Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 ) wrote at Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council)
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."
Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 AD)
"The Council of Florence (AD 1438-1445)," at: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy).
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins….
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Are there only Catholics in heaven? Popes say yes!
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #51
[font=Verdana]-
Here's Rome's definition of contrition:
"Among the penitent's acts, contrition occupies first place. Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again." (CCC 1451)
The resolve not to sin again is of course a big joke because no natural-born human being has enough self control over themselves to truly honor that kind of a commitment. The so-called Act Of Contrition is just that: an act.
However, resolve is not our concern in this post; but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.
The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used thirty-four times in various places --is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o) which just simply means to think differently, or to reconsider; viz: to change one's mind.
Metanoeo never, ever implies either regret or remorse. Although those emotions may accompany changing one's mind, they are not metanoeo: no, the changing of one's mind is the true metanoeo, with or without remorse (e.g. Matt 21:28-30).
A second New Testament Greek word translated repent/repentance-- used but six times in various places --is metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee); which means to care afterwards; viz: regret.
A useful example of metamellomai is Judas.
â—� Matt 27:3 . . Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders
Although Judas experienced regret for what he did to his friend, it didn't result in his salvation simply because he never did believe in Christ's Messianic claims to begin with; and at this point, hadn't changed his mind about it. Judas simply felt bad about himself for being instrumental in executing an innocent man. But did he go and confess his sin to God seeking forgiveness and absolution? No. He went out and committed suicide instead.
A useful example of metanoeo occurred on the day of Pentecost.
â—� Acts 2:36-41 . . Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.
. . .With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Rescue yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Peter's sermon succeeded in convincing his countrymen to change their opinion about the very man they had so recently consented unto his death; and as a result, they were spared the wrath of God.
So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well; that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your thoughts, words, and deeds are evil (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10).
It's important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their bad. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.
/[/font]
Here's Rome's definition of contrition:
"Among the penitent's acts, contrition occupies first place. Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again." (CCC 1451)
The resolve not to sin again is of course a big joke because no natural-born human being has enough self control over themselves to truly honor that kind of a commitment. The so-called Act Of Contrition is just that: an act.
However, resolve is not our concern in this post; but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.
The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used thirty-four times in various places --is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o) which just simply means to think differently, or to reconsider; viz: to change one's mind.
Metanoeo never, ever implies either regret or remorse. Although those emotions may accompany changing one's mind, they are not metanoeo: no, the changing of one's mind is the true metanoeo, with or without remorse (e.g. Matt 21:28-30).
A second New Testament Greek word translated repent/repentance-- used but six times in various places --is metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee); which means to care afterwards; viz: regret.
A useful example of metamellomai is Judas.
â—� Matt 27:3 . . Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders
Although Judas experienced regret for what he did to his friend, it didn't result in his salvation simply because he never did believe in Christ's Messianic claims to begin with; and at this point, hadn't changed his mind about it. Judas simply felt bad about himself for being instrumental in executing an innocent man. But did he go and confess his sin to God seeking forgiveness and absolution? No. He went out and committed suicide instead.
A useful example of metanoeo occurred on the day of Pentecost.
â—� Acts 2:36-41 . . Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.
. . .With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Rescue yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Peter's sermon succeeded in convincing his countrymen to change their opinion about the very man they had so recently consented unto his death; and as a result, they were spared the wrath of God.
So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well; that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your thoughts, words, and deeds are evil (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10).
It's important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their bad. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #52
[font=Verdana]-
A key ingredient in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with the Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all
â—� Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Which means that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the recipe of its plan of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being prosecuted as repeat offenders.
â—� Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.
â—� Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key ingredient in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.
â—� Gal 2:21 . . I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
â—� Gal 3:21 . . If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
â—� Gal 5:4 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
â—� Rom 3:20 . . By the works of the Law, no flesh will be justified in His sight
/[/font]
A key ingredient in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with the Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all
â—� Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Which means that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the recipe of its plan of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being prosecuted as repeat offenders.
â—� Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.
â—� Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key ingredient in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.
â—� Gal 2:21 . . I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
â—� Gal 3:21 . . If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
â—� Gal 5:4 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
â—� Rom 3:20 . . By the works of the Law, no flesh will be justified in His sight
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #53
[font=Verdana]-
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage, celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz: in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.
Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement, mortification, and/or devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for sin.
â—� 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.
â—� 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Christ's crucifixion adequately satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.
â—� Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Bottom line: Penance insults the spirit of charity. It says people have to prove they deserve the application of Isa 53:4-6 before God will grant it; and if they fail to prove they deserve it, He puts a lump of coal in their Xmas stocking, so to speak, instead of a goody.
/[/font]
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage, celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz: in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.
Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement, mortification, and/or devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for sin.
â—� 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.
â—� 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Christ's crucifixion adequately satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.
â—� Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Bottom line: Penance insults the spirit of charity. It says people have to prove they deserve the application of Isa 53:4-6 before God will grant it; and if they fail to prove they deserve it, He puts a lump of coal in their Xmas stocking, so to speak, instead of a goody.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #54
[font=Verdana]-
One of the New Testament Greek words for redemption is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis); which means: to ransom in full.
Another is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis); which means: a ransoming.
â—� 1Tim 2:5-6 . . Christ Jesus, who gave himself as ransom for all.
A ransom can be defined as a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something in a captive situation; e.g. an overwhelming debt that a debtor cannot possibly ever pay off, and or slavery from which the slave himself hasn't, nor will ever have, the means with which to buy himself out. For example:
â—� 1Pet 1:18-19 . .You were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.
Speaking for myself; I highly value Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as God's one and only acceptable ransom from an otherwise disagreeable future in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15.
Another not so obvious aspect of Christ's work that I also highly value is liberation from human nature.
â—� Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
No, I cannot change my spots so to speak. Like the leopard; I too am a prisoner, not of a captor, rather, of myself.
Writing about this situation; the apostle Paul said:
â—� Eph 2:1-3 . .You were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest.
The pronouns "us" and "our" and "we" indict the apostle Paul right along with the recipients of his letter.
This implies that even if people were totally forgiven for every sinful word they ever spoke, totally forgiven for every bad thing they ever did, and totally forgiven for every bad thought they ever imagined; they would still be barred access to heaven because of their propensity for evil. The Oxford dictionary defines "propensity" as an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.
Christ's crucifixion and resurrection have made it possible for God to strip away people's human nature and replace it with His own; thus essentially liberating people from themselves.
â—� Col 2:9-11 . . For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
â—� 2Pet 1:3-4 . . His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: Don't even think about attempting to earn and/or otherwise merit this incredible blessing. I can easily guarantee nobody obtains it via that route; not even the Lord's apostles: and if they couldn't, then it goes without saying that lesser saints-- e.g. Mother Teresa --can't obtain it that way either.
â—� Titus 3:3-5 . . Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled by others and became slaves to many wicked desires and evil pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy. We hated others, and they hated us. But then God our savior showed us His kindness and love. He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of His mercy.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Webster's defines a "savior" as one who rescues. We've all seen examples of rescuers-- lifeguards, 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.
/[/font]
One of the New Testament Greek words for redemption is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis); which means: to ransom in full.
Another is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis); which means: a ransoming.
â—� 1Tim 2:5-6 . . Christ Jesus, who gave himself as ransom for all.
A ransom can be defined as a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something in a captive situation; e.g. an overwhelming debt that a debtor cannot possibly ever pay off, and or slavery from which the slave himself hasn't, nor will ever have, the means with which to buy himself out. For example:
â—� 1Pet 1:18-19 . .You were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.
Speaking for myself; I highly value Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as God's one and only acceptable ransom from an otherwise disagreeable future in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15.
Another not so obvious aspect of Christ's work that I also highly value is liberation from human nature.
â—� Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
No, I cannot change my spots so to speak. Like the leopard; I too am a prisoner, not of a captor, rather, of myself.
Writing about this situation; the apostle Paul said:
â—� Eph 2:1-3 . .You were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest.
The pronouns "us" and "our" and "we" indict the apostle Paul right along with the recipients of his letter.
This implies that even if people were totally forgiven for every sinful word they ever spoke, totally forgiven for every bad thing they ever did, and totally forgiven for every bad thought they ever imagined; they would still be barred access to heaven because of their propensity for evil. The Oxford dictionary defines "propensity" as an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.
Christ's crucifixion and resurrection have made it possible for God to strip away people's human nature and replace it with His own; thus essentially liberating people from themselves.
â—� Col 2:9-11 . . For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
â—� 2Pet 1:3-4 . . His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: Don't even think about attempting to earn and/or otherwise merit this incredible blessing. I can easily guarantee nobody obtains it via that route; not even the Lord's apostles: and if they couldn't, then it goes without saying that lesser saints-- e.g. Mother Teresa --can't obtain it that way either.
â—� Titus 3:3-5 . . Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled by others and became slaves to many wicked desires and evil pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy. We hated others, and they hated us. But then God our savior showed us His kindness and love. He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of His mercy.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Webster's defines a "savior" as one who rescues. We've all seen examples of rescuers-- lifeguards, 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.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #55
[font=Verdana]-
â—� John 19:26-27 . .Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Jesus and his mother were both Jews born under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, The covenant obligates Jewish children to care for their parents. Jesus was leaving; and apparently Joseph was somehow out of the picture. So then, since Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, he became the default male head of the house in the absence of the paterfamilias.
There are some Catholics who sincerely believe that Jesus appointed his mom to be the mother of all Christians in that passage. However, those sincere Catholics are overlooking three important details in the narrative: the other women-- the sister of Christ's mom, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). If Jesus had really intended Christians to interpret that passage as Mary's appointment to be the mother of all Christians; then he would've spoken in the plural thusly: "Children behold your mother" and; "Woman behold your children."
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that Jesus really did appoint his mom as the mother of all Christians. Then we have to ask: Why isn't that concept developed in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles? I have yet to find even one sentence written by any of the post Gospel authors pointing to Christ's mother as a caretaker of Christ's sheep, nor as an example for the sheep to emulate-- not one single verse!
Yet the Catechism-- [/font][font=Georgia]CCC[/font][font=Verdana] 966 and [/font][font=Georgia]CCC[/font][font=Verdana] 969 --exalts her to the position of Queen, Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediatrix who is not even one single time in the book of Acts, nor in any of the twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody special. Christ's mom isn't even listed in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely given a passing mention in Acts 1:14; and that's it.
� Gal 3:28-29 …And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Since I believe myself belonging to Christ, then logic and conscience constrain me to accept that I am, in a scriptural way, belonging to Abraham; ergo: if I were to actually have a valid spiritual mother, it would be Abraham's wife Sarah rather than Joseph's wife Mary.
/[/font]
â—� John 19:26-27 . .Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Jesus and his mother were both Jews born under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, The covenant obligates Jewish children to care for their parents. Jesus was leaving; and apparently Joseph was somehow out of the picture. So then, since Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, he became the default male head of the house in the absence of the paterfamilias.
There are some Catholics who sincerely believe that Jesus appointed his mom to be the mother of all Christians in that passage. However, those sincere Catholics are overlooking three important details in the narrative: the other women-- the sister of Christ's mom, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). If Jesus had really intended Christians to interpret that passage as Mary's appointment to be the mother of all Christians; then he would've spoken in the plural thusly: "Children behold your mother" and; "Woman behold your children."
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that Jesus really did appoint his mom as the mother of all Christians. Then we have to ask: Why isn't that concept developed in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles? I have yet to find even one sentence written by any of the post Gospel authors pointing to Christ's mother as a caretaker of Christ's sheep, nor as an example for the sheep to emulate-- not one single verse!
Yet the Catechism-- [/font][font=Georgia]CCC[/font][font=Verdana] 966 and [/font][font=Georgia]CCC[/font][font=Verdana] 969 --exalts her to the position of Queen, Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediatrix who is not even one single time in the book of Acts, nor in any of the twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody special. Christ's mom isn't even listed in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely given a passing mention in Acts 1:14; and that's it.
� Gal 3:28-29 …And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Since I believe myself belonging to Christ, then logic and conscience constrain me to accept that I am, in a scriptural way, belonging to Abraham; ergo: if I were to actually have a valid spiritual mother, it would be Abraham's wife Sarah rather than Joseph's wife Mary.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #56
[font=Verdana]-
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".
â—� Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how it should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam's body included a portion of his flesh, which is notable; here's why.
God constructed Adam's body from the Earth's dust, and then breathed into it the breath of life. He did neither of those two things with Eve. Her body was constructed from Adam's body, and she got her breath of life from his breath of life. In other words: human life is a transferrable kind of life that can be, and is, passed on to succeeding generations.
The result is: none of us are discreet creations; everybody that biologically descends from Adam is just simply more Adam; viz: reproductions, i.e. our body is his body, and our breath of life is his breath of life. This is very important in regards to Jesus Christ's human origin.
There are people, even a number of Christians, who desperately want to biologically disconnect Jesus Christ from Adam; their case relies heavily upon Jesus' virgin conception, which is a losing case seeing as how the flesh and bone of Mary's parents biologically descended from Eve's flesh and bone; and from thence Adam's flesh and bone; ergo: Mary's flesh and bone were Adam's.
Opponents have even attempted to biologically disconnect Christ from Adam by insisting that his conception was an implant, i.e. Mary was Jesus' surrogate mother rather than his biological mother. But that idea is not only a theory concocted right out of thin air and a fertile imagination, but it's also spurious and unbiblical.
â—� Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will." Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus.
â—� Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's seed according to the flesh sans Mary sleeping with a man, she had to be one of David's biological granddaughters or else her child would not have been David's actual progeny, and the angel's announcement would've been untrue.
â—� Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
I can think of no sensible argument that would successfully break Christ's biological lineage to David, nor of one that would successfully break David's biological lineage to Eve.
So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male ancestors; the final one of course being Mary's biological father.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of male flesh and bone; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a woman's flesh and bone.
And seeing as how every woman's flesh and bone descends from Adam's flesh and bone, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from a woman's flesh and bone would essentially be Adam's Y chromosome seeing as how Eve's flesh and bone were Adam's to begin with.
Q: But doesn't 1Cor 15:45-47 say that Christ is a second Adam rather than a reproduction of the first?
A: I'm going to deliberately misquote a portion of that passage so's to bring out a point.
"And so it is written; "The first man Adam was made a living soul"; the last Adam was made a life-giving man."
According to the actual language, the last Adam was made a life-giving spirit rather than a life-giving man. When 1Cor 15:45-47 is considered along with John 1:1-4, it becomes readily apparent that the last Adam was God prior to becoming an h.sapiens.
/[/font]
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. Well; that all depends on how we go about defining "father".
â—� Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;
The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side" which is really how it should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the material taken from Adam's body included a portion of his flesh, which is notable; here's why.
God constructed Adam's body from the Earth's dust, and then breathed into it the breath of life. He did neither of those two things with Eve. Her body was constructed from Adam's body, and she got her breath of life from his breath of life. In other words: human life is a transferrable kind of life that can be, and is, passed on to succeeding generations.
The result is: none of us are discreet creations; everybody that biologically descends from Adam is just simply more Adam; viz: reproductions, i.e. our body is his body, and our breath of life is his breath of life. This is very important in regards to Jesus Christ's human origin.
There are people, even a number of Christians, who desperately want to biologically disconnect Jesus Christ from Adam; their case relies heavily upon Jesus' virgin conception, which is a losing case seeing as how the flesh and bone of Mary's parents biologically descended from Eve's flesh and bone; and from thence Adam's flesh and bone; ergo: Mary's flesh and bone were Adam's.
Opponents have even attempted to biologically disconnect Christ from Adam by insisting that his conception was an implant, i.e. Mary was Jesus' surrogate mother rather than his biological mother. But that idea is not only a theory concocted right out of thin air and a fertile imagination, but it's also spurious and unbiblical.
â—� Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will." Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus.
â—� Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's seed according to the flesh sans Mary sleeping with a man, she had to be one of David's biological granddaughters or else her child would not have been David's actual progeny, and the angel's announcement would've been untrue.
â—� Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
I can think of no sensible argument that would successfully break Christ's biological lineage to David, nor of one that would successfully break David's biological lineage to Eve.
So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male ancestors; the final one of course being Mary's biological father.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of male flesh and bone; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a woman's flesh and bone.
And seeing as how every woman's flesh and bone descends from Adam's flesh and bone, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from a woman's flesh and bone would essentially be Adam's Y chromosome seeing as how Eve's flesh and bone were Adam's to begin with.
Q: But doesn't 1Cor 15:45-47 say that Christ is a second Adam rather than a reproduction of the first?
A: I'm going to deliberately misquote a portion of that passage so's to bring out a point.
"And so it is written; "The first man Adam was made a living soul"; the last Adam was made a life-giving man."
According to the actual language, the last Adam was made a life-giving spirit rather than a life-giving man. When 1Cor 15:45-47 is considered along with John 1:1-4, it becomes readily apparent that the last Adam was God prior to becoming an h.sapiens.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #57
[font=Verdana]-
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny as per Rom 1:1-3-- and thus Adam's --then wouldn't his mom have passed the consequences of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity--regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became culpable-- in real time --including those of his posterity yet to be born.
â—� Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
â—� Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.
However: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only was he Adam's progeny, but Christ was also God's; and I think that most people would agree that divinity is easily able to overcome humanity.
â—� Col 2:9 . . For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
/[/font]
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny as per Rom 1:1-3-- and thus Adam's --then wouldn't his mom have passed the consequences of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity--regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became culpable-- in real time --including those of his posterity yet to be born.
â—� Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
â—� Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.
However: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only was he Adam's progeny, but Christ was also God's; and I think that most people would agree that divinity is easily able to overcome humanity.
â—� Col 2:9 . . For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #58
[font=Verdana]-
â—� 1Cor 1:3 . . Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Although grace is an important element in Christianity; I seriously doubt that John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer have an adequate concept of it. I suspect that quite a few are under the impression that grace is somehow a quantifiable substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to God, grace is an abstract noun that expresses personal qualities apart from substance.
The New Testament Greek word for "grace" is charis (khar'-ece); which means: graciousness.
Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness
Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals
Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality
Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others
Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving
Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.
Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.
Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.
Compassion defines a sympathetic awareness of others' distress, coupled with a desire to alleviate it, i.e. empathy.
The Old Testament Hebrew word for grace is chen (khane); and means pretty much the same as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).
When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good picture of the bright side of God's personality. There's a dark side too; but grace doesn't go there.
/[/font]
â—� 1Cor 1:3 . . Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Although grace is an important element in Christianity; I seriously doubt that John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer have an adequate concept of it. I suspect that quite a few are under the impression that grace is somehow a quantifiable substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to God, grace is an abstract noun that expresses personal qualities apart from substance.
The New Testament Greek word for "grace" is charis (khar'-ece); which means: graciousness.
Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness
Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals
Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality
Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others
Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving
Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.
Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.
Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.
Compassion defines a sympathetic awareness of others' distress, coupled with a desire to alleviate it, i.e. empathy.
The Old Testament Hebrew word for grace is chen (khane); and means pretty much the same as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).
When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good picture of the bright side of God's personality. There's a dark side too; but grace doesn't go there.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #59
[font=Verdana]-
True biblical Christianity is a lethal religion. It quite literally, in some mysterious way that I don't quite understand; satisfies the law of sin and death for Christ's believing followers by reckoning them as joint principals in his crucifixion.
â—� Rom 6:23 . .The wages of sin is death
â—� Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
â—� Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him
â—� Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ
â—� Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died
One of my chronic fears as a Roman Catholic was that something fatal would happen to me in between confessions. Well; you can just imagine my relief at discovering that people crucified with Christ are no longer in danger of condemnation for breaking the Ten Commandments.
â—� Rom 6:11 . . Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
â—� Rom 7:4 . . Do you not know, brothers that you died to the law through the body of Christ
â—� Gal 2:19 . . For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
In quite a few Catholic minds, it is truly believed that a sinner's salvation rests upon the grace of God; but in too many of those very same minds it's also truly believed that it is by the grace of God that they now have a chance to earn their salvation, where before, they had no chance to earn it. In a nutshell; that mentality insists that Christ's crucifixion opened the doors of heaven, but Catholics have to climb their way up to those doors by proving themselves worthy. They will not succeed.
/[/font]
True biblical Christianity is a lethal religion. It quite literally, in some mysterious way that I don't quite understand; satisfies the law of sin and death for Christ's believing followers by reckoning them as joint principals in his crucifixion.
â—� Rom 6:23 . .The wages of sin is death
â—� Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
â—� Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him
â—� Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ
â—� Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died
One of my chronic fears as a Roman Catholic was that something fatal would happen to me in between confessions. Well; you can just imagine my relief at discovering that people crucified with Christ are no longer in danger of condemnation for breaking the Ten Commandments.
â—� Rom 6:11 . . Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
â—� Rom 7:4 . . Do you not know, brothers that you died to the law through the body of Christ
â—� Gal 2:19 . . For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
In quite a few Catholic minds, it is truly believed that a sinner's salvation rests upon the grace of God; but in too many of those very same minds it's also truly believed that it is by the grace of God that they now have a chance to earn their salvation, where before, they had no chance to earn it. In a nutshell; that mentality insists that Christ's crucifixion opened the doors of heaven, but Catholics have to climb their way up to those doors by proving themselves worthy. They will not succeed.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #60
[font=Verdana]-
If anyone should have been on intimate terms with God and with His son Jesus Christ in the last century, surely it had to be Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa) but curiously, that wasn't the case. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being. Below are some complaints she expressed in private letters to spiritual counselors.
"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."
"The place of God in my soul is blank-- There is no God in me"
"I feel He does not want me, He is not there, God does not want me"
"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. How painful is this unknown pain-- I have no faith."
Teresa also complained of feeling abandoned by Christ-- referring to him as "the absent one"
Teresa was never really convinced there's a God out there.
"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not really exist."
At one point Teresa actually prayed thus:
"If there be God; please forgive me."
A prayer that begins with "If there be God" is the prayer of an agnostic; which Webster's defines as one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. According to Jas 1:5-8, agnostic prayers are pings.
To her credit, Teresa wanted a God to be out there, but her utter failure to feel even the slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence prevented her from being sure about it.
Teresa was in a very bad spiritual condition; here's why.
â—� Heb 11:6 . .Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists.
Webster's defines "impossible" as incapable of being, or of occurring.
Webster's defines "must" as an indispensable item; viz: essential.
Ironically, a demon's level of faith is actually superior to Teresa's. At least they believe in the existence of God.
â—� Jas 2:19-20 . . You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe
It's incredible that Teresa operated as a missionary all those years with an iffy belief in the existence of God that didn't even measure up to the quality of a demon's belief.
Teresa's darkness, her interior suffering, her lack of sensible consolation, her spiritual dryness, an apparent absence of God from her life, and, at the same time, a painful longing for Him was virtually perpetual, lasting five decades, from 1947 clear up to the very hour of her death in 1997.
At the urging of Henry D'Souza, the Archbishop of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata), the poor woman finally agreed to an exorcism in the final weeks of her life-- performed by Father Rosario Stroscio --if perchance demons were clouding her mind. Father Stroscio said Mother Teresa appeared dazed and behaving strangely at the time of the exorcism.
Demons clouding Teresa of Calcutta's mind!? That is certainly not a very appealing testimonial to Catholicism's value as a source of light and consolation of God's sensible presence for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer. If someone as remarkable as Mother Teresa failed to get chummy with God and with His son Jesus Christ, what are the odds that commoners will succeed where she could not?
/[/font]
If anyone should have been on intimate terms with God and with His son Jesus Christ in the last century, surely it had to be Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa) but curiously, that wasn't the case. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being. Below are some complaints she expressed in private letters to spiritual counselors.
"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."
"The place of God in my soul is blank-- There is no God in me"
"I feel He does not want me, He is not there, God does not want me"
"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. How painful is this unknown pain-- I have no faith."
Teresa also complained of feeling abandoned by Christ-- referring to him as "the absent one"
Teresa was never really convinced there's a God out there.
"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not really exist."
At one point Teresa actually prayed thus:
"If there be God; please forgive me."
A prayer that begins with "If there be God" is the prayer of an agnostic; which Webster's defines as one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. According to Jas 1:5-8, agnostic prayers are pings.
To her credit, Teresa wanted a God to be out there, but her utter failure to feel even the slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence prevented her from being sure about it.
Teresa was in a very bad spiritual condition; here's why.
â—� Heb 11:6 . .Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists.
Webster's defines "impossible" as incapable of being, or of occurring.
Webster's defines "must" as an indispensable item; viz: essential.
Ironically, a demon's level of faith is actually superior to Teresa's. At least they believe in the existence of God.
â—� Jas 2:19-20 . . You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe
It's incredible that Teresa operated as a missionary all those years with an iffy belief in the existence of God that didn't even measure up to the quality of a demon's belief.
Teresa's darkness, her interior suffering, her lack of sensible consolation, her spiritual dryness, an apparent absence of God from her life, and, at the same time, a painful longing for Him was virtually perpetual, lasting five decades, from 1947 clear up to the very hour of her death in 1997.
At the urging of Henry D'Souza, the Archbishop of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata), the poor woman finally agreed to an exorcism in the final weeks of her life-- performed by Father Rosario Stroscio --if perchance demons were clouding her mind. Father Stroscio said Mother Teresa appeared dazed and behaving strangely at the time of the exorcism.
Demons clouding Teresa of Calcutta's mind!? That is certainly not a very appealing testimonial to Catholicism's value as a source of light and consolation of God's sensible presence for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer. If someone as remarkable as Mother Teresa failed to get chummy with God and with His son Jesus Christ, what are the odds that commoners will succeed where she could not?
/[/font]
