In response to:

An Evangelical Pope?

James367 Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:26 PM
Doctrine, not dogma! Bible Christian cannot support 3 doctrines in Roman Catholicism: (1) Transubstantiation: The wine and bread are the actual body and blood of Christ. If true, the body and blood would be truly sacred, communicants are eating human flesh, or communicants are either self deluding or self denying. (2) Immaculate Conception: Mary never had any other children, remained virgin all her life. This is not required, and contradicts several verses in gospels and epistles describing Jesus half brothers and sisters. (3) Church tradition is as authoritative as Holy Scripture. This is origin of all other errors, even Papal Infallibility, and Jesus condemned same doctrine of Pharisees. Absolutely irreconcilable!
Dave8528 Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 10:20 PM
My fellow Christian I would like to defend the Church's doctrines.
Mary being the Immaculate Conception is the easiest one. The term brothers and sisters refers to cousins. There were no Greek words at that time for cousins, so she was the Immaculate Conception.
The Church over the years defined Jesus and the apostles teachings. We are not free to define these teachings personally as did Luther, Calvin, Knox, and many others did. You either accept the Catholic doctrine, or create your own church according to your own personal understanding of the Bible.
Third, we do not eat and drink Jesus body. Transubstantiation is the faith that this is the body and blood of Jesus in the form of bread and wine. Jesus said this at the Last Supper.

Wherewithall Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 10:15 AM
8528 It would be considered highly unlikely that mary did not have other children. Joseph was married to her and you can bet your bottom dollar that he did not withold himself from having sex with mary. Guaranteed. And you can also bet that they had other children. Guaranteed. You need to be careful worshipping this mary thing. It is not meant to be. The things that were said in her supposed apparititions truly are not biblical. It is Satan appearing as her and decieveing the masses. If there is anything that will unite the muslims along with the christians it is the worship of mary through her appearances. Be careful for you along with all the other mary worshippers will be decieved in the end times.
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 11:02 AM

Somewhere here, I cited the rhetorical question from one of the Father of the Church, possibly St. Jerome: "Who would be mad enough to approach the Mother of God in order to know her carnally?" I suppose that St. Jerome would have thought it "guaranteed" that St. Joseph was NOT that mad and that no one would or could be. Perhaps he would have been less sanguine if he had known any Protestants, such as you, who would apparently have been happy to hump the Mother of God.
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 1:09 AM


How little spiritual life exists in the soul of non-catholic scoffers. Nothing is sacred; and you look upon the concept of HOLY with crude indifference.

The brethren of Our Lord are trivial proof-text. In an evangelical gospel narrative their sole purpose is to challenge Catholic doctrine. Hardly any other relevance can be drawn but heretical reasoning.

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 3:44 PM

To the basher known as Wherewithall (sic).

Wherewithal is the proper spelling.

". . . highly unlikely that mary did not have other children."


Joseph married her and you can bet your bottom dollar that he did not withold himself from having sex with mary. Guaranteed."

I'll bet you. how much shall we bet?

". . . also bet that they had other children. Guaranteed."

I'll take that bet. You'll get your dumb butt kicked, I guarantee it, Pal.

". . . be careful worshipping this mary thing. It is not meant to be."

I have to agree. Worship of anyone but God is a serious sin. (We don't worsip Mary, and she's not a THING.) Mary is the mother of God. Guaranteed, it says so in the Bible!

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 3:50 PM

Wherewithal is losing,

"apparititions truly are not biblical. It is Satan appearing as her and decieveing the masses."

Mary is indeed very biblical. I can show ewe chapter and verse; she's in the Bible! Her apparitions warn faithful souls to OBEY JESUS! We do NOT worship her, you LIE!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Why would Satan deceive us into obeying God? Have ewe gone Bonkers?

ConcealedCarry Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:39 PM
Good points - sort of.

What does any of it have to do with Youssef's column?
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:53 PM

Actually, I thought that it had much more intellectual merit and interest than Youssef's vaporings.
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:37 PM

1) The Catholic version seems supported by the episode where Jesus said that the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood would be necessary for salvation. He spoke in a manner which left His listeners in no doubt that He was speaking literally, whereupon many of them left Him. Then, as you recall, He asked whether His apostles would also leave Him. So, yes, we are entitled to believe that we have been told to eat the substance of Christ's body, but under the accidental appearance of bread. Are we to prefer to be as scandalized as Christ's listeners, who had the excuse of not knowing the rest of the story?
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:42 PM
2) Are you conflating the Immaculate Conception and Mary's perpetual virginity? At least once Scriptural reference supporting Mary's sinlessness is the salutation of the Angel: "Hail, full of grace." While I suppose that there are various ways that one can take this, the Catholic way is at least one of them. As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, we have the rhetorical question posed by one of the Church fathers: "Who would be mad enough to approach the Mother of God in order to know her carnally." If you want Jesus to have half-siblings, you can equally explain that on the assumption that he had children by a prior marriage as by the assumption that he was "mad enough."
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:48 PM
3) "Church tradition is as authoritative as Scripture." I see tradition and Scripture as the mutually supported halves, so to speak, of a single arch. Scripture itself is, in a way, part of tradition, since there was already a church some time before the New Testament was written and since it was the Church which determined for the faithful what was to be regarded as canonical (thereby rejecting the kinds of things that today excite people who watch The DaVinci Code and similar nonsense). Scripture, in turn, seems to me to establish that the church has some measure of teaching and disciplinary authority over its members.
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:51 PM
In the absence of the Church's teachings, I suspect that, on the sole basis of the text of Scripture, I could go either way on Nos. 1 and 2 and various other issues. On the other hand, if I accept that the Church could be wrong for over a millenium on major items of what we are supposed to believe, then I soon find that I must accept that the Church could be wrong about absolutely everything--including the matters on which you and I actually agree.
Troglodite Wrote: Feb 17, 2013 9:56 PM
Re the 9:42 post. The "he" in the phrase "on the assumption that he had children by a prior marriage" refers to Joseph. I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused here. Obviously, Jesus was not married and did not have children.
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 2:22 AM

We are told in scripture Mary and Joseph lost the boy Jesus three full days; and were frantic and worried. Only to find Him in the Temple of Jerusalem consulting with the elders and priests there. He said to Mary this was His Father's business to which He attended for a time.

WHERE were the purported brothers and sisters of Jesus during those three days? Did Mary and Joseph park them with a baby-sitter in Nazareth?

Where? I ask our Evangelical and born again Bible Thumpers--?
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 2:32 AM

As Mary stood by Jesus' cross at Calvary next to John the apostle;

We are informed that as He was dying Jesus entrusted Mary His widowed mother to the care of the apostle.

That from that hour !!! she went to live in John's house. This is related by the witness and evangelist right there.

Where were Mary's so-called "other" children? Didn't they honor at least their mother with their presence, in her hour of greatest sorrow?

WHY? Because, my Born Again friends:: Mary never had any other son; nor children, after Our Savior. And--Mary is still a virgin mother, and always will be, in heaven!
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 2:37 AM

Since we have here Andy 544, a great Born Again Bible scholar; it's obvious he must be able to answer the two questions I'm asking here. Do that, won't you, Andy? Or any other born again Thumper; perhaps Michael Youssef?

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:31 AM

I must come back Tuesday to see Andy's answers. He's a Bible scholar. I know Andy can respond to any Catholic questionsl SURE!

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 3:26 PM

OK, here I am. Tueday.

Did Andy 544 or Dr. Youssef, or another protestant Bible scholar try to answer my previous posts? They ought to know their Scriptures. Can they explain why no sons and daughters of Mary are ever found in company with her. But Mary is always in the immediate company of ONE Son; and not any other! Scripture reveals for the faithful, that Mary had only JESUS, no other children.

Again; where are the non-catholic experts? They only sound here like:

. . . . CRICKETS!

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 2:42 PM

Guess? I'm here again, FRIDAY.

Nothing from Andy544 or Michael Youssef. o replies to my challenges above.

Can it be they finally saw the truth? Why are they shy about admitting it? All they commit to is CRICKETS!

The media, including some in the Christian media, throw around the word evangelical with little understanding of its proper definition. Most recently, the media has done this in referring to Pope Benedict XVI as the “Evangelical Pope.”

In an attempt to say he’s a missionary-minded Pope, or a proselytizing Pope, they impart a title that would probably make him most uncomfortable.

I have a deep respect for Pope Benedict. Respect for his impressive intellect. Respect for his strong stand on moral issues. Respect for his belief in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ for salvation. Respect for his levelheadedness in understanding other...