Luther was a piece of work.

[cataracts]

jfree said:

Cat, you need to check your history a bit. Henry started the Anglican church so he could get a divorce, it had nothing to do w/protestants, luther, clavin, etc....

You are blaming protestants because you hate them, dude thats what Hitler did! Zeig heil, you fascist! If you don't want to hear that, you need to use your brain and stopping acting from anger and pride.

Jfree,
You're Protestant and I don't hate you. From your picture I would say that you are physically attractive with a very healthy set of cleveage.

[tits]

trusting on feelings. The sad thing is that all of us have feelings that are often hurt.

Cat, you have yet to offer a single thread based on scripture. I have not denied that your church is the Bride of Christ. Rather I have asked you time and again to offer proof.

I will challenge that none of today's denominations meet those qualifications and therefore it cannot be "a church" but rather it has to be the "body of believers". If you want to act stupid, please tell me who saluted the "brothers" in Rome. Romans 16:16.

You will not find Holy Mother the Church, Catholic in any of version of the NT. Does that mean that it is not of Christ?

[cataracts]

tits said:

trusting on feelings. The sad thing is that all of us have feelings that are often hurt.

Cat, you have yet to offer a single thread based on scripture. I have not denied that your church is the Bride of Christ. Rather I have asked you time and again to offer proof.

I will challenge that none of today's denominations meet those qualifications and therefore it cannot be "a church" but rather it has to be the "body of believers". If you want to act stupid, please tell me who saluted the "brothers" in Rome. Romans 16:16.

You will not find Holy Mother the Church, Catholic in any of version of the NT. Does that mean that it is not of Christ?

Tittus,
I thought that the solution to the problem that you have brought up would be self-evident. Evidently it's not. It's only Protestants that verbalize "if it's not in the Bible it's not true". You couldn't be more incorrect. The great body of Tradition found in the Catholic Church's teachings is not necessarily in the Bible. The four Gospels are of paramount importance. The rest of the New Testament is of tremendous importance. The Old Testament unquestionably leads to the coming of Christ. If I were to put a percentage of total revelations given to man by God in the Bible, I would say it's only 50%. The other 50% of God's revelations to man is in the Traditions of the Church. It's only the Protestants that refuse to accept these revelations.

Both the Bible and the Traditions of the Church are all considered the "Traditions of the Church". Scripture is part of our Traditions.
You Protestants have had it wrong for 500 years. When are you going to get it right? How much of God's precious revelations are you going to ignore?

What's really odd about all Protestants is that you don't even respect the Bible. You talk a good talk, but you don't walk the walk. It's amazing about all the New Testament Scriptures that Protestants "don't even see". How many times have I spoken with Fundamentalist that were just screaming to make their point, when they literally don't see the Scripture that proves them incorrect. If there is Scripture that points away from a Protestant point of view, they just slide over it. Yet they are the first to say, "if it's not in the Bible, it's not true".

You have asked me time and time again to prove that our Church is the Bride of Christ. I must have missed most of those requests. However, I will do my best to find the solution in the Tradition of the Church Jesus established on Earth. Don't hand me your Protestant bull crap about it not being in the Bible.

Protestants broke away from the one true Church. Now, somehow, we are supposed to follow the idiotic rules of Protestants to make our point. It will be my pleasure to give you what you ask for, but it won't be with fake Protestant rules of order. I'll give you the truth. If you don't like it, go ask your Protestant reformers for help.

Cataracts

[jfree]

Tittus, don't bother, there is no point, all you will get is anger in response, no reasoning or proofs.

[tits]

I truly respect her opinions and admire her faith. While I would welcome a debate on matters of faith based upon interpretations of actual scriptures, to debate opinions is little more than what led to those terrible wars our Sister cites as facts for hating Protestants. Destruction of each other in the name of God. In fact, many agnostics and atheists today cite the European Christian history against Jew as proof that Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church as hypocrites. Like I mentioned before, her actions are no different than those of the Shia and Sunni Muslims that engage in hate. Both cite the name of Allah, but few actually cite verses from the Qur'an.

Her original post was just a bait to get us involved for it was pure self-inflating statements of beliefs against Luther. While I am no longer a Lutheran, I have to admit that from a pure historical perspective, I still agree with his accusations against the Papacy. What many persons of faith, Catholics as well a Lutherans and Protestants who are too busy to read the bible, build their faith on the words of the Priest, Preacher, and tradition. Many Catholics and Protestants want to believe was that Luther wanted to start his own way just like Jimmy Jones did in California in the 1970s. Luther himself warned against such:

"I pray you leave my name alone, and not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. My doctrine is not mine, I have not been crucified for anyone. Paul would not let any call themselves after Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of God? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions, away with all, and let us call ourselves only Christians, after Him from whom our doctrine comes". Martin Luther, from The Life Of Luther, page 289.

and then this excellent two edged sword article from 1958

"Please do not use my name; do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians . . . The doctrine is not mine; I have not been crucified for anyone . . . Why should I, a miserable bag of worms, give my meaningless name to Christ's children?'' Only later, when Roman Catholics used the term as an insult, did Luther consent to let his name be applied to those who agreed with him.
Time April 1958.

Lutheranism — and Protestantism—came formally into being 16 years before Luther's death with the public reading on June 25, 1530, of the Augsburg Confession. This official summation of the doctrinal position of the Lutherans was drawn up by Philip Melanchthon, Luther's learned temperate friend and brother monk. This statement and two later creedal statements are included in the Book of Concord of 1580 and supply the Lutheran answers to almost every spiritual problem the Christian soul is prone to—Anti-Trinitarianism, humanism, etc..

As I said before, I am tired of giving the Fighting Falcons of this world the ammunition to denounce our faith. Every little back-bitting or public debate stating that one's faith is greater than the other only feeds their distrust. While there are some who claim to be Christians who's faith is clearly in error with the bible, it does little good for those of us of Faith to debate opinions. It would be better to debate book-chapter-verse in context. It has been my experience that all of us have something to learn from the Word if we ask God for guidance and shut-out preconceived ideas. Christ is not found in membership to a church, but in the Word and thereby our Hearts.

Cat here is a link to an electron copy of part of Luther's Small Catechism. Please feel free to tear it apart and debate any or all of it. You may find that we may be in agreement. Then lets to do the same with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Like you, I had to memorize the entire catechism in my youth. The question that took root then and ultimately the challenge that forced me to question my faith was in the "What Does This Mean" statements following the teaching of Christ and the Ten Commandments. While I could understand the foundation for both Catechisms in a time when only the educated few could read and faith and medicine was left to the clergy and papacy, it has little use for most literate persons today. Christ himself warned against relying on the faith of man to find our way.
www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/smallcatechism.pdf Luther's Small Catechism
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catholic Catechism

Cats, please explain Mark 11:12-25, the cursing of the fig tree for having no fruit when it was not the season for figs. This is one of the most frightening statements and stories of the judgment of Christ.

Oh, Cats, it was the Churches of Christ from Galatia that send their greetings to the Romans. Note, if anything, Paul's writings teach us is, that Churches in the first century known by their city and not by anything else. Heck, even Christ referred to the church of a certain city in his conversation with John in Revelation.


One thing that is clear, Cats is set in her ways and that is fine. I still like her and have enjoyed this discussion. It has helped me to dig deeper in the word.

If you want to see a truly heated debate, you should see some of those between my uncles and me over leaving the Lutheran Church. >:(Looking forward to the next debate of faith

[cataracts]

Well Tittus,
Like a typical Protestant that is caught in the corner with no where to go, you changed the subject. It was you that wanted to know "who is the Bride of Christ", and now you switched topics. Let's see: Luther's little catachism and curse of the fig tree. I'm used to the tactics of Protestants that are beginning feel uncomfortable to the logic and reasoning of Roman Catholic teachings.

I'm going to print the proof of who is The Bride of Christ. I don't care if you read it or not. Back step all you want. It was your challenge to me and I have accepted. If you don't have the stomach for the debate, I would understand. If you insist on answering any of my proofs you must then depend on your Protestant training. Good Luck!!

My proof will be in three parts:
1) proof that there is a bride.
2) proof that the bride is a church.
3) proof that that Church is the Catholic Church.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

Proof that there is a bride:

John the Baptist made mention of a bride and bridegroom in the Gospel of John 3:29.

29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.


In the Gospel of Mark 2:19, Jesus refers to Himself as the Bridegroom. In order to have a bridegroom there must be a bride.

19 And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day

Proof that a Church is the bride:

Paul wrote in 2 Cor 11:2.....He speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of His body, as a bride betrothed to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with Him.

2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:26,27. Here the Bride is described as the Church to be presented to Jesus in splendor.

, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish

Below is Homily II of the Augustine's 10 homilies on the Epistle of John. Augustine calls Jesus the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride. For all the Church is Christ's Bride.

Augustine lets it be known that the Church of which he is speaking began in Jerusalem, and that it has filled all the nations. While it has been filling all the nations some branches have been cut off. The heresies and the schismatics. Agustine exhorts us to call these heretical and schismatics to come back into the Church.
A foolish man cannot see the mountain before him but winces at the candle before his eyes.



That "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again the third day." Thou hast it now concerning the Bridegroom, that "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again:" the Bridegroom has been set forth to us. Concerning the Bride, let us see what He saith; that thou, when thou knowest the Bridegroom and the Bride, mayest not without reason come to the marriage. For every celebration is a celebration of marriage: the Church's nuptials are celebrated. The King's Son is about to marry a wife, and that King's Son is Himself a King: and the guests frequenting the marriage are themselves the Bride.

For all the Church is Christ's Bride, of which the beginning and first fruits is the flesh of Christ:



Ye have heard, brethren; hold it fast. Let no man doubt concerning the Church, that it is "throughout all nations:" let no man doubt that it began at Jerusalem, and hath filled all nations. We know the field where the Vine is planted: but when it is grown we know it not, because it has taken up the whole. Whence did it begin? "At Jerusalem." Whither has it come? To "all nations." A few remain: it shall possess all. In the mean time, while it is taking possession of all, it has seemed good to the Husbandman to cut off some unprofitable branches, and they have made heresies and schisms. Let not the branches that are cut off induce you to be cut off: rather exhort ye them that are cut off that they be grafted in again. It is manifest that Christ hath suffered, is risen again, and is ascended into heaven: made manifest also is the Church, because there is "preached in His name repentance and remission of sins throughout all nations." Whence did it begin? "Beginning at Jerusalem." The man hears this; foolish and vain, and (how, shall I express it?) worse than blind! so great a mountain, and he does not see it; a candle set upon a candlestick, and he shuts his eyes against it!

Augustine is not only one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church he is a Saint. He was one of the prime movers in getting the Canon of the Bible published. The very same Canon that the Protestants use. Living at the end of the Third Century and at the beginning of the Fourth Century he is also a Father of our Church. Much of our Holy Tradition comes to us by Augustine. The very same Tradition that Protestants don't recognize as true. Protestants only recognize the Bible as the revelation of God, yet here is a man who was greatly instrumental in putting Bible together and he is also recognized as putting forth God's Holy Tradition which is not enclosed in the covers of the Bible.

There can be no doubt that the Church that Augustine is speaking of in Homily II is indeed the Roman Catholic Church.

Cataracts

[tits]

Well said and well argued.

The bride is describe in various ways. The Matthew 25:1-13 describes it as 10 virgins, 5 who are prepared and 5 who are not. Note, five brides. I don't understand this because of my Western Christian concept of Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. . Question, is the concept of one bride and one groom a Protestant or Catholic or Christian concept? The Levitical Law permitted any man who could afford it to have as many wives as he wanted. Deuteronomy 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. puts some magical limit on the number of wives for the king.

Mark 2 and Luke 5 indicate that the bridegroom has the right of selection of guest for the wedding feast and that we are the guest. I don't understand this, for if, as you and I believe we are members of the "Bride" and we are waiting for the groom to return, then how can Christ himself call us welcome guests?

2 Corn 2 describe us, you and me and all in the "Way" as being virgin brides waiting for the groom. Does this mean that there are millions of millions of churches?

Fortunately Revelations 18,19,21, and 22 tell us that the bride is a singularity the church.

Paul uses the term church 65 times, the majority are references to specific city churches. John recorded Jesus' condemnation of six churches and the praise of one in Revelation.

Cat, I am not arguing that the RCC is not a called out group of faithful believers. I am stating that I am thoroughly convinced that the scriptures, the only true source of God's will and direction for us today, tell us that God added and adds daily such as he would that would be saved. That both versions of the bible Catholic and Protestant contain the same books of the New Testament. That those books have raised Paul and his writings to some of our guiding principles. Paul wrote to individual autonomous churches and met with the "elders", "disciples" and "apostles" in Jerusalem three times for guidance. The book of Acts records a portion, for that is what Acts 2 tells us, "and through many other words did Peter speak." was given the first voice for "The Way". Christ told us in Matthew 16 that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and then turned and called him Satan.

Romans 16: 4-6 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.
Philemon 1:1-3 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sister you can attack me all you want. You can make accusations of wishy-washy argument if that is what helps to support your argument. The truth sister is that you cannot find scriptures to support your position. That is fine, for you can find those scriptures to support your faith. In the end, Christ is seeking those who are seeking him. I applaud your faith and conviction. It has come through study, prayer, and acceptance. It is an honor to be sharing these pages and this discussion with you.

[cataracts]

tits said:

Well said and well argued.

The bride is describe in various ways. The Matthew 25:1-13 describes it as 10 virgins, 5 who are prepared and 5 who are not. Note, five brides. I don't understand this because of my Western Christian concept of Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. . Question, is the concept of one bride and one groom a Protestant or Catholic or Christian concept? The Levitical Law permitted any man who could afford it to have as many wives as he wanted. Deuteronomy 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. puts some magical limit on the number of wives for the king.

Mark 2 and Luke 5 indicate that the bridegroom has the right of selection of guest for the wedding feast and that we are the guest. I don't understand this, for if, as you and I believe we are members of the "Bride" and we are waiting for the groom to return, then how can Christ himself call us welcome guests?

2 Corn 2 describe us, you and me and all in the "Way" as being virgin brides waiting for the groom. Does this mean that there are millions of millions of churches?

Fortunately Revelations 18,19,21, and 22 tell us that the bride is a singularity the church.

Paul uses the term church 65 times, the majority are references to specific city churches. John recorded Jesus' condemnation of six churches and the praise of one in Revelation.

Cat, I am not arguing that the RCC is not a called out group of faithful believers. I am stating that I am thoroughly convinced that the scriptures, the only true source of God's will and direction for us today, tell us that God added and adds daily such as he would that would be saved. That both versions of the bible Catholic and Protestant contain the same books of the New Testament. That those books have raised Paul and his writings to some of our guiding principles. Paul wrote to individual autonomous churches and met with the "elders", "disciples" and "apostles" in Jerusalem three times for guidance. The book of Acts records a portion, for that is what Acts 2 tells us, "and through many other words did Peter speak." was given the first voice for "The Way". Christ told us in Matthew 16 that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and then turned and called him Satan.

Romans 16: 4-6 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.
Philemon 1:1-3 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sister you can attack me all you want. You can make accusations of wishy-washy argument if that is what helps to support your argument. The truth sister is that you cannot find scriptures to support your position. That is fine, for you can find those scriptures to support your faith. In the end, Christ is seeking those who are seeking him. I applaud your faith and conviction. It has come through study, prayer, and acceptance. It is an honor to be sharing these pages and this discussion with you.

Tittus,
Please note that I did go to the Word and that I also went to Tradition that is not in the Bible. Both are true Tradition of Christianity. Both are legitemate and proper.

I'm using the Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible. This version is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate Catholic Bible.

I'm not easily surprised by what Protestants tell me. However, your post did bring a smile to my lips.
The Douey-Rheimes givesd Matthew 25:1-10 thus:

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

Gospel According to Saint Matthew
< prev | Chapter 25 | next >
The parable of the ten virgins and of the talents. The description of the last judgment.

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. 2 And five of them were foolish, and five wise. 3 But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. 5 And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept.

6 And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. 9 The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.

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


Please note Tittus that the ten virgins are not ten brides. They are called 'virgins'. Is it possible for a woman to be a virgin and not a bride?
Please read the first verse again. The virgins went out to meet the Bridegroom and the 'Bride'. If they went out to meet the Bride, then the virgins could not have been brides also.

Is this just another example of how Protestants have messed up their own Bible or are you reading it incorrectly? A proper reading of the proper Bible would have eliminated all of your consternation about what it means to be a bride.

Mark 2:19 says:

19 And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; and then they shall fast in those days.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Scripture says nothing about the bridegroom selecting who will be the guests. Tittus, do you actually talk to other people in such an error filled manner?
For one thing Jesus was making an analogy. Analogies do not have to be 100% accurate. It is enough that an appropriate point is being made and understood.

Same thing with Luke 5. In the Catholic Bible Jesus has actually said "the children of the Bridegroom". How can a bridegroom have children unless he was married previously?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you make the children of the bridegroom fast, whilst the bridegroom is with them? 35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, then shall they fast in those days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the proper understanding has to be made of what is written. Tittus, I think you are relatively intelligent, yet you have made some very basic mistakes. These mistakes are troubling you needlessly. I know that this is a very sore point with Protestants, but you are interpreting Scripture without any authority. Let's face the facts, you have misunderstood Scripture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A given city could have 100 Roman Catholic Churches. However, all these Churches belong to one Church (ie., The Roman Catholic Church.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you claim that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and then 'turned' and called Peter Satan.

Below is the Scripture as it is written in the Douey-Rheims version.

21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. 22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. 23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say anywhere in this book of Scripture about the time between when Peter received the "Keys" and where Jesus calls him Satan? It doesn't specify any amount of time. It could have been 10 minutes, 10 hours, or even 10 days. You use the word 'turned' as if it was done immediately. No where does it say that. Another critical mistake on your part.

One more thing Tittus. I have yet to attack you. I have attacked the things that you have said, especially when they are twisted or unbiblical. But I have never attacked you or Jfree. However, I have been attacked. I have met your attacks and Jfree's attacks and have put them in their proper place. You're not as bad as Jfree.
I want an apology from Jfree!!!

Cataracts

[tits]

Thank you, the virgins were waiting for the bridegroom. By Hebrew law a man could not take a virgin except to be his wife. Also, a woman was to be virgin before the marriage and until their first union. This was the great disgrace that Mary suffered for it appeared to her community that she was not. While we of faith believe in the virgin birth, society has attempted to prove he to be flirtatous little adolescent since the neighbors in Nazareth noticed her buldging stomach. That recent Discovery Channel piece on the tomb of Christ is just the latest example of the insult we must face. It is also the reason that I will not openly denounce Christians and their chruches (except for those who are clearly in error) in public.

Say, did you see The Nativity? Great, great, great film!

Thanks for the compliment, it is all an act. God has granted me many wonderful gifts but intelligent was not one of them.

Yea, the Latin and Protestant speak about the same. The real thrust of the argument that troubles me is not Jesus rebuke of the challenge given by Peter, but its more sinister context.

In every context of possession given in the scripture, the demon and Satan appear to freely come into the person's soul. Christ warned not to leave a cleansed heart unfilled lest that demon would return with seven more sinister. The story of Legion and the hogs is really troubling. The demons asked for permission to enter the hogs lest Christ cast them into oblivion. He gave it, the demons entered the hogs, they directed the hogs to kill themselves, and thereby freeing them to move to their next victim. I look at the other examples, only Christ and His chosen few Apostles and the 70 disciples had the ability to cast out demons on demand in the scriptures. Where did the demon go when cast out?

Combine this with Judas and the last supper and it really really bothers me. Judas dips the bread and Christ gives permission for Satan to re-enter Judas. He then directs Judas or is it Satan to do it quickly. Earlier we are told that Satan had entered Judas when he went to the Priests.

Cat, I know this if off topic, but .... what is the relationship between Satan and us? If he could enter Peter within moments of the Spirit directing Peter to recognize Jesus as the Christ; If Satan has the cohonies to walk right up to God in the midst of his throne-room to challenge Him over Job; If Satan has the chutzpah to enter Peter and Judas in the presence of Jesus, then... What chance do we have outside of Christ?

Is it spring in upstate yet?

Dave

[cataracts]

tits said:

Thank you, the virgins were waiting for the bridegroom. By Hebrew law a man could not take a virgin except to be his wife. Also, a woman was to be virgin before the marriage and until their first union. This was the great disgrace that Mary suffered for it appeared to her community that she was not. While we of faith believe in the virgin birth, society has attempted to prove he to be flirtatous little adolescent since the neighbors in Nazareth noticed her buldging stomach. That recent Discovery Channel piece on the tomb of Christ is just the latest example of the insult we must face. It is also the reason that I will not openly denounce Christians and their chruches (except for those who are clearly in error) in public.

Say, did you see The Nativity? Great, great, great film!

Thanks for the compliment, it is all an act. God has granted me many wonderful gifts but intelligent was not one of them.

Yea, the Latin and Protestant speak about the same. The real thrust of the argument that troubles me is not Jesus rebuke of the challenge given by Peter, but its more sinister context.

In every context of possession given in the scripture, the demon and Satan appear to freely come into the person's soul. Christ warned not to leave a cleansed heart unfilled lest that demon would return with seven more sinister. The story of Legion and the hogs is really troubling. The demons asked for permission to enter the hogs lest Christ cast them into oblivion. He gave it, the demons entered the hogs, they directed the hogs to kill themselves, and thereby freeing them to move to their next victim. I look at the other examples, only Christ and His chosen few Apostles and the 70 disciples had the ability to cast out demons on demand in the scriptures. Where did the demon go when cast out?

Combine this with Judas and the last supper and it really really bothers me. Judas dips the bread and Christ gives permission for Satan to re-enter Judas. He then directs Judas or is it Satan to do it quickly. Earlier we are told that Satan had entered Judas when he went to the Priests.

Cat, I know this if off topic, but .... what is the relationship between Satan and us? If he could enter Peter within moments of the Spirit directing Peter to recognize Jesus as the Christ; If Satan has the cohonies to walk right up to God in the midst of his throne-room to challenge Him over Job; If Satan has the chutzpah to enter Peter and Judas in the presence of Jesus, then... What chance do we have outside of Christ?

Is it spring in upstate yet?

Dave

Sorry Tittus. Talking to you is like talking to a wall.

You have refused to believe that the virgins were not the brides. It even says that the virgins were waiting for the bridegroom and the bride. Even in Jewish customs a man did not marry more than one woman on the same day. No where in that Scripture does it say that those virgins were brides. Are you in a state of denial? Is there any logic or reasoning that will get through to you? If we are going to be on the same side, you better smarten up.

Tell me something. What was the time period between when Jesus gave the keys to Peter and then Jesus told Peter he was Satan?
You tell me the exact time span on this and then show me where you got it.

Tittus, how do you know where those evil spirits went that had gone into the hogs? It doesn't say in Scripture where they went. How do you know where they went? Are you making up your own Scripture?
Maybe they went to hell. How do you know?
This is exactly the reason why we have our Magisterium. If everyone made up their own interpretation of Scripture, it would be mass confusion.

You Protestants are something else again!

C.

[tits]

Please explain where I did not agree that they were the brides. You are searching for a disagreement aren't you?

"Frustrated Catholics play the blame game to explain pedophillic priest"

There, does not fit what you are looking for. ;D

No where did I deny they were the brides. In fact I don't see the disconnect. The Hebrew bride was a virgin until the "man slept with the woman". Do you not understand Leviticus or Deuteronomy? The betroth was called the bride the entire time of engagement. She was considered the wife of the bridegroom. It was not until, "the man slept with the woman" that she officially became the wife. Look at the law. Sheese

[cataracts]

Tittus,
"By Hebrew law a man could not take a virgin except to be his wife. Also, a woman was to be virgin before the marriage and until their first union"

The above is what you wrote. Why even bring it up if you didn't mean to indicate that the virgins were also brides.

Again-----you wrote---------

"The bride is describe in various ways. The Matthew 25:1-13 describes it as 10 virgins, 5 who are prepared and 5 who are not. Note, five brides."

"The Brides" are not described as the virgins in this Scripture. That is your interpretation.
All of this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church being the "Bride of Christ. Knock my proof. I'll defend my answer to the best of my ability. Go ahead! The proof I gave is that our Church is the Bride of Christ. It is not meant to be an interpretation of what a virgin is or what a bride is. And it certainly has nothing to do with pedophillic priests.

Cataracts

[tits]

;D I apologize for the aspersions against Priests, I just had to throw a dig. Especially since you are so adapt at throwing digs at anything and everything.

What of the real request for proof that the RCC is the singular bride: "Sister you can attack me all you want. You can make accusations of wishy-washy argument if that is what helps to support your argument. The truth sister is that you cannot find scriptures to support your position. That is fine, for you can find those scriptures to support your faith. In the end, Christ is seeking those who are seeking him. I applaud your faith and conviction. It has come through study, prayer, and acceptance. It is an honor to be sharing these pages and this discussion with you."

Your entire argument was great, but it did not ever state that the RCC is the singular bride. That, as you constantly point out is a matter of opinion. My opinion was and is that the Bride are those of the Called Out. There are "Called Out" from many different denominations, why else include the story of the people casting out demons in Christ's name who were unknown to the apostles of disciples.

I find the three statements from Christ against his followers: "Depart from me I never knew you." At this point in my life, the only lighted path is the Word and the Word is found only by personal study. While I can agree and be deeply moved by many speakers and bibliographic descriptions of the Christian life, none of them can lead to salvation. THE WORD! And THE WORD of Christ is no different between the Catholic and Protestant bibles, ergo, a bible study free from outside influence should lead to the same conclusion.

I also agree, once again, that there is one way, one truth, one baptism, one Lord, one God who is above all, through all, and in you all.

Now, what about the question of possession. I reread the story of Judas again. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain some reference to this. Only one states that Satan asked for permission both to enter Judas and to temp Peter. Christ turned to Pete and told him that he would fail Satan's test: "tonight you will deny me three times."

I ask you this question because it appears that only the Catholics still believe in demon possession. Also, as a would-be psychologist, I see a clear distinction between demon possession and mental or behavioral illness.

Dave

[cataracts]

tits said:

;D I apologize for the aspersions against Priests, I just had to throw a dig. Especially since you are so adapt at throwing digs at anything and everything.

What of the real request for proof that the RCC is the singular bride: "Sister you can attack me all you want. You can make accusations of wishy-washy argument if that is what helps to support your argument. The truth sister is that you cannot find scriptures to support your position. That is fine, for you can find those scriptures to support your faith. In the end, Christ is seeking those who are seeking him. I applaud your faith and conviction. It has come through study, prayer, and acceptance. It is an honor to be sharing these pages and this discussion with you."

Your entire argument was great, but it did not ever state that the RCC is the singular bride. That, as you constantly point out is a matter of opinion. My opinion was and is that the Bride are those of the Called Out. There are "Called Out" from many different denominations, why else include the story of the people casting out demons in Christ's name who were unknown to the apostles of disciples.

I find the three statements from Christ against his followers: "Depart from me I never knew you." At this point in my life, the only lighted path is the Word and the Word is found only by personal study. While I can agree and be deeply moved by many speakers and bibliographic descriptions of the Christian life, none of them can lead to salvation. THE WORD! And THE WORD of Christ is no different between the Catholic and Protestant bibles, ergo, a bible study free from outside influence should lead to the same conclusion.

I also agree, once again, that there is one way, one truth, one baptism, one Lord, one God who is above all, through all, and in you all.

Now, what about the question of possession. I reread the story of Judas again. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain some reference to this. Only one states that Satan asked for permission both to enter Judas and to temp Peter. Christ turned to Pete and told him that he would fail Satan's test: "tonight you will deny me three times."

I ask you this question because it appears that only the Catholics still believe in demon possession. Also, as a would-be psychologist, I see a clear distinction between demon possession and mental or behavioral illness.

Dave

Now Tittus,
Yes, I call your arguments "wishy washy" because they are just your opinions. You again have changed the subject of the question in that now you want to know about demon possession.

First things first:

The Unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. (John 3:29). The Lord referred to Himself as the Bridegroom. (Mark2:19). The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him. (Matthew 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor11:2).
The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. (Rev22:17; Ephesians 1:4, 5:27). Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her. He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body. (Ephesians 5:29).

This Church is the Catholic Church. If you think that as an individual that you can become part of this "Bride", I would say that you are taking a really huge chance.

If you say that our Bibles are the same, that you read them the same as we do and that all things being equal with bible study we should all agree. I don't think so. This has been the Protestant dilemma right from the start. Protestant religions were started by heretics. Maybe you are not a heretic Tittus, but you have joined a religion that is heretical. I can tell just by talking to you that most of your beliefs are just your opinions. Who cares?
Your negative opinions about the Catholic Church are not even your opinions. They were handed to you and you swallowed them hook line and sinker.
If you were as good at reading the Bible as you say, you would become Catholic.

Catholic Tradition, which is equal to Scripture, informs us that this Church is the Catholic Church.

I don't know very much about demon possession. I do know that the Church says that it is very rare. There are people that have mental illnesses and are not possessed.
Another item that I have heard about demon possession is that, for a psychiatrist, it can be dangerous. In the Catholic Church we have priests that, somehow, work to get demons out of people. The danger in this is that the priest can be putting his life in jeopardy. This is nothing to fool around with. That reknowned intellectual, Sigmund Freud, was supposed to have had experiences that scared the daylights out of him.

Again, Jesus told Peter that Satan would attack him severely. Maybe this resulted in Peter denying Jesus three times. Peter survived the ordeal. He asked Jesus for forgiveness and lived. Judas did not ask for forgiveness.

I know that it is very difficult for a Protestant to comprehend that all of God's revelations to us is not included 100% in Scripture. You have been told all your life that "everything is Scripture". This is a false conclusion. In fact it is no where mentioned anywhere in the Bible that it is true. In fact it is a false statement perpetrated on you by your Protestant reformers. It's no wonder Protestants have such a hard time with the Catholic Religion. You are dealing with only a 1/2 a deck.

Protestants are like men chained to a rock in a cave. They are facing a rock wall. That's all they see. Sometimes the rock turns dark (at night), sometimes it has shadows running across it, and sometimes it's bright. These men think that the internal part of the cave is all there is. If one of them were to escape and run out of the cave, he would see the world. Trees, grass, colors, blue sky. He would go into the cave and tell the men there what he has seen, but they will not believe him. This is a Protestant.

Cataracts