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30,
conscientious Christians must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's
feelings --regard prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive
to Christ's Father.

In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.

Point being: God has given Christ's believing followers a protocol for
associating with Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His
feelings get hurt when Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and
attempt to circumvent it with ideas of their own.


NOTE: The objection is often made that seeing as how it's okay to ask fellow
Christians on earth to pray for one another, it should be okay to ask those
who have passed on to pray for us.

The argument is based upon Jas 5:16 where it's said; "The fervent prayer of
a righteous person is very powerful."

The logic of the argument states: Who are more righteous than people in
heaven to pray for us?

Well, of course that's just the kind of clever sophistry that Eph 4:11-14
addresses because nowhere in the entire Bible are Christ's believing
followers instructed to attempt contact with folks in the afterlife.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Hailing Mary

Post #8

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
CLAIM: The Hail Mary is a biblical prayer! God gave it to us. It's in the Bible
in black and white.


RESPONSE: Some co-workers of mine who soldiered in Viet Nam during the
decade of the 70's, related to me how they were detailed to go out into the
jungle and tally the number of VC dead so that high command could
evaluate the effectiveness of heavy bombing runs.

The enemy's bodies were often ripped to pieces making the dead difficult to
count; so what the guys did was scrounge up enough body parts to
assemble a John Doe; then they could enter the man they assembled into
the log as a dead soldier. That came to be known as a kick-count.

What Rome has done is cobble up an alleged biblical prayer by piecing
together excerpts of Gabriel's and Elizabeth's dialogue; in effect, scrounging
up a kick-count prayer.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "Hail Mary" is not an in-the-Bible
prayer, but is a developed prayer; and it was developed over a number of
years.

Here's the entire text of the so-called Hail Mary. Words enclosed in brackets
are editorial rather than scriptural.

Hail [Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus].
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

"Hail, the Lord is with thee" was plagiarized from Gabriel's greeting at Luke
1:28 (Douay-Rheims version).

"[Mary] full of grace" is fabricated.

"blessed art thou amongst women" was plagiarized from Elizabeth's greeting
at Luke 1:42 (Douay-Rheims version).

"blessed is the fruit of thy womb" was also plagiarized from Elizabeth's
greeting at Luke 1:42 (Douay-Rheims version).

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our
death. Amen." is stated by the official Catechism of the Council of Trent to
have been fabricated by the Church itself.

Obviously then, portions of the Hail Mary, in its official form, are borrowed
from the Bible; but the body text of the prayer itself, is not actually in the
Bible; but rather, it's a man-made supplication concocted from plagiarized
excerpts of conversations between Christ's mom, Gabriel, and Elizabeth;
with an ending invocation composed entirely from someone's imagination.

It's abnormal to recite rote mantras like the Hail Mary because Christ's
believing followers are commanded to approach heaven with candor.

†. Heb 4:16 . . Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we
may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The Greek word for "boldly" is parrhesia (par-rhay-see'-ah) which means all
out-spokenness, i.e. frankness, bluntness, and/or confidence.

Mantras like the Hail Mary are not what I call forthright, nor blunt, nor out
spoken, nor confident. They're actually not much different than chanting.


NOTE: I cannot imagine anybody talking to their own mother by reciting rote
mantras so how nutsy is it attempting to communicate with Christ's mother
by reciting a rote mantra?

Anyway, as far as prayer to Christ's mother is concerned; it's not even an
option.

†. Jude 1:20 . . Continue to pray as you are directed by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit directs the "you" to pray to their father; rather than to Jesus'
mom.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

The Rosary

Post #9

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
In essence, the beads of a rosary are little more than a string of rote prayers
rather than the candor commanded by Heb 4:16. So then rosaries are in
essence a string of mantras repeated over and over and over again, which is
a clear violation of not only Heb 4:16, but also Christ's God-given
instructions.

†. Matt 6:7-9 . . In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that
they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your
Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

I appeal not only to your reason, but also to your sensibilities. Suppose the
door bell rang one day and when you opened up-- yikes! --it was God
himself in person! Would you welcome God into your home by reading from
a missal and/or chanting a rosary; or would you greet Him as you do real
visitors? Well, the Bible's God is real; so treat Him with the courtesy and
respect that His intelligence deserves if you expect Him to reciprocate and
treat you with courtesy and respect in return.

Do you speak to your friends, your associates, your spouse, your domestic
partner, your significant other, your doctor, your dentist, supermarket
cashiers, or the cops by repeating the same thing over and over again? Of
course not. They would write you off as one in desperate need of therapy if
you did. Then why would anyone think it makes sense to speak to God by
saying the same thing over and over again?

Don't you think He looks upon rote chanters as mental cases when they do
that? Of course He does; who wouldn't? How would you like it if everybody
spoke to you like that? Well, He doesn't like it either. God is far more
intelligent than anybody you could possibly name yet rote chanters are
treating Him like a totem pole. The Bible's God is a king who deserves far
more respect than a US President yet people are speaking to Him like a tape
recorder rather than the ultimate Sovereign that He is.

God forbid that anyone ever treat Christ's father like some sort of sounding
board! Not even Forrest Gump would appreciate being spoken to in rote, and
God's IQ is way higher than Forrest's; so how do you suppose He feels about
being addressed in rote. The Bible's God is a sentient, sensible person; and
we all need to show some respect for His intelligence. I guarantee He will be
most grateful for your regard.

A very serious flaw with rosaries is the number of mantras devoted, not to
God, but to a woman-- Jesus' mom --which is in direct opposition to the
spirit of God's son, and the spirit of adoption.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to
fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba!
Father.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His
son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

God's Hands

Post #10

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
CLAIM: I am a Catholic! Therefore, I am in God's hands.

RESPONSE: I know for a fact that Catholics are NOT in God's hands.

Do you have a God proof, Ten Commandments proof, human-error proof, sin
proof guarantee of 100% safety and rescue from the wrath of God and full
time protection from retribution? No, you don't.

Let me ask you: Is there the slightest possibility that you, as a Roman
Catholic, might go to hell? Is there even the very teensiest possibility that
you as a Roman Catholic might not make it to Heaven? I already know from
the Catechism that your answer is supposed to be YES to both of those
questions or otherwise you would fall within the jurisdiction of a very grave
ecclesiastical curse.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that
he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great
gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema.

In addition, according to the Catechism, CCC 1035, Catholics are just inches
from the worst, because if it should happen that they leave this life with just
one(1) un-absolved mortal sin, they go directly to hell and eternal suffering;
no stop-over in a purgatory. No, their trip is a direct flight. Even if they've
been a faithful Catholic for 49 years, they will miss the boat just as if they
had been a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an atheist. All their years as a faithful
Catholic will be stricken from the record and count for naught.

Since you, as a Catholic, are living day by day in imminent danger of death
and eternal suffering; then I know for a proof positive fact that you are not
in God's hands. How do I know? Well; I know from believing Christ's
testimony as an expert witness in matters related to the afterlife.

†. John 10:27-29 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow
me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take
them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than
all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand.

Not only did Christ say that his own will "never" perish, but he also said that
"no one" is able to pluck them out of either his own hand or out of his
Father's hand. That would certainly preclude the possibility of one of the
sheep taking themselves out of either Christ's or his Father's hand; unless of
course you are arrogant enough to honestly believe that you have enough
strength to overpower God.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

Post Reply