mightychurch.com

Owen Atkins - 27 December 2009 06:53 PM

Catholics do not truly look to Holy Scripture for truth about God, in fact most of them don’t know what most of the Bible says to believers.

The same is true of most protestants. Really Ken, you are being quite myopic here.

Now we’ve really hit rock bottom in this slanglng match ! If the Bible isn’t the central basis to our faith -then credibility has flown out of the window.

Kevin
I’m not being facetious here. I have heard it said again and again that people know their bibles less than they should. I have certainly noticed this in churches I have attended. It’s kinda weird to find people of great faith in God having fractional knowledge of the bible. Now me, I have a fairly weak faith I’d say, certainly this is true when stacked up against folks in my church, yet I know the Bible fairly well- comparatively.
No points though, I tend to be geeky about anything I want to know about and read and look stuff up. Fact is, most folks don’t do this.
Come to that, I read a survey thing not long back about this (about a year back methinks) which had rather low numbers for folks actually reading the bible, in all communions. I might search for that cos it had RC and protestant figures being rather close.

Anyways, the Bible is central to the RC communion as well as the Protestant ones. It gets more interesting when you start asking how it is interpreted. The RC communion says through the lens of tradition and biblical scholarship.
Some protestant communions don’t even add biblical scholarship. (eg; some Pentecostal ones)

I have heard it said again and again that people know their bibles less than they should

Yes Owen, I am sure that applies to most of us. Our little church is going to utilise “God’s Big Picture” by Vaughan Roberts ( IVP Paperback. 160 pages. RRP $16.95 ) in 2010 :

” Sixty-six books written by forty people over nearly 2,000 years, in two languages and several different genres. A worldwide bestseller published in countless sizes and bindings, translations and languages. It has been sworn by in court, fought over by religious people, quoted in arguments. The Bible is clearly no ordinary book. How can we begin to read and understand it as a whole?
In his excellent overview, Vaughan Roberts gives the big picture - showing how the different parts of the Bible fit together under the theme of the kingdom of God. He gives us both the encouragement and the tools to read it with confidence and understanding. He points us to the Bible’s supreme subject, Jesus Christ, and the salvation God offers through him.”

There are lots of related Bible Studies in the book - and we will be using the book as a guide to the preaching programme - complemented by the weekly study groups also looking at the related Bible studies. It’s our attempt to help bridge the ‘ignorance’ factor - and to help people see the overall “Big Picture” of the Bible - and how it all fits together.

Cheers, and happy New Year, Kevin

Catholics do not truly look to Holy Scripture for truth about God, in fact most of them don’t know what most of the Bible says to believers.

The same is true of most protestants. Really Ken, you are being quite myopic here.

Owen, I notice you have managed to avoid talking about the real issue. The issue is that the Vatican continues to promote issues that are non-biblical, and you love it.

Not at all Ken. I’m happy to talk about these issues, trouble is I wonder how common our ground is here. You I suspect claim a different way of interpreting the Bible than do I. You also place a higher emphasis on theology, and biblical exegesis then do I.
I find it difficult to talk with someone on these subjects when it goes around in circles. I don’t agree with all of Vatican theology- this is a mistake you are making about me. I have been arguing their case in response to your question (the OP). For example, I find the canonisation process doubtful indeed. OTOH, I am not in doubt that our brothers and sisters who have gone before hear our troubles and joys and pray for us. I don’t see any huge need to get into naming who is who though.

For my part, I am less interested in theology than I have been. My bookshelves have well worn tomes on such but nowadays I have begun to suspect that theology is a convenient way of obscuring a relationship with God. if not that, it is certainly an excellent way of dividing people. To me the issue is simple. If God wanted absolute clarity on these issues and wanted theology to be the primary means of knowing him, then the Bible would be far more explicit, far less obscure and we would be subjected to far less division. instead we have the opposite, with each group claiming their rectitude theologically and the Bible used to justify the differences.
I am happy to honor your faith in God. I am not happy to honour your castigation of an entire church. Even if you were right about your claims, I am then left to wonder what effect you think castigation and attack will have. (This is laughable coming from me, who still readily attacks YECS with some enthusiasm)

The Vatican, or Roman Catholicism has a very bad record, and the Popes are very tainted historically, rendering their authority useless. These issues have somehow been hidden from your attention!

So what? This doesn’t necessarily make them entirely wrong. If a church had behaved badly in its past and should be therefore shunned, then all denominations are in trouble and probably be shunned. Certainly the Anglican Church, my own and beloved church, is hardly above reproach. Surely you have realised by now that I rather love history, and tend, by dint of native cynicism, to find out about the nastinesses that have occurred before. I am well aware of a raft of abuses and wrongs done in the RC communion’s name. I have also been most astonished by the simple, loving and sacrificial faith I have encountered in folks from that communion and from the Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox groupings. That is, I have seen Christ’s love in ways from people from those communions that have touched me more deeply than from any other human source (conduit?).
It is the simple love and example from these folks that has sustained me in my work and dealings with the harsher end of life.
This is not a comment on Protestants, I have encountered a few whom have also touched me. (the local Salvo officer is a great case in point) But from most them I have encountered more theological walls and demands, when I worked in the Cross I used to call it “swinging a bible around their head to keep people away” Maybe not eloquent but certainly what I experienced. Mind you, the local Baptist minister was a relief there. he too had been moved by the Nuns working there and had seen less sense in theology than service.
When the RC communion was at its worst they had placed too much emphasis on theology and so, in fierce days they adopted even fiercer ways. I don’t think this is excusable. But now many protestants have placed their emphasis on theology and, there is less torture and burning at the stake- the mistake is still the same.

People are moved to belief most often by the demonstrated love and sacrifice of their fellow man. I haven’t yet heard of someone being converted by theology- except where they already had faith and were convinced to change theologies. Which rather illustrates the point. Faith - where faith means a relationship with the loving God- comes before theology.

So Ken, we can have this discussion, but I require that you understand this is my position. If you keep arguing from an assumption that I must believe theology is so important that I should use it as a means of division then we will fail to communicate.
Do you understand this difference and accept it?

I think you are correct in many ways Owen, but I see from my personal journey that the Gospel message is the only message that will personally save a person from destruction in this life.

You say that theology will not convert people. I believed and loved Jesus for years without fully understanding the gospel and how people are saved. It was only by attending a good bible based church that I was fully informed of God’s Word, and was then able to have a clear faith.

Before that I misinterpreted many parts of scripture. For example, I didnt see a reason to understand the Old Testament. But by reading the book of Hebrews, and having its meaning made clear, I then understood how Jesus fulfilled the OT, giving the gospel more meaning. I then got to know why Jesus said many things - they referred to Old Testament prophecies. Catholics are not given this teaching, based on my conversations with them. They only have a narrow view of scripture, which conforms with that church’s traditions.

My friend, an elderly Catholic lady, who is a neighbour, asked me “Why did my church not allow us to read the bible?” I could only reply that it said different things to the teachings of Catholicism. That they might have feared the discrepencies between what the bible taught and what they taught. Did I answer correctly, Owen? (of course nowdays they do allow some reading of the bible, but it is taught narrowly and within the RC grid of reference)

In respect of charity to the down-and out, showing kindness to those in need is very important, but without leading them to faith in God through Jesus, good deeds, in the end, only offer partial relief. People could then probably continue living their lives in the wrong misled way as before, and ultimately end up at relief centres over and over again.

It is like the adage, “Give a man a fish, and you fill his belly for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you save his life for a longer period”. (or words to that effect)

People end up thinking well of organisations which offer food and shelter. But if they trusted and knew Jesus, they could then become independant of such organisations, for the rest of their working life. People need more than just food and shelter - they need to have new lives built on the ‘rock of faith’ - Jesus.

I’ll answer this one first

In respect of charity to the down-and out, showing kindness to those in need is very important, but without leading them to faith in God through Jesus, good deeds, in the end, only offer partial relief.

I was referring to those whose faith lived in their lives did lead others to Christ.
I won’t answer the last part, what you wrote next as my response would take us off topic and belongs more in the dealing with the Poor thread.

Now

I think you are correct in many ways Owen, but I see from my personal journey that the Gospel message is the only message that will personally save a person from destruction in this life.

There is an interesting nuance here and I suspect there is a lot more in this simple sentence than meets the eye. At first blush I would answer that it isn’t the Gospel message that saves at all. It is God’s merciful and loving grace that saves. Certainly it is as a result of hearing and responding to the message that invites grace in. But, this is rarely a clear event. Most of us are converted after hearing and then believing something rather simple and, in retrospect, something very naive. My point is only this, that it isn’t theology that is important here. It is more the development of a simple faith in God. Or, to put that more simply, starting a relationship with Him.
It is virtually unheard that a person at that moment would for example, have taken a Calvinist or Arminian position. They could scarcely articulate a description of the Trinity, the value (or not) of the sacraments, how redemption was won on the Cross nor any position on the three “Sola’s”. They do know however, that in some way, deep within, God has touched them intimately. This is relationship stuff. It belongs to the heart. The intellect needs to be engaged but the priority belongs to the heart.

What you described in your response wasn’t so much to do with salvation as it was to do with deepening your faith. I need to be careful here, I will probably fail, but I am aware of just how elusive the words “faith” and “belief” are. They have come to mean so many things that their use can be deceptive. When I say “deepening your faith” I mean “deepening your relationship with Jesus” and also “deepening your understanding of your church’s dogma or theology”. These can be mutually exclusive, they can be almost irrelevant to one another or they can be closely linked. This depends, I think, a little on the doctrine or theology, but mostly it depends on the attributes and inclinations of the believers and a lot on God’s good grace.

As for teaching the Bible in Catholic churches. This is a seriously variable thing nowadays. Of course I know that earlier generations of Catholics did poorly in regards to the Bible. I seem to remember cardinal R Knox getting into some strife over his rather excellent translation of the Scriptures because it challenged standard doctrine. But the Jerusalem Bible is pretty good and enjoys a lot of study. I have a couple of Catholic study Bibles and they are hardly prescriptive. I guess I am saying that the Bible is, at least in the West, becoming well read by encouragement in the RC communion. As a result we are seeing a decline in even the mention of doctrines I regard as foolish such as “Indulgences” This is cool and I note that Protestant traditions have also been shedding their own detritus. Of course there are resistance groups. latin mass groups are an example, and I regard YECS as a protestant “return to the old days” thing. I suspect a lot of “Fundamentalism” of either flavour is about returning to the old days.

So, thank you for your response. Have I interpreted your response appropriately and responded accordingly?
I may respond to the “Give a man a fish” section in “helping the Poor” at some stage. I have only responded to the bit relevant (I believe) to this thread. Is that OK?

The ‘give the man the fish’ section really refers to giving the gospel as well, so that people may respond from the heart, as you rightly pointed out is the starting point. It also refers to materially training people to look after themselves. (Africa is a place where this idea has changed people from reliance on charity, to using a new technology to survive)

When I say “deepening your faith” I mean “deepening your relationship with Jesus” and also “deepening your understanding of your church’s dogma or theology”.

I think the latter understanding is more irrelevant. The prior relationship is the only one that matters. Faith in Jesus is most important, but denominational differences only lead us away from Jesus to some extent, I think.
Church dogma and theology only cause division and argument to my mind.

We should neither add to or subtract from scripture as some are wont to do.

It was Jesus who said to the disciples “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” (Mark 16:15) Of course the disciples could not do this themselves, but the passing on of the gospel to the next person and the next, over generations, would fulfil this mission.
So to change parts of, or hide parts of the gospel, is not in keeping with Jesus’ command to do this.

I think it may reasonably argued that the Roman Catholic Church has done this until recently it has been brought to heel. They are finally responding to centuries of criticism, and are attending to a public relations exercise to appear more modern. But they still believe vehemently in Marianism - the adoration and veneration of their goddess, Mary.
If you look at a recent Pope, John Paul you see a good example of this emphasis:
.

Pope John Paul II is the most traveled pope in the history of the papacy, having visited nearly every country in the world which would receive him. As the Vicar of Christ he has consecrated each place that he has visited to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
On May 13, 1983 he went to Fatima to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In October of the same year he canonised St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe, Apostle of Unlimited Consecration to Mary Immaculate.

In 1983, He repeated the consecration of the world to Mary in union with all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in fulfilment of Our Lady’s promises at Fatima.

In 1994 Pope John Paul II beatified Sister Maria Faustina Kowalska of the Congregation of Our Lady of Mercy, giving for the first time a formal approval to the life, work, and teachings of this secretary of the Divine Mercy. In the summer of 1995, Pope John Paul II began a lengthy catechisis on the Blessed Virgin Mary during his weekly Angelus addresses, culminating on October 25, 1995, with his instruction on Our Lady’s active participation in the Sacrifice of Calvary.

This active participation of Our Lady at Calvary is called the Co - redemption. Already in 1982 and 1985 Pope John Paul II used the term “co - redemptrix” in reference to Our Lady in public addresses. This is significant, for he is the first Pope to do so since Pope Benedict XV (1914-1920) at whose prayer Our Lady came to Fatima to reveal Her Immaculate Heart. Since the time of Pope Benedict VX, this terminology was under review by the Holy See; the present Pope’s usage is a confirmation of this traditional view of Mary’s role in salvation history

On September 15, 1985, the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, the Holy Father gave an Angelus address to the faithful and pilgrims gathered at the Vatican. During this address, he characterised the everlasting covenant of salvation wrought by Jesus and Mary as “the Admirable Alliance of Hearts.” The response of the faithful throughout the world was quick and profound. In many places, bishops, priests, religious, the laity and theologians began taking up this theme to radically and dramatically retell the good news of salvation. The very next year an international symposium was organised and convened at Fatima, Portugal, to discuss and promote this prophetic term chosen by the Pope. Another symposium was held in Manila, Philippines, under the auspices of Jaime Cardinal Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, in 1987.

I think most bible trained christians will not be in touch with the above-mentioned religiousity that the Catholic Church engages in.

I there are any Catholics out there, read this link: Mary of the Bible and see the differences between the teaching of the bible and Catholic teaching on the subject.

I come from an evangelical bible believing Church, and I believe this mission is the task of every follower of Christ. But, I have heard it said that there is a fifth gospel. The life we live is a story to non-believers. (cant say I have done that well) but I am sure that your kindness is an open gate to welcome in people to accept God’s Kingdom into their hearts.

Aaah, Mariology is often a point of difference between denominations.
and it does illustrate a primary difference between the RC Communion and Protestant communions. (It also is a divider between the latter and the Orthodox)
Thing is, the general sense is that the early church was the church that selected the books of the Canon. It was also already having a special place for Mary. (and- in terms of influencing my own beliefs- did not have a place for “Assurance of Salvation”). That has influenced those churches with long histories to accept both the practices of the time and Scripture. I’m not convinced that this is wrong.
I hear your claim that Mary is elevated to a goddess status but I don’t accept this. It is a usual claim made against the RC communion and I think mostly unfair and inaccurate. Or, it is accurate, but only in the same way that the claim that certain protestant groups have made the Bible their god.
Mind you, I accept your point re the Co-Redemptorix movement, I have some misgivings about it as well.

Re; Mary of the Bible. I have read rather a lot on this subject. I have a lot of material, protestant and RC. I have read Orthodox, Church Fathers and even a few secular works, not to mention endless cult tracts and books. Incidentally, the only useful argument I have thus far encountered against Mariology was by a secular writer. For the life of me I can’t remember the author or title. But he argued that;
1) Her ever virgin status was probably close to fact. That this wasn’t an unusual feature in a devout life at that time.
2) That Mary herself probably moved to Egypt and a church gathered around her. (He gave some evidence for this- most I think belonging to Coptic Church sources)
3) That she is not some sort of hangover from assorted local goddess cults but this Mariology has an ancient history within the church commencing in Egypt and that the real argument is about its validity.

For my part I take a rather vaguer Anglo-Catholic approach. Mary’s place is special as the Mother of God. She and all the saints hear our prayers and pray with us. Added doctrinal material makes me uncomfortable. On the other hand I don’t think it is easy to condemn practices that date way back to the early church itself. Back to the time the Bible was being made into a canon. Back to when those who were discussing these matters were much closer to Jesus actual time on earth than ours. 2000 years later I suspect my retrospective “wisdom” is in doubt, no matter how much I think it is biblically based.

For my part I suggest Louise Bouyer’s “The Spirit & Forms of Protestantism” although mostly cos it moved my thinking into wider parameters many years ago.

Incidentally
that link was interesting and a little surprising Ken. I’m a tad impressed by your presenting it.
Catholic Bridge .com is an interesting site and pretty close to what I am about I think.

Owen, all I can say is I heartily disagree with your interpretations of scripture, and so do most of my commentaries on the subject.

How do you account for the bible’s account of Mary’s other children? If you read Matthew 1:24-25 it says Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her first born son.

How do you account for the bible’s account of Mary’s other children? 

Ken, tradition is clear on this, Mary had no other children, the usage of the word “brothers” also frequently referred to the extended family, much as it does here among Indigenous people where I am where “cuz” and “bro” mean the same thing.

Owen, Catholics ignore parts of scripture, and so do you.

Hmm, I shall try to keep it civil despite this one Ken. Interpreting it differently to you is not the same as ignoring it. I suggest you have a little look around that same site you linked me to last post.

Scripture says Mary was a virgin in her conception of Jesus, nothing more.

But those who knew her passed on other information. I wonder that you feel so free to ignore it.

She is said to carry on the role of the goddess Isis by many reputable biblical scholars.

So? Arte they also reputable Egyptologists? Comparitive theologians or are they simply reiterating attacks they have heard before them and feel free to join the chorus?

The Marian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was introduced in 1854.

Not true, that was when the doctrine was formally approved. I personally disapprove of this and I know priests who share that disapproval. The belief in this doctrine existed for a very long time though. I hope you understand it. I think it an extraordinarily unnecessary doctrine- which incidentally I hope you understand. I understand RC doctrines (at least better than you apparently do) but do not necessarily share them. I also understand Protestant doctrines like Assurance of Salvation and defend it without accepting it.

If the Vatican had its way, we would be still experiencing the Inquistion from the very very dark ages. Owen look at the historical record. You will see it is true. Why do you like these murderous people?

That is outrageously prejudiced, ill informed and mean spirited, not to mention a blanket attack on a whole cadre of people who are scarcely “murderous”. I remember a co-worker, very protestant, very much like you coming to work one day astounded at a sight he had seen. A certain famous Cardinal from OS was in Sydney in the early 80’s and he had seen this elderly and frail man on a train listening with great patience to two Mormon missionaries. When they had finished their spiel he responded, gently and very lovingly (according to my now suddenly less prejudiced friend) said “My friends, I will not go to your church, but I sincerely hope you come to mine.”
Indeed a “murderous person”.
Ken, I wonder that you can say such things, calling on history, claiming it is the present but for some brief and fragile accident and laying accusation at the feet of men and women who you do not know, have never met and for whom, despite your claims au contraire you clearly loathe.

If, at the end you wish to let this discussion become a platform for spreading vitriol then I suggest we terminate it.
If you would rather refrain from gross generalisation and accusation then I am happy to continue.

Your choice sailor. Into which waters do we sail?

I think I should address this one

I think you should go completely over to the Roman Catholics Owen. I truly think your theology is as twisted as theirs!! 

I think Ken you should try being civil. Clearly you feel free to be abusive here because you feel in this space you have support and therefore “truth” on your side. I feel Ken you should learn to understand that what you believe is just that, belief. It is not truth.
It may take you closer to the truth but if you have not love, you have nothing.

and please, please do not give me the sophistry of saying that speaking the truth is love. You are being abusive, and unpleasant. Again, if you want to continue, please feel free to return to civility and continue we shall.

Incidentally, if these ejaculations of abuse are merely frustration that you have no real argument, just say so.

Owen Atkins - 11 January 2010 08:13 PM

.... these ejaculations of abuse ...

That, Owen, is one “dandy” turn of phrase that one doesn’t hear everyday - or any day for that matter !! I hereby nominate OA for a Pulitzer Prize for contributions to literature ;)

Back on topic, this news article has been released tonight :

Mary MacKillop saved me - cancer victim

By Clementine Cuneo     From:The Daily Telegraph January 11, 2010   6:06PM

A WOMAN cured of inoperable lung and brain cancer through prayers to Mary MacKillop has broken her silence, 16 years after being cured of the disease.

Kathleen Evans, 66, a self-confessed “ordinary woman” from Lake Macquarie in NSW beat an aggressive cancer which riddled her body, with the help of Mother MacKillop.

In 1993, Mrs Evans, a mother of five and grandmother of 20, was diagnosed with lung cancer and a secondary cancer at the base of her brain, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Doctors told the woman treatment would do little to help her, and she had just months to live.

“All I had left was prayer. I was a great believer in prayer,” Mrs Evans said.

During her struggle to survive, a close friend gave Mrs Evans a relic - picture of Mother Mary and attached to it was a tiny piece of the nun’s clothing. “I wore this relic on my nightie and later on my clothing. It never left me,” she said.

She also gave her family and friends prayer cards, and asked them to pray with her.

“Instead of my health deteriorating, I started to get stronger. I was even able to stay out of bed longer.”

Follow-up scans, 10 months after she was diagnosed with the aggressive cancer revealed the cancer had gone, and all that remained were scars from where it had previously been.

Extensive medical documentation was scrutinised by the Catholic Church, confirming Mrs Evans’ curing was “beyond medical explanation”.

Late last year, Pope Benedict confirmed Mrs Evan’s curing was Mary MacKillop’s second miracle, the final step in her canonisation to become Australia’s first saint.

link

Again, what I am seeing ( and hearing ) is that it was Mary MacKillop who healed this lady - not God. For the Pope and the other catholic hierarchy to continue down this road just reinforces teaching that is NOT found in the Scriptures. To go outside the teachings of the Bible leads to heresies and the inventions of man’s fertile imagination. Instead of “to God be the glory” in a healing ‘miracle’, what I see is a dead person being attributed with miraculous powers - and a church which encourages such ill-informed mumbo jumbo. Surely it is time to emerge from the Dark Ages.

Kevin

There is hardly any use in quoting the Telegraph (first paragraph) to support your case.
The belief in relics appears even in the Bible eg; when the prophet’s bones cause a man to heal.

To understand this one needs to shed Protestant glasses to see what is understood. They certainly distort what the catholic believes. I think Bouyer noted that Protestants usually despise a caricature of Catholic belief. One that, were it true, the Catholic would also despise. Most would be surprised to find that it is ascribed to them.

Owen Atkins - 11 January 2010 09:13 PM

The belief in relics appears even in the Bible eg; when the prophet’s bones cause a man to heal.

Regarding 2 Kings 13:21 :

20 Elisha died and was buried.
    Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

In Scripture, I see a distinction between what is DESCRIPTIVE ( of one event that happened ) and PRESCRIPTIVE ( of being prescribed as necessary for all Christians to emulate. ) To do otherwise is to enter the area where one starts to argue from silence.

It’s not prescribed but it is accepted as valid.

The point here is though, in Scripture it wasn’t Elisha
in this instant
it wasn’t Mary McKillop, in Catholic understanding.
Is there a reason why folks want it to be otherwise?

OA I agree with the thrust of your posts about Mary MacKillop. I crave your indulgence to take it a bit further. I note that this is te UN year of diversity. Where we learn to appreciate and tolerate our living enviorment, or face posible extinction. We should also make it the year of Religious Diversity for the same reason IE threat of extinction of religion.
    If some people want Mary MacKillop to be a saint, that’s OK by me.So long as she does not replace the ditates and glory of God , our all powerfull. non-human, non-gender creator.  In the beginning God created man by evolution(as we have found) and evolution is still continuing with our genes and menes and our Bible which was inspired by God, not created by God.
  The current spat in Malasyia over the Christians using “Allah” for “God” on occasions is a case of fundamentalist zeal which could cause millions to be killed, all in the name of power, just like the Pharisees used the scriptures against the Christians, especially Jesus.

Regarding the Vatican’s reluctance to end the Inquisition –

Humanity was delivered from the “holy Inquisition” by the great emancipator Napoleon Bonaparte.
He abolished it in France first, then in Spain and other Western and Central European countries, after which he set out to deliver Russia from this evil (more details on this will be provided in the following chapters). But Russians routed his army, which was not prepared for military operations in the conditions of the inclement Russian winter.
And the Inquisition was again restored almost everywhere for some time.
However, its positions were undermined by the Napoleon’s activity, people had breathed the “air of freedom”, and soon the Inquisition was abolished completely.

Following the foundation of Italy, and abolition of the Inquisition against the wishes of the all powerful Vatican –

A prisoner in the Vatican is what Pope Pius IX called himself in 1870 when papal rule in Rome was ended by force, the Papal States joined the rest of Italy to form the newly united Kingdom of Italy under King Victor Emmanuel II and the city became the capital.

Popes in their secular role gradually extended their control over neighbouring regions and through the Papal States ruled a large portion of the Italian peninsula for more than a thousand years until the mid 19th century, when most of the territory was seized by the Kingdom of Italy.

Popes initially refused to accept their loss of the Papal States and secular power. In an act of defiance, they refused to leave the Vatican, describing themselves melodramatically as the ‘prisoner in the Vatican’.
Disputes between a series of “prisoner” popes and Italy were resolved on February 11, 1929 by three Lateran treaties, which established the independent state of the Vatican City.

Jesus’ unbelieving neighbors were stupified by His power because they knew His whole family—His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS. When these unbelievers referred to Jesus’ brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples. It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with.
Mark 6:3 Is not this [referring to Jesus] the carpenter, the son of Mary, the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him.

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms—in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.
John 2:17, And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
Psalms 69:8-9 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Why was He an alien to His mother’s children? Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.
John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus’ half-brother James.
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Official Catholic teaching will dispute this scripture, but they are in error, and go on misleading their flock in so many ways. why don’t they just teach what scripture actually means? It is probably because they would lose face by being proven so wrong over the centuries.

OK Ken
1) You article quotes on the Vatican were meant to prove what? Referring to the Vatican 2 centuries back is meant to sway my opinion how? Was that some sort of justification for you belligerence in calling people you know nothig about “murderous”? At best you might feel like it somehow supports your wholesale attacks on complete strangers and justifies your demonstrated arrogance on this issue. I don’t know. I do know that as evidence goes it is useless in argument and as far as I can see your case is baseless.
2) The Catholic Church, the Orthodox, Martin Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, even Wesley all believed that Mary remained virgin and that all references to Our Lord’s brothers and sisters were to members of his extended family and that the terminology was freely used that way. I’m happy to be in their company Ken. You feel the need to believe differently- OK. But wholesale condemnation of those not sharing your belief is arrogant.

@ Doug
I find fundamentalism painful and arrogant. I am not impressed when someone tells me that they have a True Understanding or the Truth or some similar statement of exalted knowledge,
Wholesale accusations against another people by whatever classing method is dangerous.
Calling them “murderous” is disgusting and morally unsupportable. Especially when levelled at an organisation centuries ago and calling the current iteration the same beast.

Tolerance requires that we take time to understand the others, whoever they may be.

@ Ken, I am still interested in taking time to understand your POV and to discuss these issues. I am not interested in feeding your grandstanding.
If you withdraw the accusations and incivilities then we can continue. Otherwise I am tempted to think you are seeking no discussion but an opportunity to spit vitriol.

I’ll leave my previous post there, I wrote it a few moments ago, but I won’t bother responding to any answer you will give until you do something about your slander.

Could posters please supply links to any quotes given - that way we can check the sources ourselves and work out where the original author is coming from. ( Ken, your unsourced quotes on #44 need links - thank you. )

Owen Atkins - 11 January 2010 09:13 PM

There is hardly any use in quoting the Telegraph (first paragraph) to support your case.
...  one needs to shed Protestant glasses to see what is understood. They certainly distort what the catholic believes. I think Bouyer noted that Protestants usually despise a caricature of Catholic belief. One that, were it true, the Catholic would also despise. Most would be surprised to find that it is ascribed to them.

Here are quotes from yesterday’s OFFICIAL statement from “Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese” :

Mary Mackillop’s Second Miracle Breaks Her Silence

Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese,
11 Jan 2010

The 66-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 20 from Windale, near Lake Macquarie, has broken her silence and revealed how her prayers to Mary MacKillop were answered….

..her extraordinary recovery from cancer became the second miracle to be attributed to Mary MacKillop...

...she felt both humble and privileged to have her cure from cancer recognised and approved as the second miracle for the beloved founder of the Josephite order….

.... a friend who lived in the Hunter Valley gave her a picture of Mary MacKillop and attached to the back was a relic, a small piece of Mary’s clothing. “I wore this relic on my nightie and later on my clothing. It never left me,” ....

...Kathleen, who continues to pray to Mary MacKillop and feels her presence and believes she is constantly with her….

“If someone doesn’t believe in miracles that is for them and that’s fine,” she said. “But it just happens I do believe in miracles and through Mary MacKillop’s intervention, God saved my life.”

official statement

I thought that this official Diocesan document might be an acceptable alternative to quoting from The Telegraph. But nothing changes in my opinion - we still have two opposing viewpoints. I just happen to believe that the Bible clearly indicates that we cannot have dealings with dead people. And it is not dead ‘saints’ who intercede for us , rather :

And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weaknesses; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27

Romans 8:34 tells us that Jesus, ”.. who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.”

That’s what I believe - and that’s enough for me anyway.

That’s what I believe - and that’s enough for me anyway.

Indeed.
Nonetheless, you would have no problem asking your pastor or a church elder to pray for you? The only question here really is; “can the dead in Christ perceive us?” (The Church Triumphant)
If they can then it is a certainty they pray for us.

Unfortunately we have the issue over the word “pray”.

Middle English, from Anglo-French prier, praer, preier, from Latin precari, from prec-, prex request, prayer; akin to Old High German frāga question, frāgēn to ask, Sanskrit pṛcchati he asks

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

It isn’t/ wasn’t a word used exclusively in reference to God. It does so in Protestant circles but elsewhere it doesn’t. The thought is to ask the Glorious Dead to intercede for us. Just as we would other members of our church.

The Catholic Church has decided to recognise Mary McKillup’s intercession.