Heresy watch: Queen of Heaven…

imagesI added the following in a link as part of a comment which outlined a papal decree, ‘Ad Caeli Reginam’ (‘To The Queen of Heaven’), by Pius XII, given in 1954, which is fairly recent in terms of papal time.

In this speech, the pope advocated naming Mary as Queen of Heaven. Reading through it I was nonplussed by the forwardness of the pope in pressing for the glorification of Mary to an extreme position in heaven.

It is from the Vatican site, so it is a bona fidé Catholic statement.

I won’t comment on it, just let you read through and make a decision for yourself, except to ask if you can spot any heresy or even blasphemy in this incredible passage. It is quite long, but I encourage you to push on through it, although you’ll get the gist of it in the opening paragraphs. The real eye-popping stuff comes as you go through the whole piece, though.

Here we go…

AD CAELI REGINAM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON PROCLAIMING THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Blessing.

From the earliest ages of the catholic church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother’s solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

2. Following upon the frightful calamities which before Our very eyes have reduced flourishing cities, towns, and villages to ruins, We see to Our sorrow that many great moral evils are being spread abroad in what may be described as a violent flood. Occasionally We behold justice giving way; and, on the one hand and the other, the victory of the powers of corruption. The threat of this fearful crisis fills Us with a great anguish, and so with confidence We have recourse to Mary Our Queen, making known to her those sentiments of filial reverence which are not Ours alone, but which belong to all those who glory in the name of Christian.

3. It is gratifying to recall that We ourselves, on the first day of November of the Holy Year 1950, before a huge multitude of Cardinals, Bishops, priests, and of the faithful who had assembled from every part of the world, defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven[1] where she is present in soul and body reigning, together with her only[1a] Son, amid the heavenly choirs of angels and Saints. Moreover, since almost a century has passed since Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, proclaimed and defined the dogma that the great Mother of God had been conceived without any stain of original sin, We instituted the current Marian Year[2] And now it is a great consolation to Us to see great multitudes here in Rome – and especially in the Liberian Basilica – giving testimony in a striking way to their faith and ardent love for their heavenly Mother. In all parts of the world We learn that devotion to the Virgin Mother of God is flourishing more and more, and that the principal shrines of Mary have been visited and are still being visited by many throngs of Catholic pilgrims gathered in prayer.

4. It is well known that we have taken advantage of every opportunity – through personal audiences and radio broadcasts – to exhort Our children in Christ to a strong and tender love, as becomes children, for Our most gracious and exalted Mother. On this point it is particularly fitting to call to mind the radio message which We addressed to the people of Portugal, when the miraculous image of the Virgin Mary which is venerated at Fatima was being crowned with a golden diadem.[3] We Ourselves called this the heralding of the “sovereignty” of Mary.[4]

5. And now, that We may bring the Year of Mary to a happy and beneficial conclusion, and in response to petitions which have come to Us from all over the world, We have decided to institute the liturgical feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen. This will afford a climax, as it were, to the manifold demonstrations of Our devotion to Mary, which the Christian people have supported with such enthusiasm.

6. In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary’s queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.

7. It is Our pleasure to recall these things in the present encyclical letter, that We may renew the praises of Our heavenly Mother, and enkindle a more fervent devotion towards her, to the spiritual benefit of all mankind.

8. From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,”[5] “the Prince of Peace,”[6] the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”[7] And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.

9. Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever,[8] and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.”[9] Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son.

10. So it is that St. Ephrem, burning with poetic inspiration, represents her as speaking in this way: “Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her mother.”[10] And in another place he thus prays to her: “. . . Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me.”[11]

11. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls Mary “the Mother of the King of the universe,” and the “Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the whole world,”[12] while Prudentius asserts that the Mother marvels “that she has brought forth God as man, and even as Supreme King.”[13]

12. And this royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite clearly indicated through direct assertion by those who call her “Lady,” “Ruler” and “Queen.”

13. In one of the homilies attributed to Origen, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord.” and even addresses her as “Thou, my Lady.”[14]

14. The same thing is found in the writings of St. Jerome where he makes the following statement amidst various interpretations of Mary’s name: “We should realize that Mary means Lady in the Syrian Language.”[15] After him St. Chrysologus says the same thing more explicitly in these words: “The Hebrew word ‘Mary’ means ‘Domina.’ The Angel therefore addresses her as ‘Lady’ to preclude all servile fear in the Lord’s Mother, who was born and was called ‘Lady’ by the authority and command of her own Son.”[16]

15. Moreover Epiphanius, the bishop of Constantinople, writing to the Sovereign Pontiff Hormisdas, says that we should pray that the unity of the Church may be preserved “by the grace of the holy and consubstantial Trinity and by the prayers of Mary, Our Lady, the holy and glorious Virgin and Mother of God.”[17]

16. The Blessed Virgin, sitting at the right hand of God to pray for us is hailed by another writer of that same era in these words, “the Queen[17a] of mortal man, the most holy Mother of God.”[18]

17. St. Andrew of Crete frequently attributes the dignity of a Queen to the Virgin Mary. For example, he writes, “Today He transports from her earthly dwelling, as Queen of the human race, His ever-Virgin Mother, from whose womb He, the living God, took on human form.”[19]

18. And in another place he speaks of “the Queen of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, who is exalted above all things save only God himself.”[20]

19. Likewise St. Germanus speaks to the humble Virgin in these words: “Be enthroned, Lady, for it is fitting that you should sit in an exalted place since you are a Queen and glorious above all kings.”[21] He likewise calls her the “Queen of all of those who dwell on earth.”[22]

20. She is called by St. John Damascene “Queen, ruler, and lady,”[23] and also “the Queen of every creature.”[24] Another ancient writer of the Eastern Church calls her “favored Queen,” “the perpetual Queen beside the King, her son,” whose “snow-white brow is crowned with a golden diadem.”[25]

21. And finally St. Ildephonsus of Toledo gathers together almost all of her titles of honor in this salutation: “O my Lady, my Sovereign, You who rule over me, Mother of my Lord . . . Lady among handmaids, Queen among sisters.”[26]

22. The theologians of the Church, deriving their teaching from these and almost innumerable other testimonies handed down long ago, have called the most Blessed Virgin the Queen of all creatures, the Queen of the world, and the Ruler of all.

23. The Supreme Shepherds of the Church have considered it their duty to promote by eulogy and exhortation the devotion of the Christian people to the heavenly Mother and Queen. Simply passing over the documents of more recent Pontiffs, it is helpful to recall that as early as the seventh century Our predecessor St. Martin I called Mary “our glorious Lady, ever Virgin.”[27] St. Agatho, in the synodal letter sent to the fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council called her “Our Lady, truly and in a proper sense the Mother of God.”[28] And in the eighth century Gregory II in the letter sent to St. Germanus, the patriarch, and read in the Seventh Ecumenical Council with all the Fathers concurring, called the Mother of God: “The Queen of all, the true Mother of God,” and also “the Queen of all Christians.”[29]

24. We wish also to recall that Our predecessor of immortal memory, Sixtus IV, touched favorably upon the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, beginning the Apostolic Letter Cum praeexcelsa[30] with words in which Mary is called “Queen,” “Who is always vigilant to intercede with the king whom she bore.” Benedict XIV declared the same thing in his Apostolic Letter Gloriosae Dominae, in which Mary is called “Queen of heaven and earth,” and it is stated that the sovereign King has in some way communicated to her his ruling power.[31]

25. For all these reasons St. Alphonsus Ligouri, in collecting the testimony of past ages, writes these words with evident devotion: “Because the virgin Mary was raised to such a lofty dignity as to be the mother of the King of kings, it is deservedly and by every right that the Church has honored her with the title of ‘Queen’.”[32]

26. Furthermore, the sacred liturgy, which acts as a faithful reflection of traditional doctrine believed by the Christian people through the course of all the ages both in the East and in the West, has sung the praises of the heavenly Queen and continues to sing them.

27. Ardent voices from the East sing out: “O Mother of God, today thou art carried into heaven on the chariots of the cherubim, the seraphim wait upon thee and the ranks of the heavenly army bow before thee.”[33]

28. Further: “O just, O most blessed (Joseph), since thou art sprung from a royal line, thou hast been chosen from among all mankind to be spouse of the pure Queen who, in a way which defies description, will give birth to Jesus the king.”[34] In addition: “I shall sing a hymn to the mother, the Queen, whom I joyously approach in praise, gladly celebrating her wonders in song. . . Our tongue cannot worthily praise thee, O Lady; for thou who hast borne Christ the king art exalted above the seraphim. . . Hail, O Queen of the world; hail, O Mary, Queen of us all.”[35]

29. We read, moreover, in the Ethiopic Missal: “O Mary, center of the whole world, . . . thou art greater than the many-eyed cherubim and the six-winged seraphim . . . Heaven and earth are filled with the sanctity of thy glory.”[36]

30. Furthermore, the Latin Church sings that sweet and ancient prayer called the “Hail, Holy Queen” and the lovely antiphons “Hail, Queen of the Heavens,” “O Queen of Heaven, Rejoice,” and those others which we are accustomed to recite on feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary: “The Queen stood at Thy right hand in golden vesture surrounded with beauty”[37]; “Heaven and earth praise thee as a powerful Queen”[38]; “Today the Virgin Mary ascends into heaven: rejoice because she reigns with Christ forever.”[39]

31. To these and others should be added the Litany of Loreto which daily invites Christian folk to call upon Mary as Queen. Likewise, for many centuries past Christians have been accustomed to meditate upon the ruling power of Mary which embraces heaven and earth, when they consider the fifth glorious mystery of the rosary which can be called the mystical crown of the heavenly Queen.

32. Finally, art which is based upon Christian principles and is animated by their spirit as something faithfully interpreting the sincere and freely expressed devotion of the faithful, has since the Council of Ephesus portrayed Mary as Queen and Empress seated upon a royal throne adorned with royal insignia, crowned with the royal diadem and surrounded by the host of angels and saints in heaven, and ruling not only over nature and its powers but also over the machinations of Satan. Iconography, in representing the royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has ever been enriched with works of highest artistic value and greatest beauty; it has even taken the form of representing colorfully the divine Redeemer crowning His mother with a resplendent diadem.

33. The Roman Pontiffs, favoring such types of popular devotion, have often crowned, either in their own persons, or through representatives, images of the Virgin Mother of God which were already outstanding by reason of public veneration.

34. As We have already mentioned, Venerable Brothers, according to ancient tradition and the sacred liturgy the main principle on which the royal dignity of Mary rests is without doubt her Divine Motherhood. In Holy Writ, concerning the Son whom Mary will conceive, We read this sentence: “He shall be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end,”[40] and in addition Mary is called “Mother of the Lord”;[41] from this it is easily concluded that she is a Queen, since she bore a son who, at the very moment of His conception, because of the hypostatic union of the human nature with the Word, was also as man King and Lord of all things. So with complete justice St. John Damascene could write: “When she became Mother of the Creator, she truly became Queen of every creature.”[42] Likewise, it can be said that the heavenly voice of the Archangel Gabriel was the first to proclaim Mary’s royal office.

35. But the Blessed Virgin Mary should be called Queen, not only because of her Divine Motherhood, but also because God has willed her to have an exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation. “What more joyful, what sweeter thought can we have” – as Our Predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI wrote – “than that Christ is our King not only by natural right, but also by an acquired right: that which He won by the redemption? Would that all men, now forgetful of how much we cost Our Savior, might recall to mind the words, ‘You were redeemed, not with gold or silver which perishes, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb spotless and undefiled.[43] We belong not to ourselves now, since Christ has bought us ‘at a great price’.”[44], [45]

36. Now, in the accomplishing of this work of redemption, the Blessed Virgin Mary was most closely associated with Christ; and so it is fitting to sing in the sacred liturgy: “Near the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ there stood, sorrowful, the Blessed Mary, Queen of Heaven and Queen of the World.”[46] Hence, as the devout disciple of St. Anselm (Eadmer, ed.) wrote in the Middle Ages: “just as . . . God, by making all through His power, is Father and Lord of all, so the blessed Mary, by repairing all through her merits, is Mother and Queen of all; for God is the Lord of all things, because by His command He establishes each of them in its own nature, and Mary is the Queen of all things, because she restores each to its original dignity through the grace which she merited.[47]

37. For “just as Christ, because He redeemed us, is our Lord and king by a special title, so the Blessed Virgin also (is our queen), on account of the unique manner in which she assisted in our redemption, by giving of her own substance, by freely offering Him for us, by her singular desire and petition for, and active interest in, our salvation.”[48]

38. From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of “recapitulation,”[49] in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ “in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race”;[50] and if, in truth, “it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his lamentable fall,”[51] then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam.

39. Certainly, in the full and strict meaning of the term, only Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is King; but Mary, too, as Mother of the divine Christ, as His associate in the redemption, in his struggle with His enemies and His final victory over them, has a share, though in a limited and analogous way, in His royal dignity. For from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer’s Kingdom; from her union with Christ finally is derived the inexhaustible efficacy of her maternal intercession before the Son and His Father.

40. Hence it cannot be doubted that Mary most Holy is far above all other creatures in dignity, and after her Son possesses primacy over all. “You have surpassed every creature,” sings St. Sophronius. “What can be more sublime than your joy, O Virgin Mother? What more noble than this grace, which you alone have received from God”?[52] To this St. Germanus adds: “Your honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation; your greatness places you above the angels.”[53] And St. John Damascene goes so far as to say: “Limitless is the difference between God’s servants and His Mother.”[54]

41. In order to understand better this sublime dignity of the Mother of God over all creatures let us recall that the holy Mother of God was, at the very moment of her Immaculate Conception, so filled with grace as to surpass the grace of all the Saints. Wherefore, as Our Predecessor of happy memory, Pius IX wrote, God “showered her with heavenly gifts and graces from the treasury of His divinity so far beyond what He gave to all the angels and saints that she was ever free from the least stain of sin; she is so beautiful and perfect, and possesses such fullness of innocence and holiness, that under God a greater could not be dreamed, and only God can comprehend the marvel.”[55]

42. Besides, the Blessed Virgin possessed, after Christ, not only the highest degree of excellence and perfection, but also a share in that influence by which He, her Son and our Redeemer, is rightly said to reign over the minds and wills of men. For if through His Humanity the divine Word performs miracles and gives graces, if He uses His Sacraments and Saints as instruments for the salvation of men, why should He not make use of the role and work of His most holy Mother in imparting to us the fruits of redemption? “With a heart that is truly a mother’s,” to quote again Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, “does she approach the problem of our salvation, and is solicitous for the whole human race; made Queen of heaven and earth by the Lord, exalted above all choirs of angels and saints, and standing at the right hand of her only [55a] Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother’s prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused.”[56] On this point another of Our Predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII, has said that an “almost immeasurable” power has been given Mary in the distribution of graces;[57] St. Pius X adds that she fills this office “as by the right of a mother.”[58]

43. Let all Christians, therefore, glory in being subjects of the Virgin Mother of God, who, while wielding royal power, is on fire with a mother’s love.

44. Theologians and preachers, however, when treating these and like questions concerning the Blessed Virgin, must avoid straying from the correct course, with a twofold error to guard against: that is to say, they must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth, on the other hand, they must watch out for excessive narrowness of mind in weighing that exceptional, sublime, indeed all but divine dignity of the Mother of God, which the Angelic Doctor teaches must be attributed to her “because of the infinite goodness that is God.”[59]

45. For the rest, in this as in other points of Christian doctrine, “the proximate and universal norm of truth” is for all the living Magisterium of the Church, which Christ established “also to illustrate and explain those matters which are contained only in an obscure way, and implicitly in the deposit of faith.”[60]

46. From the ancient Christian documents, from prayers of the liturgy, from the innate piety of the Christian people, from works of art, from every side We have gathered witnesses to the regal dignity of the Virgin Mother of God; We have likewise shown that the arguments deduced by Sacred Theology from the treasure store of the faith fully confirm this truth. Such a wealth of witnesses makes up a resounding chorus which changes the sublimity of the royal dignity of the Mother of God and of men, to whom every creature is subject, who is “exalted to the heavenly throne, above the choirs of angels.”[61]

47. Since we are convinced, after long and serious reflection, that great good will accrue to the Church if this solidly established truth shines forth more clearly to all, like a luminous lamp raised aloft, by Our Apostolic authority We decree and establish the feast of Mary’s Queenship, which is to be celebrated every year in the whole world on the 31st of May. We likewise ordain that on the same day the consecration of the human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary be renewed, cherishing the hope that through such consecration a new era may begin, joyous in Christian peace and in the triumph of religion.

48. Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary’s name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name.

49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers, and with all envy and avarice thrust aside, will promote love among classes, respect the rights of the weak, cherish peace. No one should think himself a son of Mary, worthy of being received under her powerful protection, unless, like her, he is just, gentle and pure, and shows a sincere desire for true brotherhood, not harming or injuring but rather helping and comforting others.

50. In some countries of the world there are people who are unjustly persecuted for professing their Christian faith and who are deprived of their divine and human rights to freedom; up till now reasonable demands and repeated protests have availed nothing to remove these evils. May the powerful Queen of creation, whose radiant glance banishes storms and tempests and brings back cloudless skies, look upon these her innocent and tormented children with eyes of mercy; may the Virgin, who is able to subdue violence beneath her foot, grant to them that they may soon enjoy the rightful freedom to practice their religion openly, so that, while serving the cause of the Gospel, they may also contribute to the strength and progress of nations by their harmonious cooperation, by the practice of extraordinary virtues which are a glowing example in the midst of bitter trials.

51. By this Encyclical Letter We are instituting a feast so that all may recognize more clearly and venerate more devoutly the merciful and maternal sway of the Mother of God. We are convinced that this feast will help to preserve, strengthen and prolong that peace among nations which daily is almost destroyed by recurring crises. Is she not a rainbow in the clouds reaching towards God, the pledge of a covenant of peace?[62] “Look upon the rainbow, and bless Him that made it; surely it is beautiful in its brightness. It encompasses the heaven about with the circle of its glory, the hands of the Most High have displayed it.”[63] Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth – and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul – let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.

52. Earnestly desiring that the Queen and Mother of Christendom may hear these Our prayers, and by her peace make happy a world shaken by hate, and may, after this exile show unto us all Jesus, Who will be our eternal peace and joy, to you, Venerable Brothers, and to your flocks, as a promise of God’s divine help and a pledge of Our love, from Our heart We impart the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, on the feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the eleventh day of October, 1954, in the sixteenth year of our Pontificate.

PIUS XII


162 thoughts on “Heresy watch: Queen of Heaven…

  1. St Gemma Galgani

    “The Gem of Christ”
    1878-1903

    Saint of the Passion of Jesus

    Welcome to this website which is devoted to Saint Gemma Galgani, the “Passion Flower”. I hope that you will find in Gemma a friend in Jesus and a very special advocate before our loving God.

    We can learn so much from Gemma, but perhaps the most important thing is the desire to love God with all our hearts. Gemma was not a person of half measures; she loved God with all of her being. Her heart was all on fire with the love of Jesus, and Jesus was everything to her. To know Saint Gemma is to love her. It is impossible to read her writings and not be touched by the fire of her extraordinary love for God, which she expresses so well in her diary, autobiography and letters. Just one example of her remarkable love for God would be the numerous times that the name of Jesus occurs in her writings. In fact, as one devoted biographer has pointed out, we find that the blessed name of Jesus occurs 1,982 times in Gemma’s ecstasies and 1475 times in her letters and 181 times in her autobiography.

    Quotes of St Gemma Galgani:

    On loving God:
    “Oh love, oh infinite love! …..Oh love of my Jesus! ….Let Your love penetrate my all; from You I want nothing else. My God, my God, I love You. But, per­haps I love You too little, oh Jesus?….Oh, if all were to know how beautiful Jesus is, how loving He is! They would all die of love. And yet, how is it that He is so little loved?”
    “Oh Jesus, what would have become of me, if you had not drawn me to You?…..I am Yours, Oh Jesus!..Jesus I love Thee! Open Your heart to me; I wish to place all of my affections there. I open mine to You!” Click here for more…..

    On devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary:
    “Oh, how I love my Mother! She knows it; and then Jesus Himself gave Her to me, and told me to love Her very much. And what great kindness this Heavenly Mother has always shown me! What would have become of me, if I have not had Her? She has always helped me in my spiritual wants; She has preserved me from countless dangers; She has freed me from the hands of the devil who was ceaselessly com­ing to attack me; She pleaded my cause with Jesus when I sinned, and She soothed Him when I moved Him to anger by my wicked life; She has taught me to know Him and to love Him, to be good and to please Him. Ah, my dear Mother, I will love Thee always and forever!” Click here for more…..

    “Whoever could have imagined, that this evening my dear Mother would have come to see me? I would not have even considered it because I believed that my bad conduct would have prevented it. Yet She had compassion on me. Her presence quickly put me in a state of recollection, and then, as often happens, I lost my senses, and I found myself, I think, with Our Lady of Sorrows. Oh, what happiness! What sweetness of heart I felt during those wonderful moments! Let whoever can, explain it. It seemed to me, after some moments of emotion, that She took me in her lap and made me rest my head on Her shoulder and kept it there for a short time. My heart during that time felt perfectly happy and con­tented without any other desire.” Click here for more…

    On receiving Jesus in the Eucharist:
    “Is it possible that there are souls who do not understand what the Blessed Eucharist is? Who are insensible to the Divine Presence…..to the mysterious and fervent effusions of the Sacred Heart of my Jesus? O Heart of Jesus! Heart of love!” “Yesterday, in the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament I felt myself burning so fiercely that I had to go away. I felt stunned that so many could stay so close to Jesus and not be reduced to ashes. I felt that I would be consumed. Jesus is such a sweet and irresistible Lover; how can one fail to love Him with one’s whole heart and soul? How can one not wish to be wholly united in Him, and consumed in the flames of His holy love?” Click here for more….. ”

    ….What would become of me if I did not dedicate all my affections to the Sacred Host? Oh yes, I know it Lord; that in order to make me deserve paradise in heaven, You give me Communion here on earth!” “….I am Yours, oh Jesus. You have good reason to complain about me, yes, because I have offended You. And, undeserving as I am, I should be obliged to give back to the Altar so many stolen Breads, and so much precious Blood. But I promise You that I will make amends.” Click here for more…..

    Gemma pleads for the conversion of a sinner:
    “…..You have not measured the Blood that You have shed for sinners, and now do You wish to measure the enormity of our sins? Do You not listen to me? And I, to whom must I turn? You have shed Thy Blood for him as well as for me. Will You save me and not him? I will not rise from here. Save him. Promise me that You will save him. I offer myself victim for all, but particularly for him. I promise not to refuse Thee anything. Will You grant it to me? It is a soul. Remember, oh Jesus, it is a soul that has cost You so much.” Click here for more…..

    “…So Jesus, do not leave these poor sinners to themselves. I am willing to do something. You died on the cross; make me die too. Since these sinners are your sons and daughters, do not abandon them. Jesus, I want them all to be saved. If you desert them, there is no hope. Must not I be the one to suffer for them? Then arrange it so. You have so many sinners, but so few victims…”
    “I hope for mercy from Jesus, mercy for me and for all poor sinners. If I could, I would atone for all of their sins and also for mine. ”

    On praying:
    “….Let us go to Jesus. He is all alone and hardly anyone thinks of Him. Poor Jesus!” “….See, oh Jesus, even at night, those hours, those hours! I sleep, but Jesus my heart does not sleep. It watches with Thee at all hours.” “…..Can You see that as soon as the day breaks I think of You? As evening comes, I am near You…..I am near You at every moment…….I love You, Jesus…..” Click here for more…..

    On humility:
    “…..Oh Jesus, do not let me do things that are above me. I am good for nothing. I do not know how to return all these great graces you have given me. Seek someone else who will know how to do better than I.” “…..Oh Jesus, if people knew me, they would not come and ask for my prayers.” To her adoptive mother and friend, Cecilia Giannini, she wrote: “I was so astonished that you asked me to pray for that lady. If you did not know me you might be excused; but you know me well enough! I say no more…What can you expect to obtain through a sinful soul that is full of defects and that is so little, if at all concerned about Jesus? And yet I obey, but do not trust me, for I am good for no­thing.” “…..Gemma alone can do nothing. But together Gemma and Jesus can do all things!” Click here for more…..

    Her miraculous cure:
    “…Just before the cure was granted, Jesus said, embrac­ing me, ‘My daughter, I give myself entirely to you and you will be entirely mine.’ I saw clearly that Jesus had taken my parents from me and sometimes this made me discouraged, because I believed myself abandoned. That morning I complained to Jesus about this and He, always so good and tender, said to me: ‘My daughter, I will always be with you. I will be your Father and She (indicating our Mother of Sorrows) will be your Mother. He who is My hands can never lack fatherly help. You will never lack anything, even though I have taken away from you all earthly consolation and support. Come, draw near to Me, you are my daughter. Are you not happy to be the daughter of Jesus and Mary?’

    The overwhelming affections to which Jesus gave rise in my heart kept me from answering. After about two hours had passed I arose. Those in the house wept for joy. I too was happy, not because I was cured but because Jesus had chosen me to be His daughter. Before leaving me that morning Jesus said to me: “To the grace that has been given you this morning there will be added many more, and even greater ones.” And this has been so true because Jesus has always protected me in a special way. I have treated Him only with coldness and indifference and in exchange He has given me only signs of His infinite love.” Click here for more…..

    Union with God and desire for heaven:
    “I live on this earth, but I seem to dwell here like a soul who has lost it’s way, because never for a moment do I cease looking towards Jesus, apart from whom I despise all things.” “I greatly rejoice that time flies so quickly, because that means so much less time to spend in this world, where there is nothing to attract me. My heart goes incessantly in search of a Treasure, an immense Treasure that I do not find in creatures; a Treasure that will satisfy me and console me, and give me rest.” Click here for more…..

    Gemma receives the Stigmata:
    “…..At that moment Jesus appeared with all His wounds open, but blood no longer came out of those wounds. Rather, flames of fire issued forth from them and in an instant these flames came to touch my hands, my feet and my heart. I felt as if I would die. I fell to the floor, but my Mother supported me, keeping me covered in Her mantle.” Click here for more…..

    Jesus teaches Gemma the value of suffering:
    “…Jesus in His infinite charity continued His graces and favors to me. One day He said to me lovingly: ‘Daughter, what should I say to you, when in your doubts, your sufferings and your adversities, you think of going to others rather than coming to Me, and you seek alleviation and comfort other than Mine.’ Click here for more

    “I knew that I deserved these reproofs, nevertheless I continued as usual, and Jesus rebuked me again saying, ‘Gemma, do you realize that you are offending Me when in your great need you come to Me last, after other creatures who cannot give you consolation? I suffer, My daughter, when I see that you forget Me.’
    This last reproof sufficed and served to detach me from every creature in order to turn myself to our Creator.”

    “It is true Jesus, if I think of what I have gone through as a child, and now as a grown up girl, I see that I have always had crosses to bear; But oh! how wrong are those who say that suffering is a misfortune!” Click here and also here for more…..

    Quotes from her Letters:
    “…..Oh, when I see Jesus in tears it pierces my heart. I realize that I, by my sins, have increased the suffering which overwhelmed Him while He prayed in the garden. At that moment, Jesus saw all my sins, all my failings, and He saw also that place I should have occupied in hell, if Thy Heart, oh Jesus, had not pardoned me” Click here for more…..

    “My spirit is will­ing but my flesh is weak, weak because I am so lazy. What would I not do for Jesus! For anyone who had just one of His glances, it would suffice; what force, what vigor he would feel! I feel that I would do anything for Him to see Him content; the greatest torment would seem to me easy to bear supported by Him, every drop of my blood I would give willingly, and all to satisfy Him, to prevent poor sinners from offending Him. My God, what do I say? I should wish my voice to reach to the uttermost ends of the earth; I should wish to have all sinners under­stand me. I should want to cry out to them: ‘Rather than insult Jesus, prefer to be insulted yourselves.’ If you knew, Father, how Jesus is afflicted in certain moments at certain times! Oh, it is not possible to bear the sight of Him longing and, yet, how few are those who suffer with Him? Very few, and Jesus finds Himself almost alone. It is so sad to see Jesus in the midst of sorrows! But how can one see Him in that state and not aid Him? Click here for more….

    “Jesus continues to make me aware of Himself several times a day; in the evening, the morning, and at all times and in all places . . . And what strength it takes for me to hide this from others, especially when I am in the Church, outside, or even when I find myself alone.” Click here for more….

    From her recorded ecstasies:
    “My God, open Your heart to me. Oh Jesus, open Your sacred breast to me, so I may place all my affections there. And you, oh Jesus, You said many times that You would wel­come me generously: is that true my Jesus? How much I love You, oh Jesus! I thank you; but why do You behave so lovingly while I offend You with such ingratitude? This thought alone should make me become a flame of love, if only I could understand it well … I love You, oh Jesus. What a fine love is mine, loving someone who does not get angry with those who offend Him!…… Oh Jesus, if I were to consider attentively the great cares You show me, how I ought to excel in so many virtues!” Click here for more…..

    Attacks by the devil:
    “….Today I thought I was to be entirely free from that nauseous animal, and instead he has knocked me about greatly. I had gone to bed with the full intention of sleeping, but it turned out otherwise. He began to beat me with such blows that I feared I would die. He was in the shape of a big black dog, and he put his “paws” on my shoulders, hurting me greatly. I felt it so much in all my bones that I thought that they were broken. Also, when I was taking holy water he wrenched my arm so violently that I fell to the floor from the pain. The bone was dislocated, but went back into place because Jesus touched it for me, and all was remedied.” Click here for more…..

    From her Diary:
    “…..Jesus, as soon as he arrived on my tongue (the cause so often of so many sins), made Himself felt immediately. I was no longer in myself but Jesus was in me; He descended to my breast. (I say breast, because I no longer have a heart; I gave it to Jesus’ Mom.) What happy moments I spent with Jesus! How could I return His affections? With what words could I express His love, and for this poor creature? Yet He did deign to come. It’s truly impossible, yes, it is impossible not to love Jesus. How many times He asked me if I love Him and if I truly love Him. And do you still doubt it, my Jesus? So, He unites ever more closely with me, talks to me, says He wants me to be perfect, that He too loves me very much and I should reciprocate.” Click here for more…..

    From her Autobiography:
    “….I began therefore, to make the Holy Hour, but I felt myself so full of sorrow for my sins that it was a time of continual martyrdom. However, in the midst of this sorrow there was one comfort, namely, weeping. This was both a comfort and a relief to me. I spent the entire hour praying and weeping. Finally, being very tired, I sat down but the sorrow continued. I became entirely recollected and after a little bit, all of a sudden, I felt my strength fail. (It was only with great difficulty that I was able to get up and lock the door to the room.) Where was I? Dear Father, I found myself before Jesus Crucified. He was bleeding all over. I lowered my eyes and the sight filled me with pain. I made the sign of the cross and immediately my anguish was succeeded by peace of soul. I continued to feel an even stronger sorrow for my sins and I had not the courage to raise my eyes and look at Jesus. I prostrated myself on the floor and remained there for several hours. “My daughter,” He said, “Behold these wounds. They have all been opened for your sins. But now, be consoled, for they have all been closed by your sorrow. Do not offend Me any more. Love Me as I have always loved you. Love Me.”

    This He repeated several times. The vision vanished and I returned to my senses. From that time on I began to have a great horror for sin (which was the greatest grace Jesus has given me). The wounds of Jesus remained so vividly impressed in my mind that they have never been effaced.” Click here for more…..

  2. But seeing you want to go down this track. You won’t have the balls to let this stand.

    THE PROPHET PHIL PRINGLE
    Well, C3 Church senior pastor Phil Pringle is a self-proclaimed prophet. In the middle of a tithing talk, where he has already told his followers to give their 10% before paying their rent and other expenses, Pringle says he’s like the prophet Elijah.

    At about 4:20 in this video, Pringle says …

    God sends prophets into our lives, he sends messengers, and ministers, and people of God into our lives to unlock a miracle on the inside of us, but it always takes a decision of the will, and a step of faith to actually bring that out. And that’s what I am maybe in your life today. Maybe I’m Elijah saying, first take God’s portion and give it to him, don’t hold it back!”

    Find it here

    Put your faith and your money in Phil Pringle and you’ll get a miracle. Unbelievable.

  3. The clip has no relevance to the post whatsoever, Bones. I could care less how you interpret Phil Pringle in a short clip you lifted from c3churchwatch. If you want me to launch into a discussion about c3churchwatch go for it. Put up a post from their site. Any will do.

    Bones,
    seeing you want to go down this track

    What track? I posted a Vatican declaration in its entirety. It is its own revelation of its own doctrine. I made no comment except to ask if anyone fought it contained heresy or blasphemy. So what track? I said nothing.

    The article I posted is relevant to some things which went before, but my attention was particluarly alerted to its content, which I think is worth examining.

    The more of it you read the more openly blasphemous I think it gets.

    It actually places Mary at the right hand of the throne of God. Is that merely heresy, or is it blasphemy to elevate Mary to this position and call her Queen of Heaven?

    This is all taken directly from the Vatican library site, so it’s not as if I have gone to an anti-catholic blog for evidence. It’s all there in its full glory for all to see.

    Has the present pope shown himself to be any different about Mary? Apparently not. He is known as being very dedicated to Mary, and I have seen videos of him publicly praying to Mary on the Feast of Fatima as recently as last month.

  4. In fact, Bones, looking at the beginning of the video you placed here, it is a pilfered video with c3churchwatch tag on it. I’ll remove it on this basis if Greg doesn’t. They do not have permission, I know, to place their own logos on C3 produced material.

  5. Spot the heresy. A game for everyone.

    Steven Furtick Prosperity Pimps For Phil Pringle At Presence 2012

    [audio src="http://004f597.netsolhost.com/fftf/F4F041312.mp3" /]

  6. The clip has no relevance to the post whatsoever, Bones.

    Really.

    I thought it was about heresy watch. That’s what the title says.

    But of course only you can define what a heresy is.

    Maybe your friends from C3ChurchWatch would like to come over and have a discussion.

    If they’re allowed.

  7. Oh I’ve invited them many times, on their site, but they seem to bulk at the opportunity, and remove my comments.

    The actual post title is ‘Heresy Watch: Queen of Heaven’. The post is pope Pius XIIs declaration on Mary as Queen of Heaven.

    As you well know.

    You have, as you often do, left out aspects of truth in a falsified attempt to make another point.

    Maybe I’ll leave your response up here, though. It is a fascinating insight into the mind and thinking of a person who has been confronted with undeniable evidence of error and has no where to go to refute it.

  8. These are statements made in the Vatican endorsed declaration I put up in the post. They are all titles and names given to Mary by a pope none of which have been refuted or removed by any succeeding pope.

    If you can get through even a third of them without seeing what is going on you could only be a completely besotted Mary worshipper.

    53 blasphemies in pope Pius XIIs encyclical.

    1. The Church venerates Mary as Queen of Heaven
    2. The Virgin Mother of God reigns over the entire world
    3. Mary is crowned with the glory of a Queen
    4. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
    5. Mary is reigning together with her Son Jesus
    6. Mary is conceived without original sin
    7. Mary is the Heavenly Mother
    8. Shrines are set up for devotion to Mary by many throngs of pilgrims
    9. Popes called visions of Mary the heralding of her sovereignty
    10. Institution of the Feast of Mary, Queen
    11. Popes acknowledge the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God
    12. Mary called Lady, Ruler and Queen (Lady being the high title of a monarch, and meaning of ‘Mary’ in some languages)
    13. Mary is called ‘the Queen of mortal man, the most holy Mother of God’
    14. Mary is called ‘the Queen of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, who is salted above all things save only God himself’
    15. Mary is called ‘ever-virgin Mother’
    16. Mary is enthroned to sit in an exalted place as a Queen and glorious above all kings
    17. Mary is called Queen of all those who dwell on earth
    18. Mary is called Queen of every creature
    19. Mary is called Sovereign ruler
    20. Mary is called heavenly Mother and Queen
    21. Mary is called Queen of all, the true Mother of God
    22. Mary is called the Queen of all Christians
    23. Mary is called co-intercessor with Christ
    24. Mary is called Queen of Heaven and Earth
    25. Catholics sing the praises of the heavenly Queen
    26. Mary is carried away into heaven on chariots of the cherubim, seraphim wait on her, and the ranks of the heavenly army bow before her
    27. Mary is called Queen of all the world
    28. Mary is called the centre of the whole world
    29. Heaven and earth are filled with the sanctity of Mary’s glory
    30. The Queen stands at the right hand of glory in a golden vesture surrounded with beauty
    31. Heaven and earth praise Mary as a powerful Queen
    32. The Virgin Mary ascends into heaven
    33. Mary reigns with Christ forever
    34. The fifth glorious mystery of the rosary is the mystical crown of the heavenly Queen
    35. Mary is Queen and Empress seated upon a royal throne
    36. Mary rules over nature and its powers
    37. Mary rules over the machinations of Satan
    38. Mary has been attributed Divine Motherhood
    39. Mary has an exceptional role in our eternal salvation and is Co-Redemptrix, the new Eve to Christ’s new Adam
    40. Mary, then, is the Mother Queen to Christ the King of all
    41. Mary’s radiance transcends that of all other creatures
    42. Mary has the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the Divine Redeemer’s kingdom
    43. Mary is far above all other creatures in dignity, and, after her Son possesses primacy over all
    44. Mary is and ever was sinless and perfect
    45. Mary reigns over the minds and will of men
    46. Mary imparts to us the fruits of redemption
    47. Mary has unlimited power in the distribution of graces
    48. All Christians are subject to the Virgin Mother of God
    49. Mary is the Mother of God and men
    50. We are admonished to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of the Queen and Mother
    51. Mary is called the Queen of creation
    52. Mary is called the Mediatrix of peace
    53. Mary is called the Queen and Mother of Christendom

  9. See you Pentecostals have some word ideas as well…speaking in tongues, raising from the dead, , words of prophecy and knowledge used to manipulate. I don’t call these things heretical…just weird!

  10. How can anyone but a Queen give birth to a King? There are hundreds upon hundreds of years of thinking and years councils that have gone into defining these beliefs…have you considered that perhaps you are heretical and not the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps C3 is a heretical apostate body and you are a false teacher?

    I still love ya though Steve

  11. I don’t think you read through the list, Greg.

    It’s one thing to call someone a Queen because her Son becomes a King. It is quite another to elevate her to almost equal status, and grant her sovereignty, glory and power.

    But why is your response and Bones’ response a personal attack on me and Pentecostals because I pointed out the 53 blasphemous titles in pope Pius XIIs encyclical?

    Why aren’t you looking into this error and making a decision to deal with it? I’ve got news for you. They don’t burn people at the stake or throw them in prison in our nations for questioning doctrine, dogma or teaching anymore.

    Are you defending it because you accept it? You seem to be by your explanation.

    I can give you sound scriptural reasons for speaking in tongues, prophecy, people raised from the dead and words of knowledge.

    There isn’t a shred of Biblical evidence for any of Pius XIIs elevation of Mary to Queen of Heaven.

    Unless you consider the following to be referencing Mary…

    Jeremiah 44
    25 “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: ‘You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, “We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her.” You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!’
    26 “Therefore hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt: ‘Behold, I have sworn by My great name,’ says the LORD, ‘that My name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, “The Lord GOD lives.”
    27 ‘Behold, I will watch over them for adversity and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, until there is an end to them.

  12. Greg,
    There are hundreds upon hundreds of years of thinking and years councils that have gone into defining these beliefs…

    And so it is with Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, and any number of isms. So, do we invite them into our living room on the basis of their longevity and consideration?

    And you missed out the burnings, persecution and imprisonment of dissenters and rejection of all and any who tried to challenge the unscriptural nature of the heresies.

    The doctrine of Mary as Queen of Heaven is blasphemy.

    I saw that there was heresy in the encyclical, but once I started going through it to compile a list of heretical names of Mary and how she has been elevated above her station by succeeding popes and Catholic theologians, I came to be so shocked that I could only come to the conclusion that these names are not just heresy. They are blasphemous.

  13. And so it is with Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, and any number of isms. So, do we invite them into our living room on the basis of their longevity and consideration?

    Yes, I do. Not only on their longevity and consideration, but also based on my study of their teachings and whether they make sense spirtually.

    I certainly do not subscribe to the theory that whole tribes and nations of people have been deceived for millenia by demons. If that were true then it could equally apply to Christianity, ie. it could have been devised by a very clever demon and we could all be deceived. Possible, but unlikely – and if its true we are all up the creek anyway.

  14. There is far more evidence that the notions of hell, demons, satan, afterlife were influenced by zoroastrianism than any goddess cult with Mary. All these notions came about during the Persian reign over Isreal.

    The zoroastrians (Magi) who greeted Christ wouldn’t even be recognised as saved.

  15. I take it then that you all support the doctrines represented in pope Pius XIIs encyclical.

    You do not consider the Queen of Heaven and Heavenly Mother titles, amongst others, to be excessive?

  16. How could the Magi have been saved whilst Christ was still an infant and had not gone to the cross or been resurrected?

    It wouldn’t have mattered what religion they were, unless they received Christ they were unsaved.

    No one can be saved by religions such as Zoroastrianism, Buddhism or Brahmanism. If Judaism under Mosaic Law could not save you, how could any other religion?

    Only faith in Christ can save. It is not a religion, but faith in the Son, which saves.

  17. Perhaps so, but that dosent mean that these religions are worthless or indeed demonic (as implied by your question about inviting them into our living rooms)

    If you dont “invite them into the living room” how can you become acquainted with them? And if you are not acquainted how can you possibly hope to converse with their adherents?

  18. Wazza,
    demonic, as implied…etc…

    I don’t have to imply anything. I am able to say what I mean and mean what I say.

    Where did I say anything about something being demonic? I didn’t. You made it up and then made a case for your own imaginative suggestion.

    What I mean by having something in your front room is that you wouldn’t invite the cult into your life as part of your life, not if you were a practicing Christian. The Bible expressly warns against other forms of worship, or idolatry. These are undoubtedly idolatrous systems which do not point to Christ, and therefore do not point to the Father. The only way to the Father is through the Son.

    The only way a Christian might have anything to do with these religions is through their personal library where they might keep books or information for reference and study.

    The ancient and modern cults often have similarities with biblical principles, some of which are traceable to the worship of false gods and goddesses. Some of the key idol worshipping systems are mentioned in the Bible and expressly warned against by God.

    The Queen of Heaven is one of them.

  19. Greg’s point was that these falsehoods about Mary as Queen of Heaven have been developed over a long period of time, therefore they might be correct, which is as preposterous as saying the principles of Buddhism must be right because they have been devised over centuries. If they do not match Scripture they are error, regardless of how long they took to develop.

  20. What do you mean by ‘belief in demons, satan and hell’?

    I understand that hell is a simplification of Sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, but are you saying that demons do not exist, or that satan is not personified in scripture?

    I understand that satan is a word for opposer, and can mean anyone who stands against another, but it is also a name attributed to the adversary of God.

    I seem to remember you and Greg arguing that the devil, demons and satan were in fact evil in the lives of people, a sort of psychological entity created within ourselves, but you seem to be saying that it is OK to name Mary as Queen of heaven, but not to personify evil in the form of a fallen angel or a spiritual leader of wickedness.

    Is this you flip-flopping between your liberal views and catholic background?

  21. “These are undoubtedly idolatrous systems which do not point to Christ, and therefore do not point to the Father. The only way to the Father is through the Son.

    I turn that logic on its head, and state that religions that point to the Father must also be pointing in some way to the Son, because the only way to the Father is through the Son.

  22. Even Moses is contemporary or more likely predates Zoroaster, and his histories of the religion he promoted go even further back.

    The notion that Jesus was quoting Zoroaster is so illogical for a Christian that it would take an atheist or at best an agnostic, or worse a de-biblicised liberal to come to this conclusion with such conviction.

    So Bones now attributes Christianity to Zoroaster, and Queen of Heaven to Mary.

    Now we are starting to see why we’ve been having so many argument dover scripture.

  23. There is no mention of demons in the Old Testament. Demonology begins to spread after the Persian conquest.

    It is a biblical fact that the Persians were well received and had great influence in Judaism eg Ezra and Daniel. the two latest books in the OT.

    Oh and Pharisees comes from the Aramaic for Persians. They had very similar beliefs to the zoroastrians.

  24. Except the earliest reference to demons in the Old Testament is in Leviticus, which gives the Hebrew sabir, which is a derivation of a hairy goat, shaggy goat or satyr, where God reminds Israel, through Moses, not to sacrifice to demons any more, imitating the surrounding nations they will shortly encounter.

    The shaggy goat has long been an effigy for satan worship, and still is in some pagan systems.

    In Deuteronomy, Moses uses sed, which is directly translated ‘doemons’ to correlate with the Septuagint Greek, from a root word personifying ‘ruin’ or ‘destruction’, again referring to worship of demons.

    The are other OT references.

    You are wrong to claim that there is no reference to demons in the Old Testament.

    It dates back to Moses, long before the Persian empires.

  25. Queen of Heaven, referring to Ashteroth, is one of the deities rejected by God.

    Ther are lists of them in the Old Testament. This isn’t actually a discussion about demons. It is about the RC church and it’s push towards making Mary Queen of Heaven, equal to god and predating the Son of God.

    Well, it isn’t a push. It is a done deal.

  26. Demons in the Old Testament
    Issues in Translation

    Dennis Bratcher

    Note: With some browsers, to view the Greek and Hebrew characters in this document properly you must have multi-lingual support or Unicode enabled.

    There are places in the Old Testament where some English translations use the word “demon” or “devils” (for example, “demons”: Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37; “goat-demons”: Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, NRSV; “devils”: 2 Chron 11:15, AV). In other places, it is easy for people in the modern world who are accustomed to reading the New Testament to think “demons” when they read things like “an evil spirit,” even though the text clearly says that the evil spirit is from God (for example, Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14-23).

    In spite of the translations, there is no word in Hebrew equivalent to the English word “demon,” nor any word that communicates the same meaning that the term communicates in English as an malevolent being in the service of the devil out to destroy humans. That idea today has been shaped by the imagination of medieval writers and popularized in the modern church in terms of evil beings against which Christians need to wage “spiritual warfare.” Yet, the ancient Israelites lived in a world in which that view of “demons” was not part of their culture or way of thinking.

    This disparity between our own modern notions and what lies behind the Hebrew terms and concepts often leads to misunderstanding the point of the biblical text and what it communicates. It is always a good idea to read what the biblical text actually says about a topic, and understand the passage against the social and cultural background of ancient Israel and the early church before we impose too many of our modern assumptions and preconceptions about meaning onto Scripture.

    Idols and Demons

    A good place to begin is Deuteronomy 32:16-17:

    16 They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. (NRSV)

    The Hebrew word translated “demons” in verse 17 (שׁד, seed) occurs here in the plural with the preposition “to” and vocalized with the definite article “the” (לשּׁדים, lassedim), which gives us “to the demons.”

    It is important to be aware that translation is not a matter of finding a single word in one language that translates another word in another language. Translation is more often the translation of ideas and concepts rather than merely words, and there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence of single words between languages. This is especially true of languages that are separated by 3,000 years of history and culture.

    Also, there are other features of language besides just the words that affect translation. Words do not have fixed or inherent meaning in any language. The historical and cultural context in which they are used, the literary features that accompany them, the topics they are used to address, even who is speaking or writing the words can all affect “meaning,” what a term communicates and how it is to be understood. There are many words in English that can take on different meanings in different circumstances, or that can be used as technical terms in one context and yet take on a more common meaning in another context.

    Take for example the simple English verb “run.” It has a fairly simple meaning in most contexts, referring to a human action, “to go faster than a walk.” However, in different contexts it can refer to what a candidate does in a political campaign, to play a musical passage quickly, to go back and forth or spread out between two points, to melt, to remain constant, to penetrate or slip through, etc. It is usually a context or contexts, as well as other terms in that context, that give us clues to which meaning is meant.

    Rather than complicating the meaning, in many places in Hebrew Scriptures some of these features actually help us better understand the meaning of a term no matter what English word we use to translate it. There is one unique and prominent feature of Hebrew writing that is especially helpful in providing a context for the meaning of words. It is known as parallelism, in which ideas are related and emphasized by the grouping of synonyms or antonyms (see Parallelism in Hebrew Writing).

    Along with the term translated “demons,” in the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:16-17 there are a whole series of terms with similar meaning (“synonymous parallelism”) that will help us understand how the writer is using the term שׁד (seed). In these two verses, there are four other parallel terms and phrases that are used with the word translated as “demons”:

    strange or foreign gods (זרים, zariym)
    abhorrent things (תועבת, to‘eybot)
    demons (לשּׁדים, lashshediym)
    gods [they did not know] (אלהים, elohiym)
    new ones [recently come {of whom} your fathers were not afraid] (חדשים, chadashim,)

    The first of these parallel terms is simply the word “strange” (or “stranger”) or “foreign” (“foreigner”). It is most often used of things that present a threat to the community, such as foreign people who are enemies (Hos 7:9, Isa 1:7, Jer 5:19, etc.), prostitutes (“strange women,” Prov 2:16), or things that violate custom or law (“strange fire,” Lev 10:1, Num 3:4; “strange incense,” Ex 30:9). In this sense it is also used to refer to the gods of foreign peoples that present a threat to the proper worship of God (Psa 44:21, Isa 43:12, Jer 2:25, etc.).

    The same is true of the second term, “abhorrent things.” This term is often used to refer generally to the whole practice of Baal worship that included cult objects like household idols, images, sacred poles, trees, and high places, as well as sexual practices of the fertility religion, which were all “abhorrent” or “offensive” to Israelites (Lev. 18:22, Deut 7:25, 1 King 14:24, etc).

    The final two terms also refer to the gods of Canaan with which the Israelites had come into contact only after their entry into the land (for the time frame of Deuteronomy see The Book of Deuteronomy; the “golden calf” or bull in Exodus 32 may have reflected Egyptian religious beliefs). In this sense they were “new” gods that the people “did not know” before.

    It seems obvious in this context from these parallel terms that the term translated “demons” also refers to the gods of the surrounding peoples that posed a threat to Israel’s worship of Yahweh. In this passage in Deuteronomy, the wider context is an appeal, in the form of recounting Israel’s failure to worship God and their practice of worshipping the idols of Canaan, to worship God properly as the only God.

    The immediate context of the use of שׁד(seed) here is also important. Just a few verses later in this passage, there is a clear statement that these “demons” or “strange gods” or “abhorrent things” that the people are so tempted to elevate to deity and use to replace Yahweh are really no gods at all (Deut 32:21):

    32:21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols.
    This leads to the conclusion that the word translated as “demons” does not refer to anything close to what we moderns think of as demons, but is a pejorative term to refer to the idols of Baal worship that are declared to be nothing at all (compare Isa 44:6-20, where the writer pokes fun at the gods of Canaan as nothing but wood and stone). What is emphasized is that they are “no god.”

    In light of this verse, we might note that verse 17a can be translated in two ways. In NRSV, it is translated: “they sacrificed to demons, not God.” This would imply that the verse should be understood to say that they sacrificed “to the demons” instead of sacrificing to God. However the construction in 17a is identical to verse 21, which means it could as easily be translated “they sacrificed to demons that are not god,” which would further emphasize the pejorative use of the term שׁד (seed) here (the LXX supports the NRSV translation).

    In any case, a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, “demons”) does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear.

    It is instructive, then, to note that LXX translates שׁד (seed) in Deuteronomy 32:17 with δαιμονίοις (daimoniois, “demons”), not in the context of “demonic powers” or minions of the devil as we want to hear the term, or even in the context of the NT usage, but in the context of mythological creatures that are specifically stated to be “no-god” (ου θεω, ou theo). In other words, even though the Greek translation uses a term that sounds much closer to our word “demons,” the meaning is not what that word means to us in English, but rather what the Hebrew term communicates.

    Further, the word שׁד (seed) only occurs twice in the MT, here in Deuteronomy 32:17 and in Psalm 106:36-37. It is no accident that the context in the Psalm is precisely the same as the Deuteronomy passage; that is, the condemnation of the Israelites for worshipping the idols of foreign deities.

    Psalm 106:36 They served their idols and they became a hindrance to them; 37 they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons. 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
    Once again, parallelism gives us some indication of the meaning of the word. The Hebrew word שׁד (seed) in verse 36 is parallel to the word עצבים (‘atsabim), “idols” or “graven images, and in verse 38 to עצבי כנען (‘atsabey kená‘an), “idols of Canaan.” Clearly, שׁד (seed) is related to the gods of the Canaanites. And again the Septuagint translates שּׁדים (sedim) by τοις δαιμονιοις (tois daimoniois) to describe these false gods of the Canaanites, as is clear from the latter part of the verse.

    So, it can be concluded that the Hebrew termשׁד (seed) is a loanword from the mythology of the surrounding peoples. Originally, it referred to the mythological creatures of Canaanite and Assyrian religion that were representations of various gods. In biblical usage, it becomes synonymous with “idol,” a pejorative way to refer to Canaanite deities.

    Goats and Satyrs

    In other places, other Hebrew terms are sometimes also translated as “demons.” However, in every case, the context of the term is an attack upon the idolatrous practices of Baal worship, or a negative reference to Canaanite mythology. For example, in 2 Chronicles 11:15, an account of the pagan practices introduced by Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom, the KJV translates “devils” for a different Hebrew term.

    11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. (KJV)
    11:15 and had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons, and for the calves that he had made. (NRSV)
    Here the Hebrew word translated “devils” in the KJV or “goat-demons” in the NRSV is שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). The most common meaning of the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is “goat,” specifically “he-goat” or buck (for example, Gen 37:1; Lev 4:24, etc.; 53 times in the MT). A feminine form of the word occurs twice to refer to “she-goat” (Lev 4:28, 5:6). The root of this word in Hebrew is the word שׂער (se‘ar), which means “hair,” either of animals (Gen 25:25) or of persons (Ju 16:22). Another derived cognate of this word is the word שׂערה (se‘orah), which is usually translated “barley,” that is, a hairy or bearded grain. The connotation of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is that of a “hairy” animal, which is appropriate since many goats in the Middle East are longhaired or Angora goats.

    However, there are four occurrences in the Hebrew text where the term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) takes on a slightly different shade of meaning (2 Chron 11:15, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21, and 34:14) while at the same time retaining the basic meaning of “he-goat.” Leviticus 17:7 reads:

    Lev 17:7 . . . they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves . . ..
    The context here is the regulation of the killing and eating of meat, specifically prohibiting the killing of animals in the open fields or even within the camp without subsuming the taking of life under the covenantal worship of God. Directly forbidden in verse seven is the offering of sacrifices to the “he-goats” instead of to Yahweh. It becomes clear, then, that the “he-goat” is not just an ordinary goat, but refers to something that is a false object of worship, especially with the term “prostitute” that is commonly used in the Old Testament to describe graphically the unfaithfulness of the people in worshipping pagan gods.

    In 2 Chronicles 11:15,שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is connected with “calves” and “high places” that are both associated with pagan Canaanite religious practices. Likewise, in Leviticus 17:7, “he-goat” refers to idolatrous images, either physically represented or part of Canaanite mythology.

    The two other occurrences of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) are both in Isaiah (13:21; 34:14). Although in a different context with a different emphasis, the meaning is similar in both passages.

    13:21 But wild animals will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will live, and there goat-demons will dance. 13:22 Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand, and its days will not be prolonged.
    34:13 Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches. 34:14 Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest. 34:15 There shall the owl nest and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow; there too the buzzards shall gather, each one with its mate.
    In both passages the emphasis is on wild animals that inhabit the desolate places of the desert. These verses are highly poetic descriptions of the desolation of the land under God’s judgment, specifically Babylon (ch. 13) and Edom (ch. 34). The imagery is that of cities being so thoroughly destroyed and overgrown with thorns that only wild animals live there. Among the wild animals, the Hebrew text refers to שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). While it could be argued that the term refers to the ordinary goat, this was a domesticated animal in biblical times. Even though it wandered the hillsides, it was not really a “wild” animal. In other words, “goat” does not fit the imagery here to symbolize devastated and uninhabitable land.

    Some versions (for example, KJV) translate שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these verses not as “devils” or “evil spirits” or even “he-goat” but as “satyr”. The satyr is a legendary creature that shows up in the mythologies of various cultures of the ancient world as the guardian of holy places or deities, or as the personification of debauchery and revelry. It was portrayed as half-human and half-animal, usually with the feet, tail and ears of a longhaired goat or horse and the torso, head and arms of a man. In Greek mythology, the satyrs were the escorts, guardians, and companions of the god Dionysus, the god of mirth, wine, and revelry. They were thought to inhabit the countryside, especially waste areas and ruins. The Greek god Pan was often portrayed in paintings as a satyr.

    Much of what we know about satyrs in ancient mythology comes from Greek and Roman sources. Yet, there seems to be some connection between the idea of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in the ancient Middle East and the satyr in western mythology. Some have even suggested a linguistic connection between the terms. In any case, the Hebrew term שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in these four verses seems to refer to mythological creatures from Canaanite religion, false idols that the people worshipped instead of Yahweh.

    There are overtones in the Isaiah passages of the mythological creatures associated with these particular animals, for example the idea of the satyr behind the use of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr). However, the real point is that Isaiah is using the creatures as metaphorical symbols of desolation, of destruction, of total devastation that results in a place fit only for wild creatures, real or mythological, who inhabit the humanly uninhabitable places of the earth. This picks up the overtones of “emptiness” that is associated with the idols elsewhere (see below). To read more into this by trying to connect the term with the modern idea of demons is drastically to misunderstand the function of poetic language (sometimes called “mythopoetic” language) in prophetic oracles.

    An interesting passage in 2 Kings 23:8 can be further instructive at this point.

    23:8 He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.
    The context of this passage is the religious reforms of Josiah in which he tore down the pagan altars and idols in response to the discovery of the law book in the temple. The Hebrew text here reads “high places of the gates” (השּׁערים, hashshe‘ariym, “the gates”). However, “gates” does not fit with the meaning of this verse here. Most textual scholars suggest that the letter שׁ(sh) in the Massoretic text should be corrected to the letter שׂ (s). They suggest that the reading of the initial letter שׂ (s) as שׁ (sh) was influenced by the repeated occurrence of the word שׁער (sha‘ar) “gate” in the verse (“gate of Joshua,” “gates of the city”). With this correction, the word would read השּׂערים (hasse‘iriym), “satyrs.” So, a better translation of this passage is ” . . .he broke down the high places of the satyrs that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city . . .

    So again the usage of שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) indicates reference to a pagan idol that was being improperly worshipped as a symbol of Canaanite deity. This understanding makes 2 Chronicles 11:15 even more clear. The context there is the sin of Jeroboam I in banishing the Levitical priesthood from the Northern Kingdom and setting up idols of bulls and goats for the people to worship. In fact, this idolatry of Jeroboam I in setting up images of animals to represent the gods of the Canaanites became a paradigm in Israelite theology of the sinful ruler who rejected Yahweh to follow the false gods of the land (compare 1 Kings 12:25-33; 16:25-26).

    It is again instructive to note the Septuagint rendering of these verses. In 2 Chronicles 11:15, rather than simply translating the Hebrew word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) with another word, the translators attempt to translate the “concept” or the meaning. The Greek reading for שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is “the idols and the worthless” (και τοις ειδωλοις και τοις ματαιοις, kai tois eidolois kai tois mataiois). This clearly indicates that the understanding of the term was pagan idols. Especially interesting here is the use of the nominal adjective ματαιοις (mataiois, “vanities,” “emptiness,” “worthless things”) to describe these idols: they are empty, worthless, powerless things! (Note the use of the nominal form of this word in Ephesians 4:17.) It is with this understanding that we note that the word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) in Leviticus 17:7 is translated in the Septuagint solely by the word τοις ματαιοις (tois mataiois): “And they shall no longer offer sacrifices to emptiness.”

    All of this clearly indicates that this word שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) is not used in Hebrew Scriptures to mean anything close to our idea of “demonic powers” but exclusively to refer to the idols of the pagan deities who were recognized to be nothing or empty, devoid of any power. This negative connotation of the imagery of “he-goat” may well be related to the use of a goat in the Israelite sacrificial system as the bearer of the sins of the people (for example, Lev 16:21-22), although it is impossible to know which way the influence ran.

    It can be debated whether Israelites viewed these idols in ontological terms, whether they would ever have asked if the gods they represented “really” existed or not. They would most likely not have asked such a question, since those categories of ultimate reality are alien to the ancient world. They tended to express things in functional terms (what they can do) rather than ontological terms (whether they exist). However, it is clear that the biblical traditions did not view the שׁד (seed) or the שׂעיר (sa‘iyr) as anything to be feared. They simply represented the idols of the Canaanites, which were powerless and could be treated as “emptiness” or “nothing.” In Hebrew thought, that comes close to what moderns mean when they say, “does not exist.”

    Conclusion

    In summary, there is no Hebrew word that can be translated as “demons” to communicate what that word implies in English. There does lie behind the Old Testament conception a basic animistic and mythological world view with which the Israelites are in dialog. But they are using the terms and in dialog with such conceptions, not because they accept them or are dominated by them, but precisely to deny the validity of such mythological world views. The biblical writers use the terms not to accept what they represent but precisely to reject it. It is clear that there was a popular belief among Israelites in such things as ghosts and the mythological creatures of Canaanite religion. But the biblical tradition as it stands moves beyond such popular mythological conceptions to a vision of a Creator, a sovereign God who is in sole control of the world, and does not share that with anything or anyone. So again, there are no “demons” in the Old Testament, only idols that are rejected as “no-gods.”

    http://www.crivoice.org/demonsot.html

  27. Queen of Heaven, referring to Ashteroth, is one of the deities rejected by God.

    Is Mary Ashteroth?

    Do Catholics say Mary is a deity?

  28. So argues Hislop, but you wouldn’t want to go there.

    Source?

    That would be strange as Hislop would be claiming his own beliefs to be of pagan origins.

  29. So first of all your source admits that the term sed is present in the Mosaic texts, then tries to vanish it away with a long explanation that ‘demons’ doesn’t actually mean ‘demons’ but something far more human and less spiritual. And when did satyrs not be considered demonic.

    The rest of us, who live in reality, take our main source to be Christ, who, on several occasions referred to demons, and take notice that the Pharisees even accused him of having a demon. From Moses to Revelation demons are discussed, including what they are, what they do and how a Christian can deal with them.

    Further, Bones engineers a world in which Jesus took his teaching on demons and his actual ministry in dealing with demons from Zoroaster and not from Moses, or the Prophets, or, wait for it, from the fact that he is the Word made flesh who preexisted all of them and probably knows more about the spiritual realm than anyone.

    So you all would rather play around with semantics and historical redesign than admit that the name Queen of Heaven as attributed to Mary is a serious breach of theological ethics and liable to be considered at least heresy and probably blasphemy.

    And yes the RC church is deifying Mary. Or at least Pius XII is. And I don’t see a whole lot of disagreement with him from the rest of the papal infallibles.

    Did you actually read the list of 53 blasphemies I put on is thread, Bones. Or the actual encyclical? There are 53 references to the deification of Mary, and you ask if they are deifying her.

    Which part of ‘Mary is sovereign ruler’ didn’t you grasp? Or ‘Heavenly Mother’? Or ‘Queen of Heaven’?

  30. If you’d ever bothered to read the Hislop you criticise you’d know exactly what I mean. Source it yourself if you need it. I’ve left Hislop out of everything since your bad manners excluded any reference to his work. I see no reason to introduce him now.

  31. Why don’t you simply read through the list of 53 titles I claim to be blasphemous for yourself, and, if by the end of it you still can’t grasp the significance of what Pius XII is claiming for Mary, I’ll explain to for you.

    They are all taken straight out of his encyclical, so there is nothing sinister on my part. Just read the list, one by one, and, if you don’t see it, I’d have to wonder what you actually do believe, or what you do understand of scripture, faith, and God’s will.

  32. wazza, in response to my comment,
    “These are undoubtedly idolatrous systems which do not point to Christ, and therefore do not point to the Father. The only way to the Father is through the Son.”

    I turn that logic on its head, and state that religions that point to the Father must also be pointing in some way to the Son, because the only way to the Father is through the Son.

    So you make the assumption that, say, Buddhism, is pointing to the Father, which it is not. No are any idolatrous religions. They point to their gods, such a Ba’al, Nebo, Rhea, Astarte, Dagon, Isis, Horus, Janus, Jupiter, Siva, Kali, Kronos, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Neptune, Osiris, Saturn, Tammuz, Venus, Vulcan, Odin, and a host of other major or minor identities worshiped by pagans throughout the ages.

    None of these is God the Father. None point to Christ.

    God rejects them all as false and warns us against worshipping any God but Him, saying “you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

    He told them they must cut down the images of the false gods, destroy their shrines and groves.

    He tells us to reject the gods of the world and come out from them and come to Him only.

    2 Corinthians 6
    14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
    15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
    16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”
    17 Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
    18 “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty.”

    How is it possible that false gods, idols made of stone and wood and metals, dumb idols, could lead us to the Father and therefore the Son, when we have been told that the way to the Son is not through icons or idols or statues or images but through the preaching of the cross, the gospel of Christ?

    If Dagon could have led Israel or the Philistines to Christ why was the stone idol made to crash to the ground and smash to pieces in the presence of the Arch of the Covenant?

    Why did God make them destroy the Golden calf in the wilderness made by Aaron if it could have led them to Him?

    The only way to the father is through the Son, and the only way to the Son is through the preached Word of faith.

    That is what it is, how it is, and this craziness about Mary being elevated above her station into a figure of idolatry is an insult to the Father, the Son and to Mary herself.

  33. And yes the RC church is deifying Mary. Or at least Pius XII is. And I don’t see a whole lot of disagreement with him from the rest of the papal infallibles.

    Did you actually read the list of 53 blasphemies I put on is thread, Bones. Or the actual encyclical? There are 53 references to the deification of Mary, and you ask if they are deifying her.

    As one who was brought up in the RC system, I understand their language, which is something you don’t appear to. That’s’ not a fault of yours, I don’t understand the Paraguain language or their culture idioms that might seem strange to me. Catholics DO NOT deify Mary, despite you thinking they do because you fail to understand the idiom of insider Catholic speak…just as when you say you receive a word from the Lord, it doesn’t mean you actually literally heard form God.

    Insider language can be hard to get around culturally, especially when you come from a system (Pentecostalism) which historically has considered Catholics not to be Christians.

  34. So you make the assumption that, say, Buddhism, is pointing to the Father, which it is not. No are any idolatrous religions. They point to their gods, such a Ba’al, Nebo, Rhea, Astarte, Dagon, Isis, Horus, Janus, Jupiter, Siva, Kali, Kronos, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Neptune, Osiris, Saturn, Tammuz, Venus, Vulcan, Odin, and a host of other major or minor identities worshiped by pagans throughout the ages.

    I have never ever heard of a Buddhist talk about any of those ‘gods’

  35. That was a list of idolatrous religions, Greg. They are the gods of different religions.

    They point to their gods, such a Ba’al, Nebo, Rhea, Astarte, Dagon, Isis, Horus, Janus, Jupiter, Siva, Kali, Kronos, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Neptune, Osiris, Saturn, Tammuz, Venus, Vulcan, Odin, and a host of other major or minor identities worshiped by pagans throughout the ages.

    Each of those false deities has a worship system and none points to Almighty God, The Great I AM. None points to Christ as wazza asserts.

    Many are named in the Bible as false gods to be rejected.

    Have you forgotten why Israel went into captivity?

    It was because they ‘committed adultery’. How? By worshipping other Gods. The Queen of Heaven was one of them. They were rebuked and rejected for a period of time, going into captivity before they went into Babylon, or came into contact with Persian philosophy expressly because they embraced the gods of other religions.

    These things, we are told under the New Testament, were for a example to us.

    Which completely scotches the idea that the gods of other worldly religions could in any way point us to God the Father or the Son.

    And your lame defence of the blasphemous names attributed to Mary is rebutted by the names themselves, and the power, position and presence granted her by succeeding popes.

    If you attempt to give an innocent cultural slant to what amounts to Mary being called ‘sovereign ruler’, ‘co-redemptrix’, ‘mediatrix’, ‘ruling over nature and its powers, and the like, you are showing signs of delusion.

  36. Or rather, ‘going into captivity in Babylon, before they came into contact with Persian philosophy, expressly because they embraced the gods of other religions.’.

  37. Did they go into captivity because they were religiously diverse, .. or… did they go into captivity because they were overtaken by a powerful state, and then developed a theology in exile that explained their circumstances?

    Which is more empowering, to say our god was beaten up by another people’s god – or – to say ours is the most kick-ass god but He is punishing us for looking at other ones?

    The story that the captivity is the fault of the captives also was encouraged by the Babylonians because it keeps people down.

    This theology of captivity kept the people alive, and gave them a fierce and resiliant corporate culture, but its not applicable and can be harmful to us in a multi-cultural society.

  38. Did they go into captivity because they were religiously diverse, .. or… did they go into captivity because they were overtaken by a powerful state, and then developed a theology in exile that explained their circumstances?

    Good question, Wazza.

    For some reason God no longer dictates invasions as His divine judgement.

  39. Steve mustn’t like the Queen much.

    That’s ok I’m a republican too.

    Titles of Queen Elizabeth II

    Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

  40. Cyrus must be confused. He’s a Zoroastrian following God.

    2 Chronicles 36

    22 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:

    23 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

    “‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.’”

    On Christianity 1.0: Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism

    God seemed to like Persians and the zoroastrians according to the OT.

  41. Sorry, folks, but you’re all commenting like atheists or extreme agnostics.

    But wait a minute. That doesn’t actually add up, does it? Because you are also defending an extreme religious heresy of the highest order.

    So, on the one hand you give us reasons for the Bible to be utterly wrong, and on the other hand you give reasons for the post biblical traditions of the RC church to be right.

    The Queen of England’s titles are earthly, hereditary, and she is still an actual monarch and still alive. When she dies she will no longer be Queen. Her titles will be handed down to her successor, who is likely to be a king. She will be sleeping with all the other saints.

    Mary, on the other hand, only became Queen after she was already dead, after several hundred years of escalating Catholic error, and her monarchy is supposedly far higher than any earthly Queen. In fact, one of her blasphemous names is Queen of kings of the earth.

    You really are running out of defences for this heretical nonsense. I’ll be glad when you finally admit that it is a serious error and needs to be revoked.

  42. It’s a well known teaching that God moved upon Cyrus to end the 70 year exile. He also moved on Nebuchadnezzar to begin it.

    Who is it that sets up kings and kingdoms for his purposes but God?

    All your source in the youtube vid has done is make a claim from the reverse side of what the texts actually say. His YT name is Xoroaster Zoroaster after all.

    He is saying Zoroastrianism is the font of Judaism, which is, as a claim, he says himself, based on circumstantial evidence. I would have said it was very sketchy circumstantial evidence which doesn’t take into account the fact that Moses’ own writings span ages before Zoroaster.

    Methinks you need to go to a Bible School which teaches the Bible.

  43. Mary isn’t pagan.

    Mary is the mother of Christ. She is sleeping in Christ. She is a saint of the Most High. Is awaiting the caching up of the saints when the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are alive will rise wither to be with Christ forever.

    The false gods of the ancients are pagan. Thor and Semiramis, Diana, Jupiter and Venus. These are pagan god and goddesses.

    There is no other God but the Great I AM.

    The claim that a Zoroastrian religion birthed Christianity is heresy. That you believe it and even introduced it to this discussion is one of the most telling admissions I have read from you.

    The claim you very strongly made that Jesus Christ was influenced by Zoroastrianism is as compelling as Greg’s claim that the Catholic push towards a dogma which will make Mary mediatrix and Queen of heaven is merely cultural and you have to be part of the in crowd to understand what amounts to a blasphemy against God and His Word.

    You attempted to liken Mary Queen of Heaven to an earthly Queen we can all see and have evidence for, but who will one day leave this earth and her reign behind her.

    But being called Queen of Heaven and Heavenly Mother is a far higher title bestowed on a person than any other apart from Almighty God, or the Son of God.

    She is made Queen of Heaven by virtue of the other blasphemies which went before. Heaven is the Eternal seat o the Almighty, and you, along with your popes and Catholic hierarchies, have made Mary Queen of all the heavens.

    The most compelling evidence I have is already on this thread. It is already in the post. It is the actual words of the pope, Pius XII, who himself gave every line of evidence we need to reveal the blasphemies, 53 of them recorded here.

    The present pope, I know, perpetuates the heresy. He was bowed before the statue of Mary at Fatima. He gave away rosaries and told the pilgrims it was a good day to pray the fifth glorious mystery. do you know what the fifth glorious mystery is, Bones?

    it is part of the prayer which accompanies use the rosary for all Catholics. This is hat it declares:

    Let Us Reflect:

    The Blessed Virgin Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is Mother of all men, and Mediatrix of all graces.

    “And a great sign appeared in Heaven: a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under Her feet, and on Her head a crown of twelve stars.” (Apoc. 12:1)

    “In Me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in Me is all hope of life and of virtue. He that hearkeneth to Me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by Me, shall not sin. They that explain Me shall have life everlasting.” (Ecclus. 24:25, 30-31)

    Let Us Pray:

    We offer Thee, O Lord Jesus, this decade in honor of the glorious crowning of Thy Blessed Mother in Heaven, and we ask of Thee, through this mystery and through Her intercession, the grace of perseverance and increase of virtue until the very moment of death and after that may we receive the eternal crown that is prepared for us. We ask the same grace for all the just and for all our benefactors.

    Here is the evidence, Bones. I could give you far more, but there is easily enough for my case on this post and thread.

    Mary is not pagan. She is a real saint, one who is made a saint through faith in Christ alone. She is the real mother of Christ. She sleeps, waiting for His coming, like all saints.

  44. A prayer for our Catholic friends to pray when using their rosary beads today…

    The Fifth Glorious Mystery – the Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heaven and Earth

    When our Lord ascended into heaven, He sat down on the right of the Father as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This was in fulfilment of the promise that the Messiah would sit upon the throne of David for all eternity (Lk 1:32-33). In the Davidic kingdom of old, the queen was not usually the wife of the king – rather, it was the mother of king who was considered the queen [which is why the Old Testament line of Davidic kings makes such a big fuss of mentioning the mothers in their geneaologies]. The title that the queen assumed was Gebirah – or Queen Mother.

    Since Jesus fulfils the Davidic kingdom in every sense, it is only fitting that His Kingdom has His Mother for its Queen. Thus, upon her assumption into heaven, Our Lord – who is King of Heaven and Earth – bestowed upon Our Lady the honour of being crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.

    The vision of Our Lady that St. John saw is a most striking one. He sees her resplendent in glory as the Queen of Heaven – clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars upon her head (Rev 12:1). But he also reminds us that she is our Mother – the Mother of all those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus (Rev 12:17).

    So as we meditate upon this Mystery – indeed, whenever we pray the Rosary – may we be reminded of the efficacy of the prayers of the Most Chaste Virgin (e.g. Jms 5:16 b). May we be reminded that as our Mother, her intercession for us is most loving; and as our Queen, her intercession for us is most powerful.

    Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
    Hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
    To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
    To thee do we send up our sighs,
    Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

    Turn then, O most gracious advocate,
    Thine eyes of mercy toward us;
    And after this our exile,
    Show unto us the Blessed Fruit of thy Womb, Jesus.
    O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

    Pray for us, O holy Mother of God,
    That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

  45. I have some catholic relatives of mine still praying for my deceased grandmother to enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
    Please explain?…Anyone?

  46. Er, Greg, you were made worthy of the promises of God when you accepted Jesus as Lord.

    There is only one worthiness, and that is the righteousness which comes from faith in Christ. Worthiness and righteousness are the same thing and come from the same relationship with Christ.

    Mary can’t change a thing. She is sleeping, anyway, but even if she wasn’t she couldn’t change anything.

    You are either made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus through the new creation, or you need to be saved.

    2 Corinthians 5
    17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
    18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
    19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
    20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.
    21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

    You wee reconciled to God through faith in Christ. Mary, apart from being his mother on earth, has nothing to do with it. It was he cross and resurrection which saved us and faith in Christ which makes us righteous.

    We have been already given the great and precious promises which enable us to be partakers of the divine nature.

    2 Peter
    2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,
    3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,
    4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

    You already have everything you need.

  47. “Pray for us, O holy Mother of God,
    That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.”

    Mary is not the mediator .
    If she is then Christ died for nothing.

  48. Ah, yes, Eyes, but these fellas believe that Mary is co-redemptrix, co-intercessor and mediatrix. The thing is, as Greg says, yo have to be an insider to understand this.

    I guess you’d have to be an insider to work out why Hindus and Buddhists to all the mystical chanting to their gods, too.

    I’d rather be an insider who is deep inside the Word and Spirit of God through faith in Jesus Christ than have my head messed up with a load of dogmatic heresy.

  49. I have some catholic relatives of mine still praying for my deceased grandmother to enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
    Please explain?…Anyone?

    Here’s one view

    Why do Catholics pray for the dead?
    May 18, 2008 at 4:08 pm
    Written by Fr. Joe
    The earliest Scriptural reference to prayers for the dead comes in the second book of Maccabees. The books of Maccabees were among the latest written books found in the Old Testament. They recount the struggle of the Jewish people for freedom against the Seleucid Empire, around 100-200 years before the birth of Christ. They are written from an Orthodox Jewish point of view. The second book of Maccabees tells how Judas Maccabee, the Jewish leader, led his troops into battle in 163 B.C. When the battle ended he directed that the bodies of those Jews who had died be buried. As soldiers prepared their slain comrades for burial, they discovered that each was wearing an amulet taken as booty from a pagan Temple. This violated the law of Deuteronomy and so Judas and his soldiers prayed that God would forgive the sin these men had committed (II Maccabees 12:39-45).

    This is the first indication in the Bible of a belief that prayers offered by the living can help free the dead from any sin that would separate them from God in the life to come. It is echoed in the New Testament when Paul offers a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day”(II Timothy 1:18). The cavelike tombs under the city of Rome, which we call catacombs, bear evidence that members of the Roman Christian community gathered there to pray for their fellow followers of Christ who lay buried there. By the fourth century prayers for the dead are mentioned in Christian literature as though they were already a longstanding custom.

    The practice of praying for the dead is rooted first in Christian belief in the everlasting life promised in Jesus’ teachings and foreshadowed by his disciple’s experience that God had raised him from the dead. After death, even though separated from our earthly body, we yet continue a personal existence. It is as living persons that God invites us into a relationship whose life transcends death.

    Praying for the dead has further origins in our belief in the communion of saints. Members of this community who are living often assist each other in faith by prayers and other forms of spiritual support. Christians who have died continue to be members of the communion of saints. We believe that we can assist them by our prayers, and they can assist us by theirs.

    Our prayers for the dead begin at the moment of death. Often family members will gather in prayer around the bedside of the person who has died. The Order of Christian Funerals includes a Vigil Service for the deceased, which can be held in the home, in the church, or in a funeral home chapel, the funeral Mass and the Rite of Committal (which generally takes place at the burial site). The prayers express hope that God will free the person who has died from any burden of sin and prepare a place for him or her in heaven. Death remains a mystery for us–a great unknown. Yet Christian language evokes a hopeful imagination in the presence of death, an assurance that our love, linked to Christ’s love, can help bridge whatever barriers might keep those whom we love from fully enjoying the presence of a loving and life-giving God.

    Paul also mentions a practice (whether Christian or not is unable to be ascertained from the text) of being baptised for the dead in 1 Corinthians

  50. Who is it that sets up kings and kingdoms for his purposes but God?

    So, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin, all put in place by God for his purposes? Wonder what they might have been to warrant having such cruel murderous men in power.

  51. “This is the first indication in the Bible of a belief that prayers offered by the living can help free the dead from any sin that would separate them from God in the life to come. It is echoed in the New Testament when Paul offers a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day”(II Timothy 1:18).”

    I cannot find any concrete evidence from scripture that Onesiphorus was dead at this particular time.
    Maybe Paul did not know, yet still remained hopeful. The passage therefore, does not support praying for those who have passed on. People often remain hopeful that their loved ones are in a better place.

    I am not in favour of Apocryphal books such as 2 Maccabees. This particular Apocryphal book is very important to Catholics and often cited to justify their doctrine of Purgatory — praying for the dead.
    In all of the New Testament there is not even one single reference or quotation, made by Christ or any of the Apostles, that would confirm all or any part of the Apocrypha as being divinely inspired (But I’m sure VICKY would).

  52. I guess you’d have to be an insider to work out why Hindus and Buddhists to all the mystical chanting to their gods, too.

    I presume you speak in tongues? Then you also do mystical chanting to your God.

    So what makes your God so much better than theirs?

    The Jews didn’t fare so well for most of recorded history, going into slavery many times having their temples burned, being driven out of their land and all the pogroms and holocausts. According to you they only had one God and it was the correct one.

    The ancient Indians, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians etc. each have a plethora of Gods. If you dont like any one of them you can easily switch to another. Yet they were not attacked or dispersed anything like the Jews.

    If having the wrong God makes you more susceptible to attack then you must have the wrong God.

  53. Wazza,
    you are, lately, writing like someone who is not a Christian, and who is questioning God, the Bible, Christians and faith.

    I have, therefore, avoided taking the argument into a place where it is obvious that you do not know the first thing about Scripture, do not believe in God, question the deity of Jesus Christ, and reject most of what Scripture tells us about Creation, Israel, the Old and New Testaments, God’s interaction with people, the reason for Christ’s appearance, the need for salvation, the work of the cross, the power of the resurrection, and basic Christian principles outlined in the Bible.

    Your lack of understudying of why a Christian might actually be engaged in what the Scriptures state a Christina is likely to be doing as a Christian are revealing you as a non-Christian.

    You are arguing from a godless worldly perspective on a subject which is doctrinally determined.

    I understand that this thread is punctuated with liberal and pro-catholic arguments which, to the natural mind seem contradictory, but the main thrust of the post is to reveal the unscriptural basis of the claims of the papacy.

    What I am asking those who support the notion of a Queen of Heaven being appointed by God the Son, is for Biblical proof that this is in any way accurate. In the absence of any such proof I am content to continue to expose the Marian dogmas as both error and heresy which deflect the ordinary Catholic from faith in Christ to dependency on Mary, who, unless they can show scripture which proves otherwise, died, and is sleeping in Christ, and not a deified sovereign ruler seated in heaven.

    That we can go several days without a single shred of evidence form any o the defenders of Marian dogmatism tells me that there is no evidence to be found.

    Eyes detour into prayer for thee ear is a likely reprieve for the Catholics, but I think the point is already proven. Mary is not the Queen of Heaven, is not sovereign ruler seated with God, is not Heavenly Mother, is not mediatrix, co-redemptrix or any of the other titles given to her by the papacy and by catholics worldwide.

    Speaking in tongues has Biblical evidence. It evidence from Scripture I seek form Marian dogma supporters, no an argument about the very existence of God.

  54. You accept the Bible as the final authority on all matters spiritual, and hence believe that your God is the correct one ( and according to your interpretation, everyone else is following false gods )

    But others do not accept the Bible, either at all or as the final authority.

    Catholics for instance do not accept the Bible as the total authority on matters of faith. So asking for evidence from Scripture for a distinctively Catholic doctrine is pointless and meaningless.

    Its like a baseballer asking a Cricket team why they play with a funny shaped bat, and dont throw the ball.

    You are living in a diverse society. That society as a whole does not accept the Bible as the literal word of God. Most people accept this and learn to live with it, but some apparently do not.

  55. I am not in favour of Apocryphal books such as 2 Maccabees. This particular Apocryphal book is very important to Catholics and often cited to justify their doctrine of Purgatory — praying for the dead.
    In all of the New Testament there is not even one single reference or quotation, made by Christ or any of the Apostles, that would confirm all or any part of the Apocrypha as being divinely inspired (But I’m sure VICKY would).

    Jesus regarded the apocrypha as scripture.

    The gospel writers have Jesus quoting

    Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

    Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

    Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

    Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

    Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

    Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

    Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

    Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

    Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

    Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

    Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

    Mark 4:5,16-17 – Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

    Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

    It was scripture to Jews at the time.

  56. That we can go several days without a single shred of evidence form any o the defenders of Marian dogmatism tells me that there is no evidence to be found.

    That is of course your opinion. The evidence is there but you don’t like it.

    Everyone knows communicating with you is a waste of time.

    I’m glad we’ve moved from absolutism to relativism.

  57. So what did the Jews do to be invaded by the Greeks and Romans?

    I mean after the Babylonians, the Assyrians and Persians they must have got their shit together by then.

  58. Oh wow Bones, you got your interpretation from K-mart. HO, HO, HO,
    And a merry SATAN clause to you!
    Have a very Mary Satan/alia!

  59. Can’t find it in the Scriptures so you lean on the Apocrypha.

    I’ll take that as an admission that there is no scripture to back up the heresy on the Queen of Heaven that you have now adopted as your own.

    And now you take two or three word phrases and make the baseless claim that Jesus was quoting the Apocrypha. You obviously haven’t put it together that both could be utilising the common idioms of the day. Astonishing!

    So if I say my wife and I are planning to flee to the mountains for a brief skiing holiday, you would immediately assume I was quoting Maccabees. Hilarious.

    I notice you won’t venture any deeper than claiming Mary was Mother of God. It think we went over that on another thread in depth and you stuck stubbornly to your guns but you were totally unconvincing in your argument. The same with the immaculate conception and assumption and sinless nature erroneously claimed for Mary.

    But this thread takes it further than even these heresies, and is about Mary being called the Queen of Heaven, sovereign ruler, co-redemptrix, mediatrix and a host of other unprovable names.

    Where is your evidence for any of these.

  60. Bones,
    So what did the Jews do to be invaded by the Greeks and Romans?

    Now I know you are very weak theologically and know nothing much about the history of Israel from scripture.

    Your liberal tendencies have either diminished to almost nil anything your learned at the Bible School you say you attended, or you learned nothing in the first place.

    Of course if you consider Daniel to have been inspired by Zoroaster and written after the events it portrays then you are really going to struggle to know how the whole canon actually fits together as a seamless whole.

  61. Yet you believe and ardently defend the clear cut Catholic heresies of Mary.

    I can’t work you out Bones. You and Greg are in a league of your own.

    I guess it depends on whether you actually want to know or if you’ve made up your minds, but the anomaly the co-defence of liberal theology and catholic theology is perplexing.

    It seems you believe in hell as a catholic but not as a liberal, for instance.

  62. So I take it you can’t say why the Jews were still being punished after the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, then Romans.

    And remember these were God’s people.

    The Aborigines had it better.

  63. “Jesus was more Catholic than Protestant. And he loved His Mother.”

    15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the first born from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

    Yet you dimwit Catholics pray to a statue.

    He is before all things!

  64. You Catholics don’t even pray to the real Mary, It’s just a makeshift statue.
    Don’t you even know the TEN commandments?

  65. Bones,
    So I take it you can’t say why the Jews were still being punished after the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, then Romans.

    You mean you don’t know?

    That’s ironic considering the original subject of the thread. They continually went back to worshipping other gods, bowing down to icons and idols, and generally ignoring God Almighty’s warnings not to do so.

    As I have already told you, God considered this adultery. He divorced Himself from His covenant with Israel because they broke it with their idolatry, and told them to beckon their new gods to help them in times of trouble since they completely rejected him.

    They were in a mess because they rejected God.

    I mean, Bones, that is first year Bible School stuff. Even if you weren’t in Bible School as you have told us you were, you should know this simply from reading the texts. Just about any of the prophets will tell you this. Are you seriously telling us you didn’t know?

    There’s something else you should have already known.

    One of the goddesses they revered was the Queen of Heaven.

  66. wazza,
    But others do not accept the Bible, either at all or as the final authority.

    Catholics for instance do not accept the Bible as the total authority on matters of faith. So asking for evidence from Scripture for a distinctively Catholic doctrine is pointless and meaningless.

    On whose basis?

    I’m arguing this from the perspective of a Christian on what I thought was a basically Christian site. If it isn’t a Christian site then what is the point of any discussion?

    I notice that you, Greg and Bones have persistently attempted to discredit the Bible as a source of knowledge, wisdom and accuracy for Christian living. Are You now calling it pointless and meaningless? If so, your journey from faith is complete.

    I can understand Greg and Bones wanting to defend the root of their actual beliefs, having been brought up under Catholic dogma. It is hard to break free from its influence. They have attempted to mingle it with liberal theology but it means they have a confusing mix of beliefs.

    But quite why you are so vehemently defending the claims by the papacy that Mary is Queen of Heaven is beyond comprehension. You can’t, it seems, bring yourself to acknowledge God, let alone His Word. Yet you make a stand for a set of dogmas, as well as two proposed dogma, as if your life depended upon it.

    You make it clear from what you write that you struggle with any faith in God, yet you show the ferver of a zealot when to comes to the Catholic Mary.

    Mary the false goddess seems to have a fascinating hold on those who would like to believe in a God but who fall short of the actual Almighty God of the Bible, even though He is the One God we all need to acknowledge.

    This exercise has been one of the most intriguing I’ve been engaged in during all the time I have been commenting on this site.

    I could understand liberals being anti-Bible-text, or changing the historic values of the Scriptures, even though I would argue against this, of course, but I can’t, then, grasp their equal fixation on Mary Queen of Heaven.

    That is not liberal. It is a piety derived of entrancement with a female deity contrived by a false religious system.

    But, alternatively, reading what you say, maybe you’re actually supporting what I am saying by pointing out that it’s pointless and meaningless to show Catholics the error apparent in their theology.

  67. Steve, I’m curious. Why do you spend countless hours writing these posts in response to either an unchanging counter view to yours, or deliberate posts knowing you’ll arc up?

    You’ll never get the time back, and we are warned in the word not to engage in fruitless exchanges such as the ones above and in many many other threads between you Greg and Bones. Do you actually believe you’ll get them to renounce their standpoint on Catholicism through your posts?

    History would prove that won’t happen. I’d head off to plough more productive fields. You’re wasting precious time here.

  68. Seems to me the israelites would have been better off as egyptian slaves than spending millenia under occupation.

  69. It’s just blogging, zeibart. I am also able to multitask. I accomplish heaps in my day. This is a fill in between other things.

    Over 150 new visitors to this blog daily. Between 300 and 450 visitors a day. So plenty of lurkers.

    Why let the liberals and anti-Pentecostal Bible crushers have all the fun as they mangle doctrine?

    Dialogue with detractors. Scotching the claim that Pentecostal preachers are afraid of criticism.

    Discovering how critics think. What their real theology consists of.

    Defending the true gospel in a heated atmosphere.

    Being challenged on scripture.

    Not being afraid to interact with people who think differently.

    Contending for the faith in a hostile environment makes the real task of evangelising out amongst the people seem a doddle after a few sessions with anti-scripture headbangers.

    Wondering out loud why people like Bones spend so much time attacking Scripture when they could just get on with being pagan, heathen or unbelievers.

    I mean to say, I actually believe the Bible, which is why I spend time defending the reality of the Word. These guys don’t believe it and come here to attack it by pushing against a person who is a full on Christ-serving believer.

    And you question why I bother!

  70. Bones,
    Seems to me the israelites would have been better off as egyptian slaves than spending millenia under occupation.

    Now you are showing that you are ignorant of the Word. I dunno. Perhaps you are doing it on purpose.

    You could’t be that daft, could you?

    Are you messing around, or do you really believe what you are writing?

    I understand that wazza is writing from the perspective of an atheist, but aren’t you a Christian? Or have you given up altogether?

    I wasn’t brought up catholic.

    Then you learned to defend the Catholic Mary all on your own?

    There’s a huge difference between bigotry and pointing out heresy.

    What you are saying is that you’d rather defend an outright error than point it out to a person caught up in it to help them out of it. Then you call anyone a bigot who takes the time to show people the error and warn them.

    Along with wazza, you have determined that whatever a person believes they should be left alone in that belief even if it can be shown from Scripture to be error. You are saying that we should never put the truth in front of a person because their understanding of truth should be left up to them and never interfered with.

    You, along with wazza, say that all religions are acceptable and all will lead to Christ. That is actually a very Catholic principle, and one which popes have used for centuries, as long as they do not directly challenge the Catholic Traditions, or show from Scripture that Catholicism is in error.

    You say that, regardless of what a person believes in this earth, they will ultimately be granted eternal life with God. For instance, any of the 300,000,000 Hindu gods will do to!

    When you point out from scripture the warnings that those who die in their sins will be separated from God, you only do so to mock those who accept this as a Biblical warning and accuse them of preaching a gospel of fear.

    In so doing you negate the need of the cross, the resurrection, the good news which we are admonished to preach, preaching itself, the New Testament scriptures and God’s covenants with those who believe.

    In so doing you give license to all people to sin.

    In so doing you reject the Great Commission.

    And yet you champion error.

  71. Anyway, zeibart, I don’t see these folk as enemies. They’re people.

    What, do you wait until you find people who completely agree with everything you say before you decide to have a pint with them down at the pub?

    You wait until everyone in the church you attend to be in complete agreement with everything you say before you have a conversation? I’ve got news for you. You’re wrong about a few things and they will soon find out. It’s the same for all o us, so don’t think I’m singling you out.

    How are you going to fulfil what God tells us to do if you do not belong to a congregation where you can provoke others to love and good works? If you are afraid to be wrong about some things, or to let someone know they are courting error?

    It’s a very Jewish thing to hammer out Scripture. If you’ve ever seen the Jews in the synagogue under the wailing wall you’d know that they don’t always agree on the meaning of scripture, even after hundreds of years of the Torah.

    Jesus, as a twelve year old was able to confound the Rabbis with his understanding of the Torah. he would have engaged on the same style of interaction you see in Jewish scripture schools today.

    I understand that we are supposed to be of one accord with each other, but there are always contentions around the edges even when we do. The Apostles had a few disagreements. Its how we deal with ten which counts.

    I think you are being unrealistic if you think you’ll find perfection in the Body. It isn’t there, except in Christ, which is precisely why we need the Word, the Spirit and the leadership of Head of the Church.

    Christ I mean, not Mary or the pope!

    John 12
    44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.
    45 “And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.
    46 “I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.
    47 “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
    48 “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
    49 “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.
    50 “And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”

    Amazing!

  72. It isn’t there, except in Christ, which is precisely why we need the Word, the Spirit and the leadership of Head of the Church.

    None of those are perfect either.

  73. You are saying that we should never put the truth in front of a person because their understanding of truth should be left up to them and never interfered with.</i

    Yes like I've done with you.

    You've offered no credible evidence of paganism affecting the development of the Theotokos. You have been presented with truth but would still wallow in the filth of your own bigotry (sorry 'opinion')

    It could be that you're just plain ignorant or stupid. I think it's more.

    Using scripture to justify your bigotry isn't very impressive either.

    Sounds a bit like this guy

  74. Btw my great great grandfather arrived in Australia to escape the Great Potato Famine in Ireland.

    The attitude of the Bible believing Protestants was to let the Catholics die, so that their religion would die out.

    This Blessed Famine

    God Be Praised!

    The Roles & Attitudes of Irish Protestants During the Potato Famine

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/two/famine.htm

    So you can take your antiCatholic rants and f**k off.

  75. First of all I’m not a Protestant. I’ve never been a Catholic, so I am not a Protestant.

    Secondly I haven’t said a word about Catholics as people.

    Thirdly, whatever Protestants did to Catholics was wrong if it did not share kindness. I could equally find atrocities by Catholics on Protestants, and not only Protestants but also fellow Catholics who dared to question the popes.

    Fourth, I have presented error in doctrine and dogma, that is all

    Fifth, I have concentrated my claims on popes who are the leaders of the RC church, and who have perpetuated the errors which their people sit under.

    Sixth, if the people are discouraged or persuaded to be ignorant of Scripture they can be led down whatever garden path the popes and their priests take them.

    Seventh, the dogma of Mary is error and heresy. That is all I have said on this thread. I have also pointed out that the doctrines of making Mary Queen of Heaven and Mediatrix are unscriptural and heretical.

    Eighth, it is you who have perpetuated the argument by defending the dogmas of Mary, the claim that Mary is Queen of Heaven, and Mary is Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix, and Sovereign Ruler, all of which are blasphemies.

    Ninth, if I didn’t care about Catholics I would leave them to these heresies and blasphemies and never point out that they have no place in Scripture, in God’s Word, in God’s will, or in God’s heaven.

    Tenth, if I was against Catholic people I would never show them what the Word of God actually says about Mary, Christ and our salvation.

  76. Eleven, this thread has never been about ‘theotokos’ per cé, but about the claim that Mary is Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix and Sovereign Ruler, which are far more serious errors.

    You have not made one attempt to demonstrate from scripture that they have any relevance to Christians anywhere.

    I am no bigot. I am putting forward a claim that certain aspects of the RC dogma are error, and, I believe, heresy going on to blasphemy.

    It is not bigotry to propose error. I have shown from scripture that it is error. You have been unable to refute my claims.

    Your very first response to this post was to attack my church. Well you considered it an attack. And then make the claim that I would not allow it to stand. It is still there. It has been made into a post by Greg.

    Now you attack me personally for pointing out error.

    Now if you have evidence to show that Mary is the Queen of heaven, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix ad Sovereign Ruler, show us from Scripture.

    You won’t find it. It isn’t there.

  77. First of all I’m not a Protestant. I’ve never been a Catholic, so I am not a Protestant.

    Just shows how much you know! If you’re not catholic, you’re a Protestant!

    Only two choices available!

  78. That’s understandable Steve, but Titus 3 says: ”9 avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.” I think the intent would extend beyond the Law.

    2 Tim 2: 23 ”Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ”

    1 Tim 6:4-5 ”They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth ”

    And I’ll share a pint with anyone, especially those who hold no religion, a non-Christian one, or my belief. It matters not. If you think you are doing good, then crack on, but it seems to be a case of immoveable object meets irresistible force which = stalemate.

  79. It is not bigotry to propose error. I have shown from scripture that it is error. You have been unable to refute my claims.

    Clearly refuted.

    Every honest student of church history would know you’re talking shit.

    But hey, that’s my opinion.

    And the opinion of most of Christianity.

  80. Your very first response to this post was to attack my church.

    Actually it was to show you that we are all heretics.

    None of us has the Truth.

    Just bits of it.

    Actually I don’t think God’s impressed by any of our doctrines.

    Like having correct doctrine means anything when you lie about and slander others.

  81. Just shows how much you know! If you’re not catholic, you’re a Protestant!

    Only two choices available!

    No Steve is above both protestants and catholics.

    His doctrine is infallible.

    He has his own Pope.

  82. Really, Greg?

    1 Corinthians 3:1-6
    And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “ I am of Paul,” and another, “ I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

    Don’t involve me in your sectarianism. I am of Christ.

    Catholics are no longer the treat they once were. We don’t have to kowtow to their false doctrines. We are at liberty to read the Bible for ourselves and discover the truth. We can see through the errors. They can’t burn us at the stake anyomre, or ostracise us, or throw us in gaol.

    Many Protestants believe some of the same errors Catholics peddle, including dogma of Mary. Some ecumenicals are saying the key to Catholics and Protestants coming together is the dogma of Mary. They are bewitched.

    Follow Christ. Be diligent to show yourself approved of God, rightly dividing the Word of truth.

    There is only one God, one Spirit, one Lord and Saviour of us all.

    One Church.

  83. Excuse me, Bones? Where have you refuted the claim that Mary as Queen of Heaven, mediatrix, co-redemptrix or sovereign ruler are heresy?

    Nowhere, that’s where. The closest you have come is with your theotokos claim on another thread. Which I still heavily dispute, and for which you have shown no scripture.

    And here you go again appealing to the so called church fathers, just as the popes do. They are not Christ. They are not the Apostles of Christ. They have made traditions which are not biblical.

    They have created dogma because there is no scripture to support their dogma. That is why it is dogma. My case rests right there.

    Your pitiful insults are merely complementary to your lack of evidence and typical of what takes place when popes are challenged.

  84. That is sound advice, zeibart, but I am not these guys’ pastor, so I am not in exactly the same position as Timothy here.

    Acts 9:29
    And he [Paul] spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him.

    Jude 1:3
    Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

    The thing is that these pages are read by people online. They can make up their minds if they want to believe the liberal Catholics here or the Word of God.

    These pages will continue for a while and people will reference them. Maybe not many people in the great scheme of things, but enough to potentially make a difference.

    If one person thinks twice about the Marian dogma and decides to research it for themselves then the job is done.

    I am long past worrying about what Bones says as far as his accusations of lies, bigotry and slander go. He is who he is. He is very helpful at moving the discussions along with enough liberal catholic stuff to demonstrate that the errors of Catholicism are almost impossible to defend even for the most ardent zealot.

    He confirms their errors, their aggression, their intransigence, and their willingness to take a person out if they question their errors.

    But the Word of God is established and it is the one constant we can depend upon.

    It’s a fight of faith, zeibart.

    2 Corinthians 10:3-6
    For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.

  85. It’s waste of time communicating with those who have a cultic worldview.

    But I’m bored.

    Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven

    In a lasting vestige of anti-Catholic prejudice, a concerted effort to discredit the Church is being made today by some non-Catholic Christians who continue to propagate the falsehood that Catholics worship Mary OR that the devotion to the Blessed Mother is a continuation of devotion to the various mother goddesses of the ancient pagan pantheons. These charges can legitimately be called prejudices because they proceed from a prejudgment (made in advance based on preconceived ideas about what Catholics believe) and efforts to enlighten and convince with facts usually fall on deaf ears. However, it is necessary for Catholics to be forewarned about these on-going polemically, “prayer warfare” and “prophetic acts” (such as the smashing of a statue on Brazilian TV), so as not to be scandalized about their Catholic faith by such attacks.
    Mother of God

    One such claim is that calling Mary the Mother of God is a manifestation of the apostasy of Catholicism, which has returned to pagan mother goddess worship. This title, bestowed by the Council of Ephesus in 431, is seen as proof of Catholic apostasy from the Gospel. The historical facts underlying the Council do not dissuade those captured by this prejudice about the Church and its love of Mary, however, they clearly show the Church’s intention to protect the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and sacred humanity, the Incarnation, as well as give the proper due to she who fully cooperated in it by her Fiat (let it be done).
    The fourth and fifth centuries, the first ones of Christian emancipation from persecution, were centuries of consolidating the truth about God and Christ. The Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (361) defined the basic teachings of Christianity in the Creed which goes by their name (and which is obligatory at Sunday Mass), against those who in one manner or another denied the unity of God, and the Divinity of the Son (“one in substance with the Father”) and of the Holy Spirit (“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”). It also asserted the true humanity of Christ “born of the Virgin Mary,” thus protecting the Incarnation of the Word, the Word-made-flesh, from the assault of heretics like Arius. Jesus Christ was indeed the Eternal Son, a Divine Person, who united in Himself both a Divine and human nature.

    However, some of those who remained in the Church after Nicea-Constantinople sought to mitigate the full force of these teachings by various equivocations. In 428 Archbishop Nestorius, the newly elected Patriarch of Constantinople, began to teach that Mary was indeed the Mother of Christ but was not the Mother of God, a title freely used in the Church. Although attempting to remain faithful to the Creed, that is professing belief in Christ’s true Divinity and true humanity, Nestorius’ writings, however, suggested that in Christ there was more of a moral unity of two persons, the Word and Jesus. In addition to the rebellion of the clergy and people, Nestorius had to contend with the attacks of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who finally submitted both Nestorius’ writings and his own defenses to Pope St. Celestine, who condemned Nestorius as a heretic.
    Nestorius was only emboldened, teaching that Jesus was merely the temple of the Word, and if Mary is the Mother of God she has been made a goddess. His contemptuous remarks included, “a mother cannot bear a son older than herself.” Both the Pope and Nestorius were desirous of a Council and so one was called in Ephesus in June of 431. However, Nestorius and his followers did not come, despite several summons, and after seven sessions to consider the matter the teaching of Nestorius, and some other heretics such as Pelagius, were condemned. Here is what the Council decreed:

    111a For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity. . . . For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh. Thus [the holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Theotokos (Mother of God). [Denzinger paragraph 111a]

    113 Canon. 1. If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned, i.e. excommunicated).

    114 Can. 2. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was united to a body by hypostasis [union in a single Person] and that one is Christ with his own body, the same one evidently both God and man, let him be anathema.

    115 Can. 3. If anyone in the one Christ divides the subsistences [divine and human natures] after the union, connecting them by a junction only according to worth, that is to say absolute sway or power, and not rather by a joining according to physical union [union in the one Christ], let him be anathema.

    116 Can. 4. If anyone portions out to two persons, that is to say subsistences, the words in the Gospels and the apostolic writings, whether said about Christ by the saints, or by Him concerning Himself, and attributes some as it to a man specially understood beside the Word of God, others as befitting God alone, to the Word of God the Father, let him be anathema.

    117 Can. 5. If anyone ventures to say that Christ is a man inspired by God, and not rather that He is truly God, as a son by nature, as the Word was made flesh and has shared similarly with us in blood and flesh, let him be anathema.

    118 Can. 6. If anyone ventures to say that God or the Lord is the Word of Christ from God the Father and does not rather confess the same as at once both God and man, since the Word was made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

    119 Can. 7. If anyone says that Jesus as man was assisted by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten was applied as to another existing beside Him, let him be anathema.
    … and so on
    As can be seen, all of the decisions of this great Council, of which the title Mother of God was only the pricipitating issue, protect and defend this truth: Jesus Christ was NOT a mere man on whom the Word descended in some way or to whom the Word was united but distinct, rather He was the Divine eternal Person of the Word, who in time assumed a human nature of Mary, but remained the Word, the One Christ, 2nd Person of the Trinity, uniting in Himself His Divine Nature and His Incarnate Human Nature.

    In all, twelve canons defend and put outside Christian faith various propositions attacking the union of Christ’s two natures in His One Divine Person. In a single brief statement the Council declares that Mary gave birth NOT to a mere man, human nature, but to a Divine Person who assumed our manhood. She is properly, then, the human Mother in time of God the Word, and not just the Mother of Christ, a title any good new ager of our day could accept. By calling Mary the Mother of God, the Catholic Church establishes herself alone in the West, together with the Orthodox who separated from us in the 11th century, as doctrinally incapable of renouncing the union of the two natures in the one Person of the Eternal Word.

    Is there a Scriptural Basis?

    The Scriptural basis of the unity of God, the eternity of the Word and the Incarnation is actually sufficient in itself to arrive at the conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God. God gave us reason and guided by the Holy Spirit the Church comes to an ever deeper penetration of the profound depths of Divine Revelation (Jn 16:13), which being the Word of God cannot be exhausted by a bare-bones literal reading – “if it isn’t explicitly in Scripture then it is revealed.” By this logic most prophetic matters referring to Christ in the Old Testament could be dismissed because they were hidden in types and presented as shadows. Thus the simple logic of the Church is that if Scripture reveals that Mary is the Mother of the Word-made-Flesh, and the Word-made-flesh is God, then Mary is the Mother of God (the Word), not from eternity of course, but beginning in time and for eternity. To say only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus or only the Mother of Christ, is to subscribe unwittingly to the doctrines of heretics who denied the unity of the Christ’s Divine and Human Natures.
    But is it in Scripture? Yes, in addition to the above way we find that God reveals to the heart of Elizabeth the truth about the Incarnation, God-made-flesh. When Mary arrives to assist her in her pregnancy with St. John the Baptist, on seeing the Blessed Mother St. Elizabeth declares,

    “blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, how is it that the Mother of the Lord (mater tou kyrios) comes to me” (Lk 1:42-43).

    In both the first half and the second half of this inspired address mother and child are inseparably united. In the first, Mary and the fruit of her womb, Jesus, are praised. In the second the unity of their relationship is revealed, as well as the unity of Christ. Mary is not merely the mother of Jesus the Messiah, somehow conceived, but the mother of the Lord. The text preserves the Greek, kyrios, although the language that would have been spoken was Aramaic. Among the Jews the name of God was not spoken, but a substitution was made to preserve respect. By convention when translating Hebrew and its sister language Aramaic into Greek, such as in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) used to evangelize Greek-speaking Jews and gentiles, the word substituted for God’s name was Kyrios, which we translate as Lord. This was in lieu of I AM, Christ’s use of which for Himself would later scandalized the Jews. Elizabeth would never have been so bold, however, instead calling the fruit of Mary’s womb, the Lord, with all the meaning which the Jews attributed to it and which the Catholic Church continues to understand of the Word-made-flesh in Mary’s womb.

    Queen of Heaven

    Much is made of the title Queen of Heaven by those who attack Catholicism and Marian devotion. The allusion is always to the pagan pantheons and to the mother of the gods, often mother in a very carnal sense of other pagan deities. The Canaanite worship of the “Queen of Heaven” condemned by the prophets is mentioned, as is the worship of Diana of the Ephesians, devotion to whom was exceeding popular before the Gospel arrived among the pagans. It is said that Catholicism at the Council of Ephesus restored this pagan devotion under the cover of devotion to Mary. The history of that Council given above shows the absurdity, and the intellectual dishonesty, of that claim! One might as well claim with respect to Jesus that Christians worship a mere man, since to arrive at this conclusion the Church’s teaching must be ripped from its context and distorted to fit a preconceived judgement.

    What then does it mean for Mary to be the Queen of Heaven? In the Old Testament monarchy the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom was the Queen Mother. The Kings, for reasons of state and human weakness, had many wives, none of whom fittingly could be called Queen. That honor was reserved for the mother of the King, whose authority far surpassed the many “queens” married to the king. We see this is the role Bathsheba played with respect to King Solomon and the occasions when the Queen Mother acted as regent on behalf of juvenile successors to the throne.

    The role of the Queen Mother, therefore, is a prophetic type of the Kingdom role of Mary, just as the role of the Davidic King is a prophetic type of the Kingdom role of Jesus. Jesus inherited the Kingdom promised to David, who was told that one of his descendants would rule forever. The angel Gabriel revealed this fact to Mary at her Annunciation,

    Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:31-33)

    Aside from the prophetic types present in the Kingdom of Judah, there is also the text of Psalm 45, which when speaking of the Kingdom of God also speaks of its Queen.

    [6] Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. [7] Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [8] All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. [9] Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. [10] Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; [11] So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. (Psalm 45:6-11, KJV)

    That Kingdom ruled by God is the same as the Kingdom ruled eternally by the Son of David. It is not an earthly kingdom, though it is present on earth in the Church, but a heavenly kingdom, the Kingdom of God. The Queen of that Kingdom is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Lord God Jesus Christ.

    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mother.htm

  86. David’s experience with Mary

    Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.”

    Saint Maximilian Kolbe (a priest who died in Auschwitz, taking the place of a father, who was present at his Canonization 50 years later)

    I (David) remember standing outside of a Church in 1988, not long after turning my life over to Jesus. I looked at the statue of Mary outside of the Church. I did not think of the statue itself but of what it represented. I did not worship it. I just thought about the Mother of Jesus. All I knew about her was that I’d seen nativity scenes when I was young and I had heard the odd joke about “a virgin having a kid.”

    In my life, I had had many negative experiences with women: in and out of romances, and two abortions. Emotionally, I had hurt and been hurt. I had even cut off relations to my own mother. I had even spent two years in the gay community. I didn’t think I could ever love a woman again. Then it occurred to me that Mary was the mother of my Lord and Saviour (to whom I had surrendered a month earlier).

    I suddenly felt that I could love her. I didn’t even know that the Churchyard where I was standing was Catholic. I didn’t know the difference between Catholics and Protestants and I didn’t know that a bunch of Christians thought and taught that this feeling about Mary was blasphemous. I only knew what my heart told me.

    I immediately looked for Churches to join. I looked at many denominations. I went to dozens of Churches. I felt mystified that many of these churches made no mention of Mary. I wanted to tell them about my secret but I was very shy in those days and did not speak or ask questions, in fact I had lost my voice as a singer and wrote on a note pad. I did not know the interdenominational dynamics about Mary.

    So I went back to the Church that had the statue. That is the Church where I belonged for 18 years until it closed in 2006. If it had been a different denomination I probably still would have joined it. I just loved the fact that they honoured this most beautiful woman who, helped heal my relationship to women and to my maternal mother. If you or I can perform miracles in the name of Jesus, why can’t she? (Mat 10:1).

    Once inside the Church, there was another miracle. It happened before I knew the Bible or knew anything about angels or religion. There was a picture of Mary holding Jesus with an angel on each side. It was called “Our Lady of Perpetual Help” and was painted in the first centuries of Christianity.

    While sitting quietly, I asked Mary who the two angels in the picture were. I heard a woman’s voice in my head lovingly and clearly say, “St. Michael and St. Gabriel.” Six months later, I came into church and saw a document explaining the painting. If you look closely, there is Greek lettering above each angel, which translated means, “Michael” and “Gabriel.” I don’t read Greek! To me this was a confirming miracle that I was in the right place.

    Some might say, “this was the devil fooling you.” However, let’s look at the results of the experience. “You shall know a tree by its fruit.” (Mat 12:33) The fruit of this tree is that it drove me deeper into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, son of the living God – Mary’s child. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3).

    My relationship with Mary has been a major support in my recovery.

    I’ve been told by some of my Evangelical friends that icons are idols. Thank God I had never heard that before I had this miracle. It appears that God wasn’t in the least concerned that I was looking at an icon. In fact he decided to make a miracle happen while I was looking at an icon. Thank God for the old Catholic stuff. Thank God for giving us Mary as a mother. Thank God for the miracles He is working through her.

    We must remember that the apostles Paul, Peter performed miracles in the name of Jesus. Even modern pastors perform miracles in Jesus’ name. Catholics believe Mary can do the same.

    There was another miracle that Jesus performed through Mary. I had had a terrible eating disorder – anorexia-bulimia for several years. One day I said to Mary, “Mary you fed your Baby Jesus for all those years, I bet you could feed me.” That was a decisive moment in my recovery program. I believe she performed that miracle in the same way as the early Christians cured people with the name of Jesus.

    An invitation – Pray to Jesus about Mary

    Many people wish that this thing about Mary would go away and that the Church would be in greater unity with other Christians if it would.

    It appears that most of the closed feelings against Mary have crept into the reform movement in the last 100 years. Many great Protestants have had strong feelings for Mary including C.S. Lewis. Most early reformers had strong positive feelings for Mary including Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Wesley. Even Martin Luther spoke to her in the first person saying:

    No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.
    (Martin Luther Sermon – Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

    We are not apologists. Apart from all this doctrine and stuff, the reason we believe that Mary is in heaven helping us is because each of us had an experience with Mary that we cannot refute (David’s testimony here, Kirsten’s testimony here). No one can tell us she is dead. We don’t worship her. She is a friend who prays for us and has shown us very cool things about her Son, Jesus. We believe we are better Christians today because of Mary.

    If you are afraid to talk to Mary, we invite you to:

    Pray to Jesus about Mary.

    Any Evangelical would say it is perfectly safe to pray to Jesus about anything. Ask Jesus what’s up with Mary. Give him time to respond. We pray you have the same experience that has led to our powerful convictions about the validity of Mary as a helper for the helpless, and a great prayer warrior.

    http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary.php

  87. Rome,
    If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned, i.e. excommunicated).

    Actually anathema means ‘accursed’.

    Paul,
    But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should announce a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, and now I say again, If anyone announces a gospel to you beside what you received, let him be accursed.

    Now to the Catholic this is terrifying because by anathema they mean excommunication from the Mass. So they are literally ostracised from all interaction from the Catholic community. They are outcasts.

    But Paul’s meaning is different. It means to be set aside specifically for cursing and destruction.

    Now Paul makes it clear that anathema refers to preaching a false gospel, a gospel which was not heard from the Apostles of Christ. He is very specific about this and repeats it twice to emphasise.

    Nowhere does Paul, or Jesus, or any other writer of the New Testament say anything to the Church about being excommunicated or accursed for not calling Mary the Mother of God.

    All you have done is apply the catechism of the Church of Rome and report back to us with further heresy.

    The Queen is not Mary. She has not ascended, yet. She sleeps in Christ, a forgiven saint of God, awaiting the resurrection of the saints to glory.

    The Queen in Psalms 45 is the Bride of Christ, the Church, with whom He is betrothed.

    Gill
    upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir; by whom is meant the church, whose title is a “queen”, being the bride, the Lamb’s wife: wherefore, because he is King, she is queen; for this title she has not of herself; it is founded not in her own right, but upon her relation to Christ, being married to him; and so is expressive of relation to him, union with him, and of privilege and dignity through him; she sharing with him in all he has, even in his kingdom and government, reigning with him, and on the same throne: her being “on his right hand” shows the honour she is advanced unto; yet “standing” may denote subjection to him as her Lord and head; and being so close by him may suggest her fidelity and inviolable attachment to him, and strict adherence to his person, cause and interest; as well as her protection from him, being held and upheld by his right hand; and her reception of favours from thence, and her enjoyment of his presence, at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore. Her dress is “gold of Ophir”

    Wesley
    Among them that attend upon thy spouse, as the manner was in nuptial solemnities. As the queen is the church in general, and so these honourable women are particular believers, who are daily added to the church

    Matthew Henry
    The church formed of true believers, is here compared to the queen, whom, by an everlasting covenant, the Lord Jesus has betrothed to himself. This is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, whose graces are compared to fine linen, for their purity; to gold, for their costliness: for as we owe our redemption, so we owe our adorning, to the precious blood of the Son of God.

    Revelation 19
    7 “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.”
    8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

    Ephesians 5
    30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
    31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
    32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

    The Roman Church also considers the woman in Revelation 12 to be Mary, but, again, the woman is the Church.

    Gill on Revelation 12
    the pure apostolic church is meant, or the church of Christ, as it was in the times of the apostles, and the first ages of Christianity

    Wesley
    A woman-The emblem of the church of Christ, as she is originally of Israel, though built and enlarged on all sides by the addition of heathen converts; and as she will hereafter appear, when all her “natural branches are again “grafted in.” She is at present on earth; and
    yet, with regard to her union with Christ, may be said to be in heaven, #Eph 2:6

    If you keep googling, Bones, you will come across thousands of RC entries which say the same thing you do. They are merely recycling the error. It is not proof. It is not a refutation of what I have said. Every time you put this error up you confirm that the RC church teaches and encourages this error.

    The only way to end this is to provide scripture which confirms the claims that Mary is Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Sovereign Ruler.

    You will struggle with this. It doesn’t exist. Which is why they had to make it an RC dogma and force there people to accept on pain of excommunication.

  88. Bones, the entire doctrine and dogmas of Mary are totally unnecessary to faith. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you.

    True or false?

  89. wazza,
    Can we all just get along

    Of course, but in honour of those who died for their faith when simply bringing the Word of God to us in the written language we know, and those who were burned at the stake for refusing to recant of their faith in Christ, and those who must, even today, be excommunicated for not confessing that Mary is Mother of God, we cannot remain silent, and must press for the truth as handed to us in the Testimony of Christ.

    Mary and Mohammad have nothing to do with it.

    You plead for peace but dangle a hook.

    That is your way.

  90. Wazza, the entire doctrine and dogmas of Mary are totally unnecessary to faith. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you.

    True or false?

  91. GUY Sebastian is losing his religion. Or at least the parts of it he no longer agrees with. * When Sebastian won Australian Idol in 2003 he became a poster boy for the church and virginity. Fast forward to 2012 and a new Sebastian song, Get Along, details the hatred and fear spawned from religious groups. “All they know is to divide, and it’s easier if they’re faceless to hate the other side,” Sebastian sings. The chorus runs “Dear God, dear soul, dear Mary, Mohammed, can we all just get along?”

    He is so proud of Get Along and its message, he’s earmarked it as the next single from his sixth album, Armageddon. “I was seen as the poster boy for religion and I didn’t want to be,” Sebastian says. “People thought I had a certain set of beliefs, which were very narrow, which is the complete opposite of who I am. “People were putting me in this weird system of beliefs and judgments I didn’t belong in.”

    Sebastian felt awkward being linked to establishments like the Hillsong Church. “I didn’t want to say ‘I’m not associated with those people’ because I’ve got a friend in the Hillsong Church who’s quit his job, where he was on massive money, and all he does is help street kids. “So if I suddenly go ‘Oh no, I’m not associated with them’, there’s good people there as well. I was in this mode where I’m trying not to hurt anyone. Anyone who knows me knows I’m not judgmental.”

    Sebastian says his feelings on religion have changed over the past decade. “It’s not less important to me, but I’m more informed about it,” he says. “My views are more based on life and discovery and research than just what I’m told, because what I was told in regards to so many things was so wrong. “I’ve gone from a place where I was told there was one way and only one way, to being more in a place where I don’t think anyone has the right to say what they believe is more important or more significant.

    “I still believe in God, I still believe in the fundamentals of that. But I base it on the fact God is love. I don’t feel God is what people have said He is throughout generations. For me it’s a faith. People sometimes lose the concept of faith. I don’t know if there’s only one God, I don’t know if there’s a God, I just have a faith that there is. That’s what I’ve grown up with. But the minute it starts to become about hate, I switch off.”

    Sebastian’s eyes were opened when a male friend he grew up with came out as gay – and fled overseas out of fear of the flak he might cop from the church. “He moved countries, he was that scared about the whole religious thing because he was brought up in the church. My friends and I were like, ‘Dude, why did you leave, what did you think we would say?’ It became not a big deal at all. “Look at gay marriage. I don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone who they can and can’t be in love with. You look back at the unfair things that happen in history, and this will be looked back on as one of those things. “People will think ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t believe the world was in that state, that they held those views’

    http://www.news.com.au/tablet/losing-my-religion-sebastian/story-fnejnl1p-1226493088368#ixzz28yYba4ib

  92. Faith isn’t just about being saved. It’s not about getting a get-out-of-hell free card.

    It is about relationship, not just with God but with His creation. Which includes other people. Some of them with very strange ideas.

  93. Well, Jesus said he came to save the world. We are saved by grace through faith.

    John 3:16-17
    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

    John 1:12-13
    But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    Romans 10:8-13
    But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “ Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    Now the question is: the entire doctrine and dogmas of Mary are totally unnecessary to faith. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you. True or false?

  94. In a lasting vestige of anti-Catholic prejudice, a concerted effort to discredit the Church is being made today by some non-Catholic Christians who continue to propagate the falsehood that Catholics worship Mary OR that the devotion to the Blessed Mother is a continuation of devotion to the various mother goddesses of the ancient pagan pantheons. These charges can legitimately be called prejudices because they proceed from a prejudgment (made in advance based on preconceived ideas about what Catholics believe) and efforts to enlighten and convince with facts usually fall on deaf ears.

    One such claim is that calling Mary the Mother of God is a manifestation of the apostasy of Catholicism, which has returned to pagan mother goddess worship. This title, bestowed by the Council of Ephesus in 431, is seen as proof of Catholic apostasy from the Gospel. The historical facts underlying the Council do not dissuade those captured by this prejudice about the Church and its love of Mary, however, they clearly show the Church’s intention to protect the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and sacred humanity, the Incarnation, as well as give the proper due to she who fully cooperated in it by her Fiat (let it be done).
    The fourth and fifth centuries, the first ones of Christian emancipation from persecution, were centuries of consolidating the truth about God and Christ. The Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (361) defined the basic teachings of Christianity in the Creed which goes by their name (and which is obligatory at Sunday Mass), against those who in one manner or another denied the unity of God, and the Divinity of the Son (“one in substance with the Father”) and of the Holy Spirit (“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”). It also asserted the true humanity of Christ “born of the Virgin Mary,” thus protecting the Incarnation of the Word, the Word-made-flesh, from the assault of heretics like Arius. Jesus Christ was indeed the Eternal Son, a Divine Person, who united in Himself both a Divine and human nature.

  95. Of course, but in honour of those who died for their faith when simply bringing the Word of God to us in the written language we know, and those who were burned at the stake for refusing to recant of their faith in Christ, and those who must, even today, be excommunicated for not confessing that Mary is Mother of God, we cannot remain silent, and must press for the truth as handed to us in the Testimony of Christ.

    I won’t remain silent for the Catholics that have endured centuries of persecution and humiliation at the hands of Bible believing protestants.

  96. Speaking in tongues is unnecessary for faith. As is tithing.

    Pope Francis has been prayed over by Pentecostals so that blows away that prejudice.

    Hell he even has time for atheists.

  97. Thankfully the Pope’s not as bigoted as Steve.

    “We are attacked by those who do not accept us, regardless of whether a person is Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic. Our blood is not divided.”

  98. According to Steve’s logic Jesus is pagan.

    Jesus is called the King of kings yet Daniel 2:37 says that is a title given to the pagan king Nebuchednezzar

    “36 “This was the dream; now we will tell its interpretation before the king. 37 You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the [ar]kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; 38 and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold.”.

  99. These are all straw men arguments, Bones. You haven’t actually addressed the issue in the post or thread.

    You’ve brought up your Catholic ancestors who, I agree, were terribly treated in the an Gorta Mór. I think it was great shame on the English of the time and led to the ongoing troubles in Ireland.

    But I had nothing to do with this. How could I?

    I hope I would have had the courage to be with John Mitchell, the son of Presbyterian minister and the main chronicler of the atrocities of the famine, who was persecuted terribly for pointing out the risks the landowners of the day posed if they did not allow food for the starving. A case of profits over mercy. Deplorable. (Unfortunately Mitchell also supported slavery and allowed his sons to fight for the South in the American war, losing two of them, and one losing an arm.)

    I am not sure why you are pressing the Irish cause here, apart from being Irish, because there is more to Catholicism than Ireland, and they have had their moments too. have so far resisted a tit for tat exchange with you over this issue because I have a personal interest in it too.

    If you would like to set up a separate post which outlines your case on the Irish problems I would be happy to engage with you and discuss it.

    When are you going to sort this out with Greg? It’s not like it’s hard to become an author of posts.

    If you think that by questioning Catholic dogma of Mary I, therefore, had anything to do with persecution of Catholics you are starting to look pretty desperate.

    Meanwhile, I am asking you to show why anyone should accept the erroneous dogma of Mary, and, since you bring it up, why the Catholic Church excommunicates people for not confessing that Mary is the Mother of God?

    If the only thing necessary for salvation is faith in he Lord Jesus Christ, why would anyone have to be excommunicated for accepting that Mary is the mother of the Lord Jesus, but not the Mother of God?

    But, to get back to the original post, where is your Biblical evidence that Mary is Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Sovereign Ruler?

    If you can just admit there is none we could leave it a that.

  100. Let me put this in context for you.

    Railing at me for exposing unscriptural Catholic error by accusing me of responsibility for the Irish troubles would be rather like me accusing you of being responsible for the dreadful atrocities and genocide rained upon the Waldenses and Huguenots by the French Catholics because you criticise Hillsong for promoting tithing.

    I think you need to exhibit more sober judgment.

  101. I hope I would have had the courage to be with John Mitchell, the son of Presbyterian minister and the main chronicler of the atrocities of the famine, who was persecuted terribly for pointing out the risks the landowners of the day posed if they did not allow food for the starving.

    Umm no.

    You are a supporter of Hislop who perpetetuated lies and propaganda demonising Catholics.
    That’s why churches rejoiced that the famine was wiping the Catholics out.

    You would be praising God for the famine.

    I like this thread.

    It’ll turn me Catholic.

  102. Railing at me for exposing unscriptural Catholic error by accusing me of responsibility for the Irish troubles would be rather like me accusing you of being responsible for the dreadful atrocities and genocide rained upon the Waldenses and Huguenots by the French Catholics because you criticise Hillsong for promoting tithing.

    But that’s one of the reasons you hate Catholics.

    Cause they killed Protestants.

    Aaah but if Protestants rejoice over dead Catholics that’s a strawman.

    See Tutu is a better Christian than you. You would want vengeance.

  103. So because Jeremiah mention Queen of Heaven that title can only refer to pagan goddesses eg Mary therefore when Daniel refers to a pagan king as king of kings, it’s ok to apply that to Jesus, who by the way is the bright morning star (ie Lucifer).

    fmd how can you live in that world.

  104. I don’t hate Catholics.

    I am questioning their doctrine of Mary.

    Hislop is, as I have said many times, an interesting theologian but not the root of my doctrine.

    I do not hate anyone, let alone Catholics.

    It is entirely your case that I hate Catholics. Entirely your fabricated accusation. It’s what you do. What you’ve always done, Bones.

    If you can’t find a Biblical reason for an error I expose which you oppose you will gradually introduce false accusations and unkind claims.

    I actually said, in case you didn’t grasp it, that the Irish Potato Famine was a wicked atrocity which is a shame on the English and Irish landowners who failed to feed the people who were starving. The Irish exports of those years actually went up despite the blight on potatoes. Thee was more than enough food to have save those people and kept them in Ireland. What they did to the Irish was evil.

    I said I would have hoped that I would have had the heart to help hem regardless of whether they were Catholic or not.

    I would do the same for a Hindu, Buddhist, atheist or liberal. I just don’t have to agree with their beliefs, or unbelief. And I can still Biblically challenge their reason for believing what they do without denying them the basic essentials for life.

    In fact, we are told to give to those who are in need. How else do we win them to Christ?

    The wars between so called Christian faiths are a blight on Christianity, but i don’t think you should single out protestants as the aggressors.

    Look, Bones, you need to realise that this is a blog where we discuss issues. I think some wrong doctrine should be addressed. That is why it is interesting to talk these things through.

    That doesn’t make me or you or anyone a bad person, nor should any of us be blamed for the evil of the past. It is a blog discussion that is all.

    I don’t know why you can’t grasp this.

    Maybe you have some deep seated problems you need to get over before you press this further.

  105. Bones,
    So because Jeremiah mention Queen of Heaven that title can only refer to pagan goddesses eg Mary therefore when Daniel refers to a pagan king as king of kings, it’s ok to apply that to Jesus, who by the way is the bright morning star (ie Lucifer).

    Here you go, Bones. You’re having a conversation with your imaginary friend again. Whe did I say any of these things? You actually said them to yourself. You worked up your own argument pretending it was me. LOL!

    I am not saying much about paganism in particular on this thread which is why I’ve let your previous comments on this go through to the keeper. Loose balls wide of the stump. let them go.

    I you want me to set up a particular post and thread to address this issue I could. Or maybe you would like to get your act together with Greg and do your own posting. You could have long, rambling conversations with your imaginary friend.

  106. What I actually told you, using commentaries as backup, was that your reference to the Queen in Psalms 45 was in fact talking about the Church, not Mary as the Catholics erroneously claim.

    Jeremiah is saying that offering cakes (tarts, from ashtarte) to the Queen of Heaven was what, in part, caused God to abandon Israel.

    Nebuchadnezzar is king of kings in the Daniel passage by virtue of being the most powerful king on earth at the time.

    Mary, however, has never been referenced anywhere as Queen of all the kings of the earth, or Queen of Heaven, as pope Pius XII claims in the post.

    It’s really difficult to keep you on track with this.

    You still haven’t shown anywhere where Mary is Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix or Sovereign Ruler as claimed by the pope.

    I am not persecuting anyone, Bones. I am asking for Biblical evidence for a doctrine or dogma. That is all.

    So far, you have failed.

  107. Yes, you love catholics so much you lie about them.

    Bit like the kkk saying they love blacks or nazis loving jews.

  108. Very good, Bones. A cheery example of your discussion techniques.

    You’ve actually sunk to a new low, and that’s saying something.

    And your logic on saying Catholics disagree with me is rather obvious.

    None of this changes anything, of course, because the error remains in their doctrine.

    In similar vein, I do not hate JWs, but I would be amongst the accursed Paul referred to if I agreed with their doctrine of Christ.

    Paul said we would be accursed if we spoke of another gospel. Surely agreeing with wrong doctrine is as bad as preaching it. Surely saying nothing is also akin to allowing another gospel.

    It’s not my opposition to false dogma which is in question here, but your viscous and ugly defence of it.

    To be sure, I should moderate your last comment here on the kkk and nazis, because it is beyond extreme. It is not only wrong, disgusting and desperate, it is an illustration of the lengths catholic sympathisers will go to to defend very obvious error.

    Very poor form, Bones. Worse than disgraceful.

    The amazing thing is that you are also attempting to promote pope Francis’ call for a more loving attitude towards other Christians. I think you missed the point of your own argument in favour of him, somewhat.

  109. Now the question is: the entire doctrine and dogmas of Mary are totally unnecessary to faith. Only faith in Jesus Christ can save you. True or false?

    I suppose thats true, but if so you could state that a lot of Christian doctrines are also unnecessary to faith. The writings of Paul, Revelations, even most of the Gospels themselves.

    In fact, all that is necessary is to agree with this statement : “Jesus died for our sins, and was resurrected”

    If the baby Jesus was taken from the manger straight to the cross and crucified, and then a few people told others about it, this would be all that is necessary for Christianity.

    All the other stuff is just padding and fluff.

    Isnt that right Steve?

  110. Ah, you only suppose it’s true. I’ll take that for code that you knows it’s true.

    All the other stuff is just padding and fluff.

    Well, no, the rest of the gospels and epistles are the living standards for those who have received Christ, so they are important to us.

    Thing is, there isn’t anything that says we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling by confessing Mary is Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix or Sovereign Ruler. Or even confess the Fifth Glorious Mystery [Mary crowned Queen of Heaven] on rosary beads.

    Is there, wazza?

  111. Yet the present pope, Francis, continues the myth of Queen of Heaven, and, according to the Archbishop in the following video, calls the bishops together to sing the Regina Coeli [Queen of Heaven], which goes something like this…

    Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
    For He whom thou didst merit to bear in your womb, alleluia.
    Has risen, as He promised, alleluia.
    Pray for us to God, alleluia.

    V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
    R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.

    Let us pray.
    O God, who through the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ
    gave rejoicing to the world,
    grant, we pray, that through his Mother, the Virgin Mary,
    we may obtain the joy of everlasting life.
    Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

    Now I always thought we obtained the joy of everlasting life through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, not through Mary Queen of Heaven.

    The problem any pope has is that in 1870 the popes were made infallible after 1361 years of the idea being floated. From Gregory VII it began its journey towards completion.

    The Dictatus papae have been attributed to Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) in the year 1075, but some have argued that they are later than 1087. They assert that no one can judge the pope (Proposition 19) and that “the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness” (Proposition 22). This is seen as a further step in advancing the idea that “had been part of church history and debate as far back as 519 when the notion of the Bishop of Rome as the preserver of apostolic truth was set forth in the Formula of Hormisdas”. [wickipedia]

    So, once popes make a dogmatic declaration there is very little succeeding popes can do to arrest any significant error of the past. Occasionally one or two popes, such as John XXII have protested that popes should not be considered infallible, but once the 1870 declaration was made, every succeeding pope is scuppered, so even if they wanted to change these foolish fallacies they could not unless someone has amazing strength of character and power.

    But the selection process will never allow for any but a Marian to become a Cardinal, let alone a pope, so Catholics are stuck with these incredible heresies.

    The tragedy for all Catholics is that they are threatened with excommunication for expressing doubts on the Marian dogma.

    The word, ‘dogma’ is interesting in terms of this discussion, too, because, in its original form, it merely meant ‘opinion’, something which ardent Catholics like Bones have lost sight of it seems.

  112. Bones, replying to an earlier comment,
    ‘It isn’t there, except in Christ, which is precisely why we need the Word, the Spirit and the leadership of Head of the Church.’

    None of those are perfect either.

    The Word is God made flesh. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God. The Head of the Church is, again, Christ.

    And you say none of these is perfect?

  113. Would someone be defellowshipped from c3 for disagreeing with speaking in tongues, prosperity doctrine, belief in an infallible bible?

  114. No. Why would they?

    The Word is God made flesh. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God. The Head of the Church is, again, Christ.

    And you say none of these is perfect?

  115. I actually meant the little w word, the little h head and those who claim to have the Spirit.

    But I think even Jesus made mistakes.

    Or He wasn’t human.

  116. Well, Bones, if you’d read my actual comment, it said…

    ‘It isn’t there, except in Christ, which is precisely why we need the Word, the Spirit and the leadership of Head of the Church.’

    So it didn’t have a ‘little ‘w’, or little ‘h” did it! I even qualified the ‘h’ by saying I was referring to Christ the Head of the Church.

    Jesus never sinned. He was perfect. The only person in all creation to live a sinless life.

    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. Enough said!

  117. I am not saying much about paganism in particular on this thread which is why I’ve let your previous comments on this go through to the keeper. Loose balls wide of the stump. let them go.

    I wasn’t aware that you made up the rules and we forget what goes on before.

    That’s called context.

    This ‘debate’ over Marianism is part of your antiCatholic fetish ala Easter and Christmas.

    It’s not the paganism that bothers me because the Bible was definitely influenced by pagan beliefs like hell and demons.

    It’s your dishonesty and poor scholarship.

  118. So you introduce a strawman and then defend its relevance long after I point it out. Still a strawman. I have not addressed the pagan aspect of anything. I have actually made this clear to avoid the very assumption you just made, so you were refuted in advance.

    In fact, the post is clear. It is a continuation, and relief, of a very long thread which had left the original subject in its wake. In researching the progressive or soon to be proposed dogma of Mary as mediatrix, I came across the encyclical on the Vatican site by Pius XII.

    It was such an amazing piece, littered with heresy, and, I think, blasphemy, that I put it on this page on its own merit as exhibit ‘A’ of the advanced position of a possible drive towards the deification of the Catholic Mary.

    I have said nothing about Christmas, Easter or any pagan festivals associated with Mary on this thread, and attempted to keep it on subject despite your tendency to meander from one claim to another, or introduce unrelated issues as a point of attack, seeing as you are failing on all other points relevant to the post.

    I have consistently asked for evidence for your support of Pius XIIs encyclical, but, thus far, you have been unable to produce any compelling Scriptural evidence for making Mary Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Sovereign Ruler.

    See how I have narrowed it down to four names from 53 I found in the encyclical and named earlier.

    Four. And you still can’t show a single relevant Scripture.

    I understand your frustration. There are no relevant Scriptures, and you wish above all things to prove my claims wrong.

    You clearly have no interest in the fact that what I have said is actually right and that these names of Mary, at best, are unbiblical, and, at worse, are blasphemous. In which case your approach is both Biblically unsound and theologically irresponsible.

  119. Yeah ‘blasphemous’.

    Let that bile out.

    Now go and wipe the screen.

    You do realise you sound worse than your mates at C3Churchwatch.

    At least they’re not hypocritical.

    “deification of the Catholic Mary.”

    deify:- to give divine qualities.

    See you can’t help yourself. Catholics don’t make Mary into a god.

    That’s dishonest.

  120. you wish above all things to prove my claims wrong.

    I’m not Catholic. I don’t hold to the Catholic position re Mary other than theotokos.

    But you are a prick.

    That’s my opinion. And I prefer Catholics over your retarded worldview.

    And you’re still dishonest.

  121. I can feel the love, Bones. LOL!

    I take it, then, that you are OK with the encyclical in the post.

    1. Did you read through or have you ever read through the encyclical in the post by Pius XII?

    2. Do you agree with it in its thrust to declare Mary Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Sovereign Ruler?

    3. Are you saying that a papal encyclical or dogma is enough grounds to establish a doctrine that is not present in Scripture on a par with Scripture form the canon?

  122. Bones, misquoting me,
    “deification of the Catholic Mary.”

    deify:- to give divine qualities.

    See you can’t help yourself. Catholics don’t make Mary into a god.

    That’s dishonest.

    Your reply is dishonest. What I actually wrote was…

    I put it on this page on its own merit as exhibit ‘A’ of the advanced position of a possible drive towards the deification of the Catholic Mary.

    ‘Possible’. Yes, Bones, a possible drive towards deification of the Catholic Mary.

    The very names ‘Mary Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Sovereign Ruler’ are seriously hinting at deity, unless you are an ‘insider’ like Greg who knows deep down that they are merely titles which don’t say what they actually do say (to every other Bible believing Christian ‘outsider’), which is; that Mary has ascended to the Throne of the Almighty and has been granted the ability to reign, redeem, mediate and rule over God’s creation with Him.

    Well, if that is not deification, can you please explain to this rank ‘outsider’ what it actually means, because, I have to tell you, I am copping a whole lot of abuse from you for simply pointing out what we ‘outsiders’ have a problem with when it comes to the dogma and doctrine of Mary, and why the supreme papal leader of the Church of Rome, nice though he is, would perpetuate such a doctrine if it is without Biblical foundation.

  123. Bones,
    I’m not Catholic. I don’t hold to the Catholic position re Mary other than theotokos.

    Goodness, a gem in the midst of a rather spiteful series of comments. A frank admission so deeply buried in unfortunate nastiness I almost missed it.

    So, on the other thread, I actually said to you that I would agree to disagree with you about the theotokos and move on because I could understand the position if it is a direct Eastern Orthodox translation of theotokos, which is ‘bearer of the one who is God’, which is subtly but significantly different to the Catholic ‘Mother of God’.

    I said this to you, Bones, yet you continued the haranguing argument, when, all the time, you basically could not agree with any of the encyclical in the post on this thread.

    That is both unkind and wilfully provocative.

    Are you sure you’re not just looking for someone to hit out at in some kind of deep seated frustration about who you are or someone to scapegoat for things you don’t like about Pentecost, because I see no reason for your defence of a clearly progressively flawed doctrine of Mary.

  124. OK, that seems to be that then.

    So, to deal with some of the peripheral and unconnected issues you raised, Bones.

    ‘You do realise you sound worse than your mates at C3Churchwatch. At least they’re not hypocritical.’

    That is such a childish comment.

    For a start, we discuss a whole range of issues and subjects on this blog. The Catholic exchanges here are a very small part of the overall commentary on this blog. It is the most intense because you, Greg and wazza seem keen to defend what many post-Lutheran theologians would condemn as excessive dogma. Others, at the height of Catholic power in the dark ages, were put away for their challenges of certain practices and doctrines.

    I have also concentrated on proven error for which I have a Scriptural basis. But it is not the only subject I discuss with you, as you well know.

    Whereas the c3churchwatch thrust is entirely against one church and its leadership. Most of what it claims is based on innuendo, supposition and unproven claims. There are some issues which need to be addressed by these churches and which could be considered controversial, as with all churches, I stress, but to dedicate an entire blog to pulling down one church and driving away its congregation is obsessive and excessive.

    Of course, c3churchwatch is also the brainchild of a former moderator of this site, and we know that his fixation here was a grossly unhealthy feature of the site bordering on mania, which was then far more concentrated against C3 and Hillsong. Thankfully we have moved on.

    Secondly, you make the claim they are not hypocritical. Yet they do not allow dissent, they do not give their own names, they do to reveal their affiliations or oversight, they cannot take criticism of any kind, and they are claiming to walk in love with the people of C3 and Hillsong when their main intention is to discredit them, their leadership, their movement, their churches and find anything they can which puts C3 and Hillsong in a bad light.

    They do not ever make a single positive comment about anything Hillsong or C3 do or have done. They are, like their mentor Lance, only intent on showing the negative side of church life, albeit, in their case, focusing on two specific church groups.

    All I have done here is continue a conversation started, in fact, on a post which pointed out the contribution of Hillsong, on which you contrived to place a negative slant by making a comparison with the present pope in which you again stated he as a better man than those who lead Hillsong. Well, it was maybe mildly provocative, but it stimulated a conversation which led to another heated exchange.

    You have had similar heated exchanges with Q and I over politics, Israel, scripture, the canon, creation vs evolution, and any number of subjects.

    Which leads me to another point. We have generally been free to comment and even be rude to one another from time to time. Some moderation has been necessary, but, generally, you are allowed to insult people as long as you can cop a few things back on this site.

    On the other hand, c3churchwatch only allows anonymous cowards like Zorro this luxury, as he runs roughshod over any and all who support C3 or Hillsong. Say one thing in the slightest bit negative over at c3churchwatch and you’re gone.

    Never compare me to these c3churchwatch sorcerers. They are the Sanballat and Tobiah of the blogosphere, yaddayaddaing from a distance as the real believers get on with rebuilding the wall.

    Nehemiah 6
    1* ¶ Now it happened when Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of our enemies heard that I had rebuilt the wall, and that there were no breaks left in it (though at that time I had not hung the doors in the gates),
    2* that Sanballat and Geshem sent to me, saying, “Come, let us meet together among the villages in the plain of Ono.” But they thought to do me harm.
    3* So I sent messengers to them, saying, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down. Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you?”
    4* But they sent me this message four times, and I answered them in the same manner.
    5* Then Sanballat sent his servant to me as before, the fifth time, with an open letter in his hand.
    6* In it was written: It is reported among the nations, and Geshem says, that you and the Jews plan to rebel; therefore, according to these rumors, you are rebuilding the wall, that you may be their king.
    7 And you have also appointed prophets to proclaim concerning you at Jerusalem, saying, ‘There is a king in Judah!’ Now these matters will be reported to the king. So come, therefore, and let us consult together.
    8* Then I sent to him, saying, “No such things as you say are being done, but you invent them in your own heart.”
    9 For they all were trying to make us afraid, saying, “Their hands will be weakened in the work, and it will not be done.” Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.

  125. The Bible isn’t right about everything of course. Much of it is human interpretation of spiritual events.

    In fact Catholics seem to have better results re prophecies and miracles than Penties do.

    Our Lady of Kibeho

    Our Lady of Kibeho is the name given to Marian apparitions concerning several adolescents, in the 1980s in Kibeho, south-western Rwanda. The apparitions communicated various messages to the schoolchildren, including an apocalyptic vision of Rwanda descending into violence and hatred, possibly foretelling the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.[1]

    In 2001, the local bishop of the Catholic Church officially recognised the visions of three schoolchildren as authentic.[2]

    Apparitions

    The Kibeho apparitions began on Nov. 28, 1981, at a time of increasing tension between the Tutsis and the Hutus. They occurred at Kibeho College, a secondary school for girls,[3] and included an apocalyptic vision of Rwanda descending into violence and hatred which many believe foretold the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The Virgin Mary appeared to the group with the name “Nyina wa Jambo” (“Mother of the Word”) synonymous with “Umubyeyi W’Imana” (“Mother of God”).[4] The teenage visionaries reported that the Virgin Mary asked everyone to pray to prevent a terrible war. In the vision of Aug. 19, 1982, they all reported seeing violence, dismembered corpses and destruction.[5]

    The longest series of visions were attributed to Alphonsine Mumureke who received the first vision on November 28, 1981 and the last on November 28, 1989. Anathalie Mukamazimpaka’s visions began in January 1982 and ended on 3 December 1983. Marie Claire Mukangango had visions for six months, lasting from 2 March 1982 until 15 September 1982. She was later killed in the massacre of 1995 at the same location.[5]

    During his 1990 visit to Rwanda, Pope John Paul II exhorted the faithful to turn to the Virgin as a “simple and sure guide” and to pray for greater commitment against local divisions, both political and ethnic.[5]

    In the 100 days that followed the April 1994 assassination of the nation’s president, By most accounts, 800,000 Rwandans, by some accounts,over one million, were slaughtered by their countrymen and, in some cases, their next-door-neighbors. The violence was the culmination of intensifying animosity between the two ethnic groups – the Hutus and Tutsis – and the civil war that had preceded it.[6] Twice, Kibeho was twice the sight of a massive massacre, first at the parish church in April 1994, and then a year later in April 1995 where more than 5,000 refugees who had taken shelter at Kibeho were shot by soldiers.[7] The Holy See has not approved these apparitions.

    Approved sightings

    Only the visions of the first three (Alphonsine, Nathalie, and Marie Claire aged 17, 20 and 21) received local Bishop Augustin Misago’s solemn approval. There were reservations about the others and the supposed visions of Jesus in July 1982, so the bishop did not confirm their authenticity.[4]

    Non-approved visionaries

    The others claiming visions were Stephanie Mukamurenzi, Agnes Kamagaju, Vestine Salima and Emmanuel Segastashya, the last of whom was previously a pagan and became a Christian evangelist. Emmanuel’s alleged visions included meeting Jesus Christ in a beanfield.[8]

    Interpretation

    The visions may be regarded as an ominous foreshadowing of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, and particularly the 1995 Kibeho Massacre. The school where the visions occurred became a place of slaughter during the genocide as dozens of children were hacked to death by Hutu terrorists.[9] Some of the visionaries were among the victims.

    Approval

    Catholic Bishop Augustin Misago of Gikongoro, Rwanda approved public devotion linked to the apparitions on 15 August 1988 (the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary) and declared their authenticity on 29 June 2001.[4] He was accused in 1999 and acquitted on June 24, 2000 of involvement in the Rwandan genocide.[9] The feast day of Our Lady of Kibeho is November 28.[10]

    Shrine

    The Marian sanctuary at Kibeho was named “Shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows” in 1992.[4] The first stone was laid on 28 November 1992. In a 2003 agreement between the local ordinary and the Society of the Catholic Apostolate (Pallotines), the rectorate of the Shrine of Our Lady of Kibeho is entrusted to the Pallotine Fathers. The rector is appointed by the local bishop and the Regional Pallotine Rector.[11]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Kibeho

  126. I think that was probably the worse segue into a comment yet. And the point of the comment was…? My controversy is bigger than your controversy, so there? Beats me i I can find any reason or rhyme for the comment, but I’m sure Bones will find a way to explain.

    After all he’s the one who made this classic claim: “Jesus was more Catholic than Protestant.” LOL!

    Of course, if the Catholics and Protestants, at the height of their rivalry, had been around in, say, John’s day, when he was on the Isle of Patmos, Jesus would have had something to say in the list of churches he nailed.

    It would have gone something like, “This I have against you Romists, that you force your people to buy indulgences, worship the bones and relics of dead priests, make the people shed their own blood in penances, revere men in the Vatican, that you venerate the woman, the Queen of heaven as sovereign ruler, you call the people to pray to idols, make people pay money for their dead in the false purgatory, murder saints at the fiery stakes, forbid your priests to marry, dress your popes in silk, red velvet and gold to elevate them above the people, build your altars to separate your priests from the people, call Christ down from the right hand into your wafer offerings and wine, make the people confess to sinful men, now purge yourselves of these and repent, lest the great tribulation come down upon your blood offerings, burnings and riches. To him who overcomes I will give the hope of justice in martyrdom.” “And to those who resist Rome as Protestants, I have this one thing against you, that you fought fire with fire at times, and would not forgive the excesses of Rome, and that you worked with kingdoms against the Kingdom of Heaven. Repent, and see the dawning of the day of Light forever.”

    It’s never too late to repent, is it? Unless you die in your sins that is.

    Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who will come and judge the earth one more time.

    Best to stick to the simple gospel rather than mess with the Word of God.

  127. Wonder what Jesus would say to Penties.

    It would have gone something like, “Shit, I like your mansions and jets and tv shows. A shame I never got to do any of those leg lengthening tricks. Oh and next time I’ll make sure I add in some lines about exploiting the poor. I never thought of that one.”

    It’s never too late to repent, is it? Unless you die in your sins that is.

  128. It’s interesting how the law-huggers always want to do harm to people who grow out limbs…

    Matthew 12
    9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue.
    10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” –that they might accuse Him.
    11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?
    12 “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
    13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.
    14 Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.

    I have definitely seen the growing out of limbs, having put it to practice on many occasions for some very grateful people who walked away much bester than they came. And Jesus gets all the glory since He is the Healer, I am not. Doubt it all you want. Mock it all you deem necessary to make you feel better. I know what i have seen and done. You can’t take that away from me or the people ministered to.

    The mansions, jets and TV shows I know nothing about. The poor I live amongst on purpose in a humble ground floor flat in North London. I travel by bus and tube. I don’t have a car. I don’t even have a TV license, let alone a program.

    How’s it going on the beautiful Queensland coast of sunny Australia. One car or two? 3 or 4 beds?

    And I live a repented life. It saves time. Especially when there might be an opportunity to serve Christ.

  129. You do realise that the Pentecostal movements were predominantly birthed amongst the poor and disenfranchised and are spreading in developing nations because there are people who are prepared to live and serve amongst them who are preaching the gospel, hence the phenomenal growth over the last 100 years.

    Your major problem is that you are so besotted by discernment ministries which almost totally focus on a small group of mainly US megachurch ministries, some of which are not even Pentecostal but come out of the Baptist, Calvinist and charismatic streams by using the seeker sensitive models of Saddleback and Willow Creek, both out of the Baptist movements, and on the TV Evangelists who are mostly US based, with a couple of growing Australia and Singaporean ministries, which are influential but make up a very small contingent in the greater scheme of things globally.

    I reckon you’d struggle to name, without googling, more than a handful of ministries with jets, mansions and tv shows. What would Jesus say? He’d say ‘You have tour reward in this life’!

    Knocking Pentecost without just cause is your obsession though. The real ministries on the ground – the people who are active and at work in God’s vineyard – will probably never see more than a house or flat, and a reasonable car.

    Being on the narrow road doesn’t mean being narrow minded.

  130. Are we talking about real people?

    I thought we were making gross generalisations about religions.

    I mean last week the Catholics were burning penties down the street.

    Being on the narrow road doesn’t mean being narrow minded.

    Lol.

Comments are closed.