Why Pray To Virgin Mary?

2,540 thoughts on “Why Pray To Virgin Mary?”

1. Alan,1410,
   I have not been ‘debunked’.For someone once wrote or said ‘there has to be a beginning to everything’.Thus when Jesus established the ‘Catholic Church’ it could not then be called ‘catholic’ for at thet time it was geographically restricted.However when it started to spread world wide it became universal.But always Christian!

   Just akin to yourself for it took time for you to become a man.Or where you called ‘a man’ when you were aged 2?

   When one reads what you have written above recently,Alan,is it not about time that you did the honest thing and study Catholicism as it is rather than the utterances of liars who are friends of the father of lies.

   May I also enlighten you in-case it becomes a big shock to you:The title ‘Pope’ took some time to be used in reference to St.Peter’s successors (perhaps the end of the 2nd century AD or the 3rd AD).Of course as some one once wrote or said ‘what’s in a name’?.After all Peter and his successors are predestined Fathers of the Catholic (Christian) Church.For Christ Jesus only established ONE!!!!!!!

2. Alan,
   The truth is there for you above.If you dont want to accept that’s OK.
   Eventually you have admitted that you are not a ‘protestant’.But your statements confirm the latter.
   Obviously influenced arising from a split protestantism worldwide you have established your own church or are about to.In the footsteps of Luther,Calvin,etc,.

   I wish you the best!

3. Revelation 12-
   Relates to 4 main characters who are in battle.Symbolic for some persons but they are specific persons too.The woman with the man-child is Mary with Jesus.

   Verse 17-‘Then the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring,on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimomy to Jesus….’

   Thus if you bear testimony to Jesus and keep his commandments then spiritually Mary is our mother.Thus Mary is a warrior maiden who does battle through her motherhood.

4. @Christine Marie:

   Then there is “Catholic Church” – all uppercase letters

   Sorry … my mistake. I meant only the first (C) are uppercase.

5. Christian Church??? Or Roman Catholic “Universal” Church!!!

   Hello Sir Alan! I admire your sincerity sharing to us your knowledge of the scripture and your promptness in replying was more impressive and unequalled to anyone of us here. Perhaps only brother Liam can match your accuracy and firmness to sound discussion. However there were points I wish to correct in your response #1409 and I shall state it below here.

   “You have just “debunked” and nailed Liam :) So the First Century Church was always a “Christian” church and not Catholic or Roman Catholic church. The later happened in the second century, onward. Therefore the RC Church is not the one-true church established by Jesus.”

   NO, on the contrary brother Liam declarations to you was supported by my own statement only there was some miss-representation of fact you failed to recognize and I will point to you the discrepancy of your statement. And I believe your statement above had been referred to in Acts 11:26: We will check the verse on your favorite Bible, the KJV.

   v26. And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (KJV- pure Cambridge authorized version)

   My dear Sir, the paragraph two above was your statement that I have just quoted to examine all the angles you wish it to be interpreted and the paragraph four was taken from the KJV version as bases of our discussion.

   Here is your statement;”So the First Century Church was always a “Christian” church and not Catholic or Roman Catholic church”. You have wittingly combined or let us say re-coined the word “Christian church” to make it appear that the first Church Christ instituted was named “Christian Church” and not Catholic which means “Universal”. The last phrase of Acts 11:26 speak of the disciples being called Christian, (take note) it does not speak of a church to be called Christian Church as you have strongly indicated but rather calling Christians the first disciples in Antioch. Vv.26; that speaks of church which no name indicated was meant to be the church of Antioch as we can glean before vv.19 started. In vv. 22; the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch for an apostolic mission to give instruction to a large number of people. Originally Christians weren’t even called Christians. They were called “disciples” (i.e., “students”) of Jesus of Nazareth. Later, in the city of Antioch, they received the name “Christians” (Acts 11:26). This happened in the A.D. 30s. This term spread very quickly as far as Rome (1 Peter 5:13) where St. Peter establish the foundation of the so called Catholic “Universal” Church. So it follows where the place Church established they called it Church of Antioch, Church of Jerusalem, etc..and later the Roman Church where Peter being the head ( first Pope) established and founded the name Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use ( take note this Sir Alan) as early as the last quarter of the 1st century not in the second century onward as you have falsely indicated. A discrepancy of couple of years are acceptable but a hundred years or one century is unimaginable!

   Listed below are some references for you to check out Sir and this may help you come out of erroneous impression you had with our Catholic belief.

   The Apostolic Fathers
   These Saints immediately preceded the Apostles of Jesus Christ and were disciples of the Apostles:
   St. Clement of Rome (1st Century)
   • Bishop at Rome.
   • May have been a disciple of the Apostles of Peter and Paul.
   • Wrote First Clement (c.95 A.D.) to the Corinthian church, which advises on spiritual discipline.
   St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 – 107 A.D.)
   • Bishop at Antioch.
   • A disciple of at least one of the Apostles.
   • Was arrested for being a Christian and taken to Rome for execution.
   • On his journey to Rome he wrote seven letters that delineate Church governance: Bishop, presbyters and deacons.

   St. Polycarp of Smyrna (65 – 156 A.D.)
   • Bishop of Smyrna.
   • Friend of Ignatius of Antioch.
   • Disciple of the Apostle John.
   • Martyred in old age by being burned to death.
   God used these Apostolic Fathers to carry on the Christian faith during times of terrible persecution and maintain orthodox doctrine (teaching) within the Church.

   Read more at Suite101: Catholic Saints List: Ignatius of Antioch to Gregory the Great | Suite101.com

   St. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter and St. Evodius (who died aroundAD 67). Eusebius records that St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius. Making his apostolic succession even more immediate, Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch. Aside from his Greek name, Ignatius, he also called himself Theophorus (“God Bearer”), and tradition says he was one of the children Jesus took in His arms and blessed. St. Ignatius is one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers). He based his authority on being a bishop of the Church, living his life in the imitation of Christ. It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.

   MARYRDOM
   Epistles attributed to St. Ignatius report his arrest by the authorities and travel to Rome:
   From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated. — Ignatius to the Romans, 5.
   Along the route he wrote six letters to the churches in the region and one to a fellow bishop. He was sentenced to die at the Colosseum. In his Chronicle, Eusebius gives the date of Ignatius’s death as AA 2124 (2124 years after Adam), which would amount to the 11th year of Trajan, i.e. 108 AD.

   He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning “universal”, “complete” and “whole” to describe the church, writing:
   Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.
   It is from the word katholikos (“according to the whole”) that the word Catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word Catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century. On the Eucharist, he wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
   Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1
   Saint Ignatius’s most famous quotation, however, comes from his letter to the Romans:
   I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ. — Letter to the Romans ( Reference: Wikipedia, free encyclopedia)

   Sir, I wish I can match your esteem in written discussion and there were so many interesting points to explore and I shall take it one at a time. Have a nice day and God Bless!

   Jesus King of Mercy I Trust in You. Ave Maria!

6. @liam (#1414)

   You are trying to re-write the Bible with your own skewed interpretation. The Apostle John who wrote the book of Revelation when in exile in the island of patmos would have mentioned the woman is mary with child Jesus. Besides Jesus is not a child anymore in heaven. He was 30+ years of age when he was crucified and ascended bodily into heaven (See Book of Acts). YOUR ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION IS WRONG AS YOU ARE TRYING TO ELEVATE MARY AS PER YOUR FAULTY TEACHINGS RECEIVED FROM THE RC CHURCH. I PRAY THAT ALMIGHTY GOD PUT THE LOVE OF JESUS IN YOUR HEART.

   Revelation 12-
   Relates to 4 main characters who are in battle.Symbolic for some persons but they are specific persons too.The woman with the man-child is Mary with Jesus.

7. @Christine Marie (#1416):

   First and foremost, i don’t consider anything posted on wikipedia as authoritative.

   This term spread very quickly as far as Rome (1 Peter 5:13) where St. Peter establish the foundation of the so called Catholic “Universal” Church. So it follows where the place Church established they called it Church of Antioch, Church of Jerusalem, etc..and later the Roman Church where Peter being the head ( first Pope) established and founded the name Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.

   Peter was never the first Pope. Lets look at it.. Verses below showing St.Paul confronting Peter. St.Paul addresses him by His name Peter and not Pope Peter. St.Paul confronts Peter for His doctrinal errors in spreading the Gospel and despite the fact that He was leader over the Apostle’s. Carefully analyse the two verses below. If you would be an Apostle today, would you be able to confront the present pope and tell him of His errors? No .. but with blind obedient faith you will not dare so. Also do the present popes spread the Gospel like Paul, Peter and the rest did. No!!!

   Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

   Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

   Peter himself in Acts 10:26 says – … Stand up; I myself also am a man. Why didn’t he say so that he was pope? Why did the man Cornelius who was a Centurion of the Italian Band address him with the present usurped pope titles like “Holy father”?

   The Apostles Jesus apointed were ordinary fisher-folks, un-schooled men who came from humble dwellings yet in pleased God to use these ordinary man to proclaim His glory and take the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus to the uttermost parts of the earth.

   Question: what do you understand about apostolic succession?

8. Question: “Was Saint Peter the first pope?”

   Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

   The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

   But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

   Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

   What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

   Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

9. Revelation is the last book in our HOLY BIBLE.Heed the warning REVELATION 22: 18-19, DO NOT ADD ANYTHING OR TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THIS LAST BOOK INSPIRED BY GOD.Dear brothers sisters in CHRIST, Hold faith in JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR, THROUGH HIM AND HIM ALONE, by the grace of OUR HEAVENLY FATHER,and the power of the DIVINE HOLY SPIRIT, we abide in HIS TRUTH REVEALED IN THE BIBLE, prepare ourselves for the LAST TRUMPET blown,to receive the gift of eternal life together with all those faithful ones died in CHRIST. For CHRIST WARNS, HE WILL COME AS A THIEF AT UNEXPECTED TIME,let us hold firm to the teachings of OUR SAVIOUR JESUS, be the 5 wise girls prepare oil for their lamps awaiting the coming of the BRIDEGROOM AT MIDNIGHT, DO NOT FALL ASLEEP. REJECT ALL FALSE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF MAN WHICH ARE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF GOD’S BELOVED SON JESUS CHRIST.AMEN

10. 1417-Alan-
    You are now contending that you know the thinking of John-what he would have said/what he would’nt have said.Even ‘reformed’ authorities agree with what I have written.
    But then again,unfortunately,you are or consider yourself a modern day Calvin or Luther.As the man says bent on destruction and perhaps unaware of the master you serve.I pray for you.

    An objective consideration of your input to this debate confirms a confusing awareness far from the truth and littered with personal pathetic formulations in opposition to the ‘Truth’.

    If you are in a position to do so,Alan,please visit the Priscilla catacombs at Rome.There you will see a fresco dating from the beginning of the 3rd century AD.It is one of the most ancient pieces of Christian art and it relates to the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God being conceived and born to the Virgin Mary who is also our Mother for Jesus is our Brother.
    At the left of the fresco there is a figure of a man pointing to a star,located above the Virgin with her Son:a prophet,possibly Balaam,who announced that ‘a star shall come out of Jacob,and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel'(Num 24:17).This is the whole expectation of the Old Cevenant and the cry of a fallen humanity for a Saviour and Redeemer(cf.&&27;528.)-
    This prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus conceived by the Spirit and born of Mary(cf.&&27;53;422;488).

    Thus, I pray to Mary for it was she who brought Jesus to us.For this reason Mary is the image of the Church formed by her Son and confirmed by the above fresco which was composed in the early days of the Christian Church.Hundreds of years prior to any major desertion from the growing Catholic Church of Christ.

11. Question: “What is the origin of the Catholic Church?”

    Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

    For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

    Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

    (1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

    (2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

    (3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

    (4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

    Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

    The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

    Second Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

12. Friends in Christ,
    In John 3:5 Jesus affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptise them-Mt 28:19-20.And in Mk 16:16 Baptism is necessary for salvation to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

13. Friends in Christ,
    Across the centuries in many languages,cultures,peoples and nations the Catholic Church of Christ has constantly confessed ‘one faith’which it received from its founder-one Lord-transmitted by one Baptism, and grounded by the conviction that all people have only one God and Father.

    And as a saint once wrote “for though languages differ throughout the world, the content of tradition is one and the same…”.

    Thus the above is why I am a Christian and why I pray to Mary for when she said ‘yes’to Gabriel she uttered it on behalf of all human nature.In fact as St.Augustine wrote ‘Mary’ with her own being is the ‘handmaid of the Lord’which is based in the Bible-(Lk 1:38).In truth by her obedience Mary became the ‘new Eve’- Mother of the living.

14. @Liam,
    based on your 1414 comments:- Can you prove Revelation 12 woman is Mary?
    I am sure you never read the chapter 12 fully.
    Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
    Liam: why Mary fleeing into wilderness?Please explain.
    God bless you

15. Apostolic succession and the Primacy of Rome Bishops:

    Hello sir,

    I expected your denial of the sources that I have referred to; the Wikipedia, free Encyclopedia and the Britannica Encyclopedia Americana, because if you admit all your arguments will collapsed like a domino that falls from the beginning to the end. The argument you raised one time to me about “study” (2TIM.2:15) seem a farce and apply only to satisfy its usage to the one who wish to manipulate its true essence and meaning. The first thing you raised this issue to me I feel somewhat convinced of your goal and admittedly push me to read more about the words in the scriptures. But, as I go along on reading (studying) I have noticed that we differ considerably in understanding of the issues we were discussing, both of us is on the opposite side. Now my question is who among us, on its true essence of the word “study” follow its true meaning?

    Encyclopedias were written for the purpose of providing references to anyone who wish to know something and give us exact information what actually transpired in the past events. The Encyclopedia Americana, and the Wikipedia, free Encyclopedia informs us of the first Church was instituted through Peter: these were the facts and references no one can dispute. And to make it more convincing, our first Pope, Peter, up to these present times has been recorded properly and historically; to deny these facts is to let prejudice override reason.

    The three paragraphs below from Sir Alan are worth to be examined as he himself suggested. And I am obliged to do so.

    “Peter was never the first Pope. Lets look at it.. Verses below showing St.Paul confronting Peter. St.Paul addresses him by His name Peter and not Pope Peter. St.Paul confronts Peter for His doctrinal errors in spreading the Gospel and despite the fact that He was leader over the Apostle’s. Carefully analyse the two verses below. If you would be an Apostle today, would you be able to confront the present pope and tell him of His errors? No .. but with blind obedient faith you will not dare so. Also do the present popes spread the Gospel like Paul, Peter and the rest did. No!!!”
    “Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
    “Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

    To understand these two verses shared to us by my dear mate (Sir Alan) in this forum one must understand first the characters of St. Paul especially when at stake are his converts. First, he had a child like trust in the converts at Philippi, Ph.1:7; 4:10-20, a deep affection for those at Ephesus, Acts 20:17-38; he was furious with those in Galatia who where in the verge of apostasy, Gal.1:6; 3:1-3, and deeply upset when he thought that the Christians in Corinth had become vain and unstable, 2Cor.12:11; 13:10, and he was ironical with people he considered superficial,1Cor.4:8; 2Cor.11:7. But after these outbursts he became tender, 2Cor.11:1-2; 12:14, and fatherly, 1Cor.4:14; 2 Cor.6:13, even motherly, 1Th.2:7; Gal.4:19, and anxious to restore the earlier affection, Gal.4:12; 2Cor.7:11-13. To sum up, Paul fiercest outburst were directed against everybody who tried to seduce his converts, whether they were Jews, who opposed him wherever he went, or Judaising Christians who wanted all follower of Christ to follow the Law, Gal.1:7; 2:4.

    I was appalled by the way you reconstructed these two verses (Gal. 2:11 and Gal. 2:14, in the first paragraph I have quoted from your letter), that may seem the apostles Paul and Peter was in total disagreement and reconciliation between them to resolve the issues is far from over. You may charge me I misunderstood your phrasing but anyone who read your letter can rightfully understand Paul disrespects Peter when he vehemently confronted and opposed him to the face. The insinuation is very clear!

    But one must understand that when Paul confronted Peter, Paul knows very well that his authority comes from God meaning in equal footing just like St. Peter, Gal.1:15-16;”Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal His Son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans.” Secondly, Paul understands very well their agreement in Gal.2:9, “So James, Cephas and John, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. This rightfully explains Gal.2:11-14. And the numerous references I listed above about his characters prove correct. Though Paul claimed to be just as witness to Christ as they were, 1Cor.9:1, his attitude was conciliatory, Acts 21:18-26.

    I hope these humble instructions may open your eyes to the wrong application you have had in explaining Gal.2:11-14.

    Constructive discussion is now in a high gear and I am very much glued to my seat especially if opposition like you pushes me to the limit. Now, we shall settle the last issue thrown at me.

    “Question: what do you understand about apostolic succession?”

    Reply: Apostolic succession was illustrated in the scripture. It means the line of bishops we have in our Catholic Church all over the world is stretching back to the first apostles of Christ. This doctrine is illustrated by Paul to Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
    Acts1:15-26; In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

    These are the partial list I have dig for your additional knowledge and I doubt you can provide me some lists of your own or had have in your congregation of which I am pretty sure you have none to produce.

    The Apostolic Fathers succession and the primacy of the Roman Bishops:
    These Saints immediately proceeded the Apostles of Jesus Christ and were disciples of the Apostles:
    St. Clement of Rome (1st Century)
    • Bishop at Rome.
    • May have been a disciple of the Apostles of Peter and Paul.
    • Wrote First Clement (c.95 A.D.) to the Corinthian church, which advises on spiritual discipline.
    St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 – 107 A.D.)
    • Bishop at Antioch.
    • A disciple of at least one of the Apostles.
    • Was arrested for being a Christian and taken to Rome for execution.
    • On his journey to Rome he wrote seven letters that delineate Church governance: Bishop, presbyters and deacons.
    St. Polycarp of Smyrna (65 – 156 A.D.)
    • Bishop of Smyrna.
    • Friend of Ignatius of Antioch.
    • Disciple of the Apostle John.
    • Martyred in old age by being burned to death.
    God used these Apostolic Fathers to carry on the Christian faith during times of terrible persecution and maintain orthodox doctrine (teaching) within the Church.
    The Apologists of the 2nd and 3rd Century
    These Saints were renown for defending the Christian faith (apologists) against heresy:
    St. Irenaeus (130 – 200 A.D.)
    • Bishop of Lyons.
    • Argued against the “Gnostics” — an early heresy within the Church.
    St. Justin Martyr (100 -165 A.D.)
    • A pagan philosopher converted to Christianity.
    • Wrote Dialogue with Trypho the Jew arguing that Jesus is the Promised Messiah.
    • Martyred in Rome.
    St. Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.)
    • A lawyer converted to Christianity mid-life in Rome.
    • Possibly a presbyter in North Africa.
    • Vehemently defended the Christian faith in his writings.
    • Wrote Against Praxeas, which argues for a “threefold” unity of God — later to be called the doctrine of the Trinity.
    St. Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)
    • Bishop of Carthage during the bloody persecution of Christians under Emperor Decius.
    • Argued for a lenient discipline for those who lapsed under Decius’s persecution of the Church.
    • Wrote On the Unity of the Catholic Church, which would become a model for Church unity.
    • Under the later persecution of Emperor Valerian, Cyprian refused to offer sacrifice to pagan gods and died a martyr.
    These Saints contended for the true Christian faith (Jude 1:3) passed down from the Apostles.
    The Fourth to Sixth Century Saints
    These Saints were some of the greatest thinkers and theologians of the Christian Church:
    St. John Chrysostom (344 – 407 A.D.)
    • Archbishop of Constantinople.
    • His eloquent preaching earned him the name “Chrysostom,” which means “golden mouth.”
    • Exhorted Christians to ethical behavior, morality and care of the poor.
    • Exiled in 403 A.D.; died Armenia.
    St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.)
    • Considered to be one of the greatest thinkers and theologians of the Western church.
    • Wrote Confessions — the story of his conversion to Christianity as well as The City of God.
    • Became Bishop of Hippo.
    • Placed a great emphasis on the necessity of divine grace for salvation.
    • Strove against the Briton monk Pelagius, who argued for man’s response to grace and moral responsibility to God.
    • Counted as one of the “Doctors” (teachers) of the Latin, or Western, Church.
    St. Benedict of Nursia (c. 5th Century )
    • Called “the father of Western monks.”
    • Wrote Rule of Benedict — an organized manual on the monastic communal life.
    • Used the ruins of an abandoned pagan temple on the mountain of Monte Cassino to build a monastery that still functions as the home of the Benedictines.
    St. Gregory the Great (540 – 604 A.D.)
    • Considered the last of the ancient popes and first of the medieval popes.
    • Wrote the Pastoral Rule — a handbook of spiritual care for ministers.
    • Gregorian chanted is named after St. Gregory.
    • Considered one of the “Doctors” of the Western Church.
    While this is not a comprehensive listing of Saints in the Church, the influence all these men had profoundly affected the theologians who followed in their train. The teaching and examples of these Church Fathers and Saints is still felt and debated today by theologians today.
    Sources:
    • Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.
    • Jefford, Clayton N., Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga. Reading the Apostolic Fathers An Introduction. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
    • Mursell, Gordon. The Story of Christian Spirituality: Two Thousand Years, from East to West. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
    • Sparks, Jack N. The Apostolic Fathers. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1978.

    Read more at Suite101: Catholic Saints List: Ignatius of Antioch to Gregory the Great | Suite101.com

    Thus Alexander Schmemann wrote:
    It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – presiding in agape, according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all testimonies of the fathers and the councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.”
    In the West, Ludwig Ott wrote:
    The doctrine of the primacy of the Roman Bishops, like other Church teachings and instructions, has gone through a development. Thus the establishment of the primacy recorded in the Gospels has been gradually more clearly recognized and its implications developed. Clear recognition of the consciousness of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, and of the recognition of the Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century…St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.

    Jesus King of Mercy I trust in you. Ave Maria!

16. @Liam (#1423):

    You are up again brain-washing people with your false teachings:

    (i) John 3:5 no where indicates “baptism” is necessary salvation. You are simply “reading into” that verse.

    (ii) Mt 28:19-20 – yes it is a command of the Lord to proclaim the Gospel and only “those” who believe the “gospel” can be baptized and NOT those who don’t believe.

    Do you go out and proclaim the correct Gospel of Christ and win souls or are you just spurting the words simply for the “heck” of it?

    Also if you consider it as a “command” from the Lord to proclaim the gospel, you should be aware that you should be proclaiming the “true gospel” of Jesus Christ, as there are may “false gospels” floating around and being preached to unsuspecting souls. And most notably the one preached by the Roman Catholic Church from its headquarters in the Vatican.

    How do we know that the Roman Catholic gospel is a false one and is not the Biblical gospel? Well JESUIT Priest Mich Pacwa clearly explains on EWTN talk show – and that the Roman Ctaholic Gospel it is not the same biblical Gospel of Christ and is therefore is a “false Gospel”. All Roman Catholic take note of this.

    See the Roman Catholic false gospel as explained by JESUIT priest Mich Pacwa at . Side-by-side comparison of Roman Catholic false gospel and the true biblical gospel of Christ can see here http://www.biblecatholics.com/two_gospels.htm.

    (iii) Mark 16:16 and Baptism – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” -Mark 16:16.

    Mark 16:16 is one of the most misinterpreted Scriptures in the Word of God. False religions such as the Church of Christ, Lutherans, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and so many others…all require that a person be baptized in order to go to heaven. This heresy is known as “Baptismal Regeneration.” The Bible condemns such ADDING to the simple plan of salvation. The Word of God is clear that salvation is obtained simply by believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ (“And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. -Acts 16:30,31).

    Mark 16:16 confuses people who don’t read the rest of the Bible. It is dangerous to take one Scripture out of context by itself. You can’t just arbitrarily open the Bible and expect to obtain an accurate understanding of it’s contents. You need to read all of it.

    Having said that, Mark 16:16 is brought to light when compared with 1st Corinthians 1:17…

    “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

    At first glance, Mark 16:16 appears to teach that a person needs to be baptized to be saved; however, when compared with the rest of the Word of God, it is clear that salvation is of the heart. Salvation is of God, NOT man. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration, nothing more. Baptism no more makes you a Christian than a wedding ring would make a woman married. If fact, some single women wear rings just to give the impression that they’re married. Just because a man finds a police badge doesn’t automatically make him an officer of the law.

    Baptism is simply an ordinance that our Lord started in the New Testament church; but it is an act of discipleship, not salvation.

    Besides note Mark 16:16 says – that “only those who believe” .. meaning only those who understand and believe the gospel (and nothing else) will be saved. “Infant baptism” as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church is not applicable since babies are not in the age-of-reasoning to understand and believe the gospel.

    Liam is mysteriously silent about the infant baptism issue, a false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

17. Friends in Christ,
    Baptism is extremely important as an objective study of the New Testament confirms.So important that Jesus although sinless presented Catholicism with an example to follow.That is by allowing himself to be baptised by St.John (the Baptist).

    *Reflect please- this ‘Sacrament’ is so vital to our eternal salvation that this St.John will be known forever as ‘the Baptist’.

    In my reference to an Irish Hymn relating to the Eucharist (above) I wish to add that it existed before any so called ‘reformist bibles’ ever appeared in opposition to the New Testament aspect of The Bible written by personnel of the Church founded upon St.Peter.The Catholic version word by word is the truth as guranteed by Jesus via the granting of the Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to the 1st father/pope of the Christian Church.

    The fact is that Christ established what he referred to as ‘my church’and even so called reformist authorities accept this truth.But they argue that the Church was led astray and in order to bring it back it had to be ‘reformed’.Thus here lies the birth of anti-Catholicism!

    Luther, Calvin,and others led such attempts at so called ‘reform’ but what came about was a reform ‘malformation’.Which to this day opens the door to the formation of another so called ‘church of Christ’.Yes, the ‘reform’, so called, led to satanic manipulation and in turn division.And those who deny this fact are dwellers of cloud cuckoo land unaware that satan is happy for them to be his pawns.For if we look at Christianity today its divisions are numerious.So much so that there is even much anger within and between the ‘reformist churches’.Which when coupled with the latters anti-Catholicism is in direct opposition to Christ’s hope that we would love each other as the Father loves Him and He Our Father.

    We believers require much prayer and indeed in the words of St.Paul a world wide ‘spiritual revolution’!!!!!!!

    To conclude,as a body of fallen humanity sinful behaviour has been a part of the Church of Christ (the reason why it was necessary for Jesus to form the Sacrament of Confession or Reconcialition)but it has adhered to the teachings of God via His Mystical Body.Teachings and beliefs within the context of ‘faith’and ‘morals’guaranteed by its Founder.A solid ‘never changeable guarantee’ by Our Saviour. Alas, the guarantee was overlooked or ignored by so called reformers (even to this day)which opened the door of division amongst believers.

    Let us pray for Christian UNITY!!!!!!!

18. @ Liam Ó Comáin:

    Why are Catholics always branding those who left or oppose the so called Roman Catholic “mother-of-all” Church, as “protestants?

    When did the reformation start? Was it not in the 16th Century when catholic priest Martin luther and others “revolted” against the Hitler-styled dictators of the Roman Catholic papacy? What were they protesting about? To be called protestants? Don’t they have the right to protest? Or should they simply be like blind-obedient persons like yourself?

    As per history, before the protestant reformation there were bible believing christians such as the waldenses, abgenses etc. So they should be also be branded as “protestants”? And these people were murdered for the faith in the Bible only by the so called depraved mind popes. Don’t you know this?

    You make it seem that only the Roman Catholicism was existence and brand everyone else as protestants. So please don’t talk about unity!! when those papists in the Roman Catholic church are non reform-able are like stubborn mules.

    Its high time you should join the I.R.A they will give you proper training to correct your “twisted” thinking.

19. @ Liam Comain:

    Let us pray for Christian UNITY!!!!!!!

    Well … its another one of those common seducing “ecumenical” war cries one hears these days calling everyone to fornicate with the Roman Catholic Church – The Apostate church built on the 7-hills who harbours the anti-christ.

    Wonder and pray when this religious bigotry and fanaticism will end … and all be obedient to what Jesus taught instead of what the popes teach. After all Jesus the founder himself said that the scriptures are the only source “truth” (John 17:17) and not the “Church”

20. Alan,
    Your anti-Jesus statements and satanic inspired lies confirms the reason for the existence of Christ’s Church and the assurance that in relation to faith and morals it,the Catholic Church,would always be guided by the Holy Spirit via The Papacy and The Councils.Based solely on Holy Scripture-the eternal Word of God!!!!!!!

    As for the perception of yourself which is quite clear through your utterances you in no way project ‘love’.In other words you project satan for as the Bible confirms Love is God/God is love.There is apparently based upon your statements and behaviour and to be regretted by all Christians not one ounce of authentic Christianity in your person.
    We will pray for you for you are in serious danger.In fact and in truth -“Oh Mother Mary please pray for the salvation of Alan”!!!!!!!

21. Georgy,
    Prior to my recent contribution did you receive one relating to our first parents and sin?Sent today,Sunday.
    Keep up the good work!!!!!!!
    Sincerely,
    Liam

22. @ Liam (#1431):

    As for the perception of yourself which is quite clear through your utterances you in no way project ‘love’.In other words you project satan for as the Bible confirms Love is God/God is love.

    True, God is love. However in present times people get offended when they are confronted the sword of truth. And not to offend, they only preach a diluted gospel that God is “love”, forgetting that God is also holy (will not compromise on sin) and has a wrathful side also as far as idolatry, worshiping Gods other than the triune Godhead, propagating a false gospel, a stealing titles that belong to God, a claiming to be God himself on earth etc.

    We will pray for you for you are in serious danger.In fact and in truth -”Oh Mother Mary please pray for the salvation of Alan”!!!!!

    The Catholic Church itself in its official teachings does not teach to pray to Mary. You are a disobedient person and cannot call yourself a Catholic. Besides Mary not God and cannot hear anyone’s prayers. She is a created being. We Christians worship the Creator – the Father, The Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost. We do not worship creations, and certainly Mary is one of them. And this what Jesus taught us. I believe Jesus because he died for my sins. I honor Mary, The saints for their exemplary roles, but they did not purchase my redemption, Christ did and he certainly did it for you and the human race. I look ONLY to Christ as the savior of the World. Mary is not the redemeer.

23. @Babu #1425

    I thought you already have been silenced by Sister Jessica #1250. You are like a broken record, your favorite gambit was already been refuted by brother Celestino #1248. Please share us something that will make our discussion livelier and interesting…

    Ave Maria !

24. Alan,
    Your 1st sentence (1433)has nothing to do with ‘truth’and therefore nothing to do with ‘love’.Thus godless for God is TRUTH and LOVE.Of course your strategy might be if you imply that a person is a liar (long enough)then any unfortunate readers of this debate akin to your thinking will accept your statements.Pathetic!

    You also attack ‘Baptism’ but Jesus said to his disciples,”Go out to the whole world;proclaim the Good News to all creation.He who believes and is baptised will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemened…2(Mark:15-18).

    If you believe what Jesus says is the ‘necessary truth’ then why reject the above and place yourself in a position of condemnation?

25. I (pray) like all Spirit inspired believers to Mary for she conceived for us the Word of God made flesh,who is our only source of salvation.

    As I pray to the Mother of God- made ‘man’- I do not adore her for God is the only object of his followers who receives ‘adoration’.

    Bear in mind,please, that adoration and prayer are not one and the same.

    Prayer is an expression of love.When I pray the ‘Hail Mary'(Rejoice,Mary)it is God himself through Gabriel who greets Mary.I imitate or follow our Creator when I prayer to Mary.Just as I imitate Jesus when I pray the ‘Our Father.

    Because of her singular co-operation with the Holy Spirit Catholics pray in communion with Mary to magnify with her the great things God has done for her and to entrust supplications and praises to Her.For after all the one and only God hailed Mary and told her to rejoice.What a privilege to be the Mother of God!

26. @Liam:

    You also attack ‘Baptism’ but Jesus said to his disciples ..

    You are trying to make me a liar. I did not attack baptism. I am all for it as laid out in the New Testament and not as falsely preached by the RC Church. I said the Lord Jesus commands it as an ordinance once we believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15). It is only applicable to believers. Un-believers or babies cannot be baptised a false ordinance practiced by the roman catholic church. You are simply trying to make a fabricated case against me. You are silent on infant baptism

    All you say at #1436 is you personal private interpretation. Let get some facts straight! No where did anyone including the Apostles pray to mary or worshipped her. Nobody gave her the title “Mother of God” has God pre-existed before the foundations of the world began. God existed from eternity. God did not have a mother to begin with. Mary was not conceived immanculately by the power of the Holy Ghost that is only attributed all to Jesus. Because Catholics like yourself hate “Jesus” that is why you “steal” all attributes assigned to Christ and assign them to his human mother. Mary is blessed among but not above women as projected by the RC Church. All believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are saints in the body of Christ and we Christians do not require pope ordained dogmas and those theological rubbish teachings to carry our day to day lives. No where in the New Testament the church was called Mother Church. Christ is the head of the Church and NOT his HUMAN MOTHER!!!!!!

27. Alan-
    1429-
    Inspite of your contention one Christian Church was established by Jesus and guarenteed to prevail against the connivings of satan.For after 3 years of preaching the Good News Jesus began to gather around him a small group of followers.These persons were to form the nucleus of the new people of God.

    It was from this group that he chose 12 disciples to be the leaders of his Church for he knew that in a short period he would be crucified.He had laid the foundations so to speak which would continue and ensure his Church would in time become catholic or universal.And that it would last to his reurn.

    In time he summoned his 12 disciples and called them ‘apostles’which is of Greek origin and means those that are ‘sent’.

    Now every group requires a ‘leader’so Jesus appointed Peter to a special position at the head of his people -the Church.There is no doubt that the early followers of Jesus who in time were called Christians saw Peter as the head.From that time the name Peter appears at the head of any list of apostles and this includes early Church documents now at the Vatican in Rome.

    It was Peter the 1st human father/pope of the evolving Church of Christ who presided over the election of Matthias who replaced Judas.Also in confirmation it was Peter whom St.Paul contacted and conferred with in Jesuralem. (Galatians 1,18).

    Thus the Apostles were the first master builders of the Church and it was not an overnight job.
    In fact in his Epistles Paul refers to various offices such as elders,presbyters,bishops,priests,and deacons.

    But we must not overlook that its members were broken humanity who could sin and make mistakes,etc,.Disagreements were often a reality amongst its members and it was a fact that individuals and groups misunderstood the truth and heresies appeared in the Church.Which was the basis of the fuel required by satan in his attempt to destroy it.

    Thus in the history of the Church until the present there has arisen heresies and protesting groups.In later years the protesters activity gave way to the concept of ‘protestantism’and its allied concepts.

28. Liam (#1438)

    I see most all Catholics like yourself do not know the organizational pattern or structure of a New Testament church established by Jesus.

    First and foremost, a Church as defined in the New Testament is a “living” organism. Organization is required to propagate that living organism.

    Note the priesthood is abolished in the New Testament. Only Pastors/Bishop, elders, presbyters etc.

    You may well peruse the resources i give below to get wisdom of what type of Church Jesus established before he ascended to heaven.

    and

29. Alan,
    Please face the truth and throw off the chains of satan for your soul is in danger.Although, because of the latter’s manipulation of ones ego, you may be unaware of the danger.

    For unlike my Protestant relatives and friends who like yourself disagree with aspects of the truth that I express are willing to admit that they are concerned about the existence of so many churches claiming to be the Church of Christ.Contending that it is contrary to the Bible.

    I agree that the Church based upon Peter is a ‘living organism’but we live in a world of matter which ensures that the Church must face that reality-the reality of established structure.

    And lets face it, although you have never answered my question about what church you belong too, the written word of God firmly states that Jesus built his Church not churches!But according to you- you imply that your ‘church’ is the legitimate one.Even above you condemn the Lutheran and other so called churches.

    I agree with the emphasis which you place upon Holy Scripture( but not your use of it to attack the authentic Church of Christ).Bearing in mind that the eventually titled Catholic Church was the source of the New Testament.For the Church administration had the task of gathering the apostolic writings. A task that was not easy to perform for Christian history refers to arguements about what writings should be included and those not to be included.However by the 5th Century AD the Church had gathered those special writings and made a special collection known then as the ‘Canon of the New Testament’.Thus inspired by the Holy Ghost in accordance with Christ’s guarantee that in matters of faith and morals the Papacy confirmed the coming into existence of the Christian New Testament.In fact it is Our God speaking to us.

    In conclusion a ‘priest’ is a person authorised to perform the sacred rites of a religion-a clergyman ranking below Bishops and above deacons.Thus,again,one of your ‘lies’for priests throughout the history of Christ’s Church performed The Eucharist (The Mass)since Our Saviour said “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”(Matthew 4;4)and “If you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you will not have life in you”.(John 6:53)Thus we live by ‘the word of God’and his body ‘the Eucharist’-but priests are required at the Holy Meal and the delivery of the Gospels and their commentary on the latter.For interpreters of holy writ must be inspired by the Holy Spirit via the ‘Priest’.If not we would have the muddled interpretations which you on occassions contributed in this debate.Of course the wonderful offering of His body comes after the consecration of the sacred species at the Mass of Christ.And as this has been occurring for over 2,000 yearsthe Priesthood could not have been abolished.

30. Liam,

    Would you explain to me what is the meaning of the RC mass? What value does it have?

31. To those who seek the truth:

    At the Last Supper Jesus made a solemn command-do what he has done “in memory of me”.And ever since his Catholic Church has blessed and broken bread and blessed and shared the cup of wine at each Mass.Believing that the bread consecrated at the Mass is really and truly Jesus- really ‘My Body’ as was the bread blessed and broke at the Last Supper,and of the wine consecrated at Mass that it is truly “My Blood”-that is the Blood of Jesus.

    At the Last Supper Jesus knew what was going to happen the next day and he wanted to link his death with what he requested the night
    before.

    His words were the words of’sacrifice’for he spoke of his Blood as the “blood of the new Covenant”.

    Thus, when priests offers at Mass what Jesus instructed the early Christians to do it is not a new sacrifice.It is the same sacrifice as Calvery.And from the Bible and the early days of his Church christians saw the direct link betwenn Calvary Sacrifice-The Last Supper-Eucharistic Sacrifice.And the Vatican holds evidence about this dating back well beyond the writing of The Gospels.

    You will find it in Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians- where he makes it clear that he was not inventing a new theory or teaching but that Jesus said ” every time you eat this bread and drink this cup,you are proclaiming his death”.
    Thus the Mass is Calvary!!!!!!!

32. Throughout the history of the Church established on Peter many of its members have written about The Mass…

    St.Justin (who died in 165 AD)wrote-
    ‘As by the Word of God,Jesus our Saviour was made Flesh and had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation,so also the food which has been blessed by the word of prayer instituted by Him is both the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Incarnate.’

    St.Cyril of Jerusalem (Born 315ad-Died386ad)wrote-
    ‘Since Christ himself has said:’This is my body’- who shall dare to doubt that it is his body?

    St.Ambrose (Born340ad-Died97ad)wrote-
    ‘If,whenever Christ’s Blood is shed,it is shed for the forgiveness of sins,I,who sin often,should receive it often.I need a frequent remedy’.

    St.Thomas Aquinas (Born 1225ad-Died 1274ad)wrote-
    ‘The Blessed Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of the Lord’s passion,since it contains Christ himself and his passion’.

    Yes,these are the truthful testimonies and beliefs of a few of many recorded over the centuries.

    But in opposition to Christ’s offering of The Mass as the source of himself as our food of salvation there were then as now those who denied what he proclaimed.Poor victims of satan for what we know about the latter evil personage he would always deny the truth of The Mass or Eucharist.Even a fellow Irishman when referring to what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper used the term of ‘cannibalism’when referring to The Mass.

    Of course, even some of his followers at the time of the Last Supper, as recorded in The New Testament, refused to accept the word of Jesus and abandoned Him.

33. Alan,
    The Mass or Eucharist is the centre of the Church founded upon Peter.And why?-Because it is the Sacrifice that Jesus made when he was here on earth as the Son of Mary.Read the Gospels and accept the truth of Our Lord’s statements.
    My faith is the faith of the Apostles.The exact words used by Jesus are used by the Priest on the bread and wine used at Mass.
    The appearance of bread and wine remains but the reality beneath the appearances changes.It is no longer bread and wine on the table but the Body and Blood of Jesus.Dictionaries refer to this change as ‘transubstantiation’Please read and reflect on John 6:50-59;and Paul-1Cor.11:23-26.
    Proof of the pudding so to speak!

34. @Liam (#1442)

    I see your explanation of the roman Catholic Mass, half-backed – incomplete!!! That is according to your private interpretation.

    I need an explanation not from your faulty interpretation, but from “official” Roman Catholic teaching. You need to look into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or officially what the Magisterium teaches.

35. Alan,1441-
    ‘What value does it have’?

    ***Re The Mass***

    What value does the crucifixion and death of the Word of God made ‘Man’ have? It is one and the same although the human mind never fully understands this gift of Jesus.For as you claim to be a master of Bible content you should be aware that when Christ instituted The Mass many of his followers would not accept his word and left him.Of course you know what reply Peter gave to Jesus then.

    It is the greatest gift that Christ has given to his followers.And it occurs for we listen to Jesus when he requested what he had done-“in memory of me”:The Mass occurs because Jesus requested it to be done in memory of him.
    The Mass is a ‘sacrifice’ because it represents the ‘sacrifice of the cross’,because it is its ‘memorial’ and because it applies its ‘fruit’-that is our Saviour-the Bread of Life.

    And the Acts-2:42,46 confirm that from the beginning of the Church ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship,to the breaking of bread and the prayers…Day by day,attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes,they partook of food with glad and generious hearts’.

    To conclude,if as you imply,Alan,(above)I am a stupid person then go to your local library and borrow the ‘Catechism Of The Catholic Church’.

36. @Liam (#1440)

    And lets face it, although you have never answered my question about what church you belong too, the written word of God firmly states that Jesus built his Church not churches.

    Yes that’s true. But its a church without a denominational label. The Church Jesus established is a “spiritual” church of born-gain believers. Read carefully and understand what the Church is referred to in the New Testament – see Colossians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 16:19. Read also Revelation 3:7-13 which explains about the church at philadelphia, the type of church Jesus blesses.

37. Liam (#1446)

    To conclude,if as you imply,Alan,(above)I am a stupid person then go to your local library and borrow the ‘Catechism Of The Catholic Church’.

    You are trying to deceive by making claims from scriptures but not what the CCC teaches. I need what the CCC/magisterium teaches ok?

    Now you are telling me to go to library to refer to the CCC.. it clearly shows that unlike many catholics, you are in the dark about what is the official teaching on the mass. If you are a catholic then you must know what the CCC actually teaches. It you don’t know than you are living in deception thru blind obedience.

38. ‘go to your local library and borrow the ‘Catechism Of The Catholic Church’.

    This is a joke of this forum

    God bless you Liam

39. It is obvious that their are contributors to this debate who would need to re-seek personal education.And why?Because they find themselves in a position of not being able to understand English.Or perhaps they are being dishonest and projecting that pathetic image.

    If they reject the ‘truth’that I have presented then nit-wit bigotry comes into play and as a member of the Church of Christ I am accused of presenting replies that are contrary to the Catholic Church.But I leave my contribution in the hands of my Saviour and His Church.

    Of course as well as failing to understand the W

40. It is obvious that their are contributors to this debate who would need to re-seek personal education.And why?Because they find themselves in a position of not being able to understand English.Or perhaps they are being dishonest and projecting that pathetic image.Hoping that confusion will hit many.

    If they reject the ‘truth’that I have presented then nit-wit bigotry comes into play and as a member of the Church of Christ I am accused of presenting replies that are contrary to the Catholic Church.But I leave my contribution in the hands of my Saviour and His Church.

    Of course as well as failing to understand the Word of God what they express is absurd.No wonder satan is happy in his evil context for in the past as at present his has victims to use in his war against the Trinity.But I assure these victims that he will not succeed.For the Holy Spirit is the eternal soul of the Catholic Church.

41. Alan,are you in shock?Is the truth slowly but surely entering your mind.

    From the beginning of your contribution to this debate you contended that you possessed the ‘truth’.If so why are you now seeking the Catholic position.For all along you have condemned it? Surely to condemn Catholicism initially you would have possessed complete knowledge of Christian teaching.If not – why condemn ?

    I can assure you,Alan,that what I have written is the truth of the one and only Church formed by God-Our Saviour.

42. Liam (#1451 & 1452)

    I now truly believe that you are an insane person, not of sound reasoning. Just simply “blind” obedience that is the same as those “terrorists”. I don’t seek the truth about the Catholic teaching but to throw a “test” at you of what the RC church teaches.

    So dear ladies and gentlemen, I declare today that Liam o Comain is a false prophet, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, because he cannot provide the official teachings of the CCC on the Mass. Period!!

    I also call on all Roman Catholics friends to be thoroughly acquainted in the official teachings of the RC Church as in the CCC. Do not sell your souls cheaply. Seek the truth and compare it with what the scriptures teach. Avoid blind obedience.

    Any more debate with the said Liam is at best futile. Satan the deceiver is guiding Liam down the “blind” alley.

43. Alan, you shouldn’t enter into a debate if you’re not open to respect another’s view. By the manner you are debating we can clearly see who is the false prophet here.

    If some of us who are observing the conversation but not commenting, doesn’t mean we agree with you. We know what is in your heart and that is what comes out of your writing.

    Do not forget Jesus, when you utter anything.

    Who are you to test Liam or the Catholic faith?

    We know the meaning of mass. Q & A happen when one doesn’t understand what is been in the practice or in the teachings. You are not ready to read CCC which is your wish, then why are you even asking? If you don’t understand or you think you misunderstand you can put it in the light.

    Don’t be a judge. Who gave you the authority? Tell where is it written in the Bible?

44. Alan, I love you and because of my love as a part of the mystical Body of Christ,that is,the Catholic Church I am concerned for your spiritual welfare.

    But not alone for you but for all who believe in Jesus outside of his Church.And all those of other non Christian faiths plus agnostics and atheists.

    Christian history confirms that satan has been severly atttacking the Church of Christ.And to such a state that believers in Christ- who is love- oppose his teachings and express anger and other abuse at others which is contrary to ‘love thy neighbour as yourself’,etc,.

    Satan is very active as confirmed by the contents of this debate and as the debate continued you were manipulated by the master of evil to turn and attack the messenger rather than the message.You were led to believe that if you could paint a false and negative image of me then indirectly the Church of Christ would be damaged.But the Holy Spirit can not be outplayed,Alan.

    This evening at Mass I will pray for you,Alan.

45. I know what the CCC teaches about the mass. I am only asking from the experience point of view that majority of Catholics do not know the meaning of the mass officially in the documentation of the CCC. I know this is true because even my colleagues who are Catholics are not aware but simply attending mass ..well.. through sort of a blind obedience that has trickled down from generation to generation.

    Don’t be a judge. Who gave you the authority? Tell where is it written in the Bible?

    Should Christians “judge” others? You betcha! – its biblical!

    One of the biggest problems in the Church is that some Christians are way too trusting. Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Mat 7:15). Far too many of the sheep do not heed our Lord’s words. Even when believers are cautioned about certain false teachers, they blow off the warning and blindly follow these wolves.

    You’ve probably heard this many times: “The Bible says not to judge.” What the Bible actually says is that we’re not to judge a person’s heart or motives. “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,” says Paul, “yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1Cor 2:15-16). According to St.Paul true followers of Jesus are of the same mind. When you have the mind of Christ you have spiritual discernment. Christians (who are walking with Christ) have the authority to judge people’s words and actions. How do you know if someone is a false teacher? Go to the scriptures! In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

    No doubt many people will continue to complain about judging others and play the Mat. 7:1-3 card: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    What they fail to understand is that the Spirit of God abides in regenerate Christians. Hence we have the mind of Christ! As for the unbeliever, Scripture clearly teaches that the natural man [unregenerate] “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). So the unregenerate person does not — cannot — understand the things of God.

    Today many people are attend church where their pastors, priests teach outright heresy! They just assume they’re being taught the truth. Unfortunately that’s not always the case. Granted, there are a lot of ministers who preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, there are a growing number of false teachers who can charm an Eskimo into buying a beach umbrella.

    The good news is that believers who read and study the Bible are not easily taken in by apostates. But even mature believers can have the wool pulled over their eyes if they stop being Bereans. It was for this very reason that John penned this warning: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

    Christians who have the good fortune to own a Bible must gain a thorough understanding of what God says in His Word. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105). Those who truly desire a Christian worldview will look to the Bible for wisdom and guidance.

    So there you have it Sharon.. perhaps an intelligent person like yourself will be a ble to guide Liam and instead provide what the CCC officially teaches of the mass.

46. The Holy Bible of the Catholic Church is the source of the Truth.

    In Genesis the ‘seed’ of the ‘woman’is Jesus.
    Mary is the ‘woman’.

    In Isaih (7:14)refers to ‘The Virgin-Mother of Immanuel’ (God with us)
    Later,in Isaith ‘Immanuel’ is referred to as the future Saviour of His people.(Is 8:8-9)

    Micah (in 5:2-3) foretells the birth of the Saviour in Bethlehem.

    Only satanic manipulation and the resulting
    religious deformation prevents and/or attacks the truth relating to Mary the Mother of God.

47. Hello Sir Allan,

    You have gone too far…you always quote Scripture to justify your argument and to tell you truly I likened your stand to the Pharisees of the old days using what is written in their Torah to pin down Jesus teachings. By your attitude you may one day find yourself in the receiving end…I have checked and examined all your arguments and counter arguments and to tell you honestly you poorly misinterpreted every verses you used and by doing you may realize in the end that you are ignorantly nullifying the word of God because you complicated and manipulated its true meaning…this is the danger evangelical Christians facing now a day. To borrow the words of brother Celestino # 1195 “You can catch them through their own mouth! (2 Tim.3:1-5) “You may be quite sure that in the last days there are some going to be a difficult times. People will be self-centered and grasping; boastful, arrogant and rude… (pls. watch this word carefully) ‘they will be slanderers’, profligates, savages and enemies of everything that is good; they will be treacherous and reckless and demented with pride, preferring their own pleasure to God.” Be forewarned now brother Alan, my brotherly advise to you is watch your words, Timothy left us the formula to identify what you said is the false Jesus! You cannot blame us if we could identify his antics right from the start.”

    Your used of (1Cor.2:15-16) is inadequately presented, why? Because you fail to include the whole paragraph to understand its broader meaning of the message (1Cor.2:10-14). Remember the message was not only delivered to the spiritual person but also to the unspiritual person (vv.14) as well. And earlier verse (vv.10) said that “God has revealed to us the things through the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God…11.) After all the depths of man a can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.12.) Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.13.) Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.”

    If I shall expound these complete verses this will led me to “Magisterium” the teaching authority of the Church of which I expected you will not accept. So there is no point in explaining it to you. But be that as it may, I will only point to you some important verses in the Scriptures that you may probably fail to notice because of the unfounded words that comes out from your mouth (against brother Liam, you have undress to us the ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing), that will nullify all your suppose knowledge of the Scriptures. Vv.13 states, “we teach spiritual things spiritually!”

    Lastly, I wish to share with you James 1:26; “Nobody must imagine that he is religious while still deceiving himself and not keeping control over his tongue; anyone who does this has the wrong idea of religion.

    Jesus King of mercy I trust in You.

    Ave Maria !

48. @1456,

    Alan,

    Ha I Told you not to judge according to Mat. 7:1-3 sense. ( pun intended)

    Now, you agreed it yourself. And brought forth two verses which speak about one “action/topic” meaning differently at a situation.

    IMHO, we CAN never ‘use’ Bible that way.

    Maybe you know, it is time you unlearn and start afresh. ( No offense intended) Because you have very many filters in your mind which are not letting you to love thy neighbor.

    It is a great joy to praise God through Bible.

49. At the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass we recite the Nicene Creed.The latter was composed and agreed too by Christians who met in Council at Nicea in 325 AD.

    The Creed was considered necessary for prior to its arrival many heresies arose in the Church founded by Jesus.Such as the Docetist Heresy,the Monarchian Heresy,and the Arian Heresy.

    Therefore the human father/pope of the Christian Church of that period called for a Council(similar to the Vatican Council which was held some years past)and issued a declaration of Truth which includes ‘…I believe in the Holy Ghost,the Holy Catholic Church,…’.

    Which confirms that the Catholic Church is the one and only Christian Church established by by Our Saviour Jesus upon Saint Peter- the 1st human’Father/Pope’.Which would further confirm that the Church founded by Jesus had rapidly spread in those 325 years to become and be warranted with the title Catholic – which as we know means ‘universal’.

    Alas,as someone said: ‘you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink’ if he doesn’t want too.

    In conclusion, in the words of a Catholic writer-Marmion- “To separate Christ from His Mother in our piety,is to divide Christ;it is to lose sight of the essential mission of His sacred humanity in the distribution of Divine grace.Where the Mother is left out the Son is no longer understood.”
    Ave Maria!!!!!!!

50. @Christine Marie (#1458)

    You have gone too far…you always quote Scripture to justify your argument ..

    The basis of all truth is God’s Holy Word. Today we experience all types of heresies that abound, even in evangelical churches apart from the RCC. That is why St.John teaches us in 1 John 4:1 we must be vigilant to filter and weed out false teachings that are anti-biblical.

    Hebrews 4:12 – For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    ——————————–

    @Sharon (#1459):
    Maybe you know, it is time you unlearn and start afresh. ( No offense intended) Because you have very many filters in your mind which are not letting you to love thy neighbor.

    Well.. the only filters i have in my mind is (Ephesians 6:14-17):
    (i) The Breastplate of Righteousness
    (ii) The Gospel of peace
    (iii) The Shield of faith
    (iv) The Helmet of Salvation
    (v) The Sword of the Spirit

    Ephesians 6:12 – For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    And yes.. we absolutely have to love our neighbor, but not at the expense of compromising the truth of God’s Holy Word.