Conference yukon::christian_v7

Thank you for sharing that with us, John!

I deeply admire Pope John Paul II for his unwavering,
forthright stand for the Truth and Biblical morality.

I only wish most non-Catholic Church elders had such
courage of their convictions (or maybe it's convictions
that they lack!).

Gratefully,

Brian

    Brian,
    
    I agree.  Though I am not in personal agreement with everything in the
    Catholic Church, I have been encouraged by the bold stand that John
    Paul II has taken.  I also liked the way he encouraged youth to be bold
    to stand for the Lord when he was at Denver last month.
    
    Mark L.

 I know I came away with a new appreciation for him after the Denver
 gathering.  




 Jim

    
    
    The Pope is just one man, expressing his opinions.  No more.  No less.
    
       GJD

>    The Pope is just one man, expressing his opinions.  No more.  No less.

I beg to differ.  He is more because of his office and leadership.
But you can express your opinion, too.

Mark (non-Catholic but supportive of the Pope's stand against immorality)

    
    
    He's still just a man, perhaps divinely inspired, but based on some of
    the well-documented behavior of past popes, not immune from wrongs
    himself.  I respect his knowledge, perhaps even his authority, but some
    of his "teachings" are, in my opinion, dangerous and damning.  (I.e.
    the use of birth control.)
    
       GJD

>    He's still just a man, perhaps divinely inspired, but based on some of
>    the well-documented behavior of past popes, not immune from wrongs
>    himself.  I respect his knowledge, perhaps even his authority, but some
>    of his "teachings" are, in my opinion, dangerous and damning.  (I.e.
>    the use of birth control.)
    
You are free to reject or condemn him as you wish, if you are not Catholic.  
Nevertheless, this encyclical is important because it is authoritative teaching
of the Catholic faith and is binding on all Catholics and, as such, because of
its firm stand on the doctrines we have taught for 2,000 years and its sharp
criticism of liberal elements in the church, it is going to seriously affect
the Catholic Church in America, and I predict it will cause upheaval and
division in the Catholic Church.  Because of the size and influence of the
Catholic Church here in America, this upheaval would affect not just Catholics,
but all Christians and even non-Christians.  It has the potential to change the
face of history, whether or not you agree with its teachings.  For this reason, the encyclical
we shouldn't dismiss it as "merely the opinions of one man."

I find it strange that you find the church's opposition to artificial birth 
control "dangerous and damning."  The Catholic Church has always -- for 2,000 
years -- opposed birth control, and so did ever major Protestant denomination 
up until 1933.  There is a book out called "The Bible and Birth Control" (I 
forget the author) written by Protestants for Protestants explaining why 
artificial birth control is contrary to the teachings of Scripture.

For Catholics, this encyclical is a final call to submit to the teachings the
church has embraced for 2,000 years, a warning that certain teachings must be
obeyed, or you simply cannot be Catholic.  The era when serious dissent from
basic Catholic teachings is ignored by the leaders of the church is coming to 
an end.

Eric

>    The Pope is just one man, expressing his opinions.  No more.  No less.
    
Not really -- a papal encyclical, though not usually infallible, is seriously
binding on all Catholics and expresses the authentic Catholic doctrinal stand
on issues.  It is not merely the Pope's opinion: it is the teaching of the
Catholic Church.

VS will finally bring to light some of the false teachings and errors being
spread within the Catholic Church, where dissenting teachers have taught
Catholics that the Pope's view on contraception or abortion is just an
opinion, and have given people the false idea that all we need is a new Pope
and the church might reverse controversial teachings on sexual im/morality,
abortion, contraception, and everything else.  This encyclical will emphasize
that there is no room for dissension on these and many other issues in the
Catholic Church: that the Pope teaches these things not because they are his
personal opinion, but because they are central, divinely revealed truths of
the Catholic faith.

We've desperately needed this for quite some time.  There is a lot of mis-
understanding in the church over how important these issues are.  A lot of
false teaching has been spread around. This will draw a line in the sand, so
to speak, indicated to many dissenting Catholics that they are wholly outside
of the Catholic faith.  It is in a sense an ultimatum: this is what God has
taught us, we are not free to change it or dissent from it, and if you want to
remain a Catholic Christian, you must submit to the Lord's teachings on these
matters.

Both VS and the catechism (when it is finally published in English) will I
think induce the polarization in the American church that will start the
schism (between the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic
Church). It will separate the sheep from the goats: the nominal Catholics from
Catholics of faith.  Schism is bad, but it is better to "expell the immoral
brother" than permit him (or her) to mislead innocent believers.

The media attention will be good too.  Although they are firmly against us, at
least with their complaints, criticisms, and moanings and groanings, they will
nevertheless serve the purpose of informing all the nominal Catholics what
authentic Catholic teaching is, in a time when so few Catholics know their
faith and so many are led astray by wolves.  The media attention will dispel a
lot of misinformation.

Eric

    re: .7
    
    What is "damning" about teaching that ARTIFICIAL birth control, that
    which separates the unitive act from the procreative possibility, is
    sinful? 
    
    All current evidence is that it is the separation of the act of
    sexual union from God's procreative intention that has unleashed all
    kinds of sexual and human immorality in the world, including 
    abortion. 
    
    Scriptural evidence does not show God supporting sexual activity that
    is not open to the possibility of procreation. If mankind is facing
    a population 'crises' (which is debated) it is because we have not
    managed our sexuality with any contol or self-sacrifice in mind.
    
    The Christian Way is one that involves carrying one's cross,
    self-control, and self-sacrifice. This should be true even within a
    marriage as part of the Christian's responsibilities. Marriage,
    coupled with modern day birth control, is viewed incorrectly as
    being a license to "sex anytime".
    
    Natural Family Planning (NFP) has scientifically been shown to be as
    effective as artificial birth control, but its effectivness is through
    self-controlled abstainence, a Christian virtue. Artificial birth
    control separates the unitive aspect from the procreative and therefore
    it is not as God planned for the SACRAMENT of Marriage.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary 

I personally think that allowing NFP as a form of birth control is a cop out. 
It is still "separates the unitive act from the procreative possibility," just
as much as other methods do.  Yes, NFP still allows the possibility of pregnancy
but so does everything else.  When having sex under NFP, you are still having
sex specifically for pleasure, while doing everything in your power to prevent
pregnancy.  If that is sinful, it is just as sinful using NFP as it is with any
other method.  

And what about menopause?  Once a woman has gone through menopause, pregnancy is
no longer possible.  Is all sex after menopause sinful, since it is still a
"separation of the act of sexual union from God's procreative intention?"  The
same goes for any sex during pregnancy - is that sinful?

Procreation is not the only reason for sex.  Intimacy and union are other prime
reasons.  God didn't only say "go forth and multiply," He also said "They shall
become one flesh."

Be consistent.  If sex must be united with God's procreative intention, then
*ALL* forms of attempting to have sex while trying to eliminate or minimize the
procreative possibilities are sinful.  This includes NFP, sex during pregnancy,
and sex after menopause.  If marital union is also a valid reason for sex, then
the method of preventing pregnancy is immaterial.

Paul

>    What is "damning" about teaching that ARTIFICIAL birth control, that
>    which separates the unitive act from the procreative possibility, is
>    sinful? 

I would not have preferred to discuss the differences of belief regarding
conception control (a carefully chosen term), but to answer this question
outside of the context of Catholic and Protestant, if something is sinful,
isn't it damning to practice it?

I don't think this belief is a major tenet of the faith.  I like NFP for
various other reasons than procreation but, like Paul, see no essential 
difference between this and other forms of conception control.  But neither
will I rain on someone who regards these matters as they do.

Mark

    
    
    I, personally, believe that any person who brings an unwanted child
    into this world because of the failure to use use readily available,
    cheap, and effective birth control is damning that child to a life of
    grief and torment.  
    
    Sex is a gift from god. It is *not* only for procreation.  It is also
    for recreation.  
    
    Honestly, how many Catholics do you really think follow the Popes
    teaching to the letter of the law?  
    
    He's just a man, expressing his opinions based on his studies.  No
    more, no less.  
     
    
        GJD
    
    

> I personally think that allowing NFP as a form of birth control is a cop out. 
> It is still "separates the unitive act from the procreative possibility," just
> as much as other methods do.  Yes, NFP still allows the possibility of 
> pregnancy
> but so does everything else.  When having sex under NFP, you are still having
> sex specifically for pleasure, while doing everything in your power to prevent
> pregnancy.  If that is sinful, it is just as sinful using NFP as it is with 
> any other method.  

Not really -- the purpose of NFP is not so much to strictly prevent pregnancy
so much as to slow down the arrival of children.  Catholic teaching says that
NFP is just as sinful as artificial birth control if it is used with the
intention of remaining childless: with NFP, you're _not_ doing everything in
your power to prevent pregnancy, but you're still open to children, although
you're limiting their probability.

Besides, NFP opens the door to God and permits him to act naturally to conceive
a child if He so desires.  Other forms of birth control are not as open to God's
sovereign will.

NFP, unlike other forms of birth control, includes self control and restraint
of the passions of the flesh (as St. Paul talks about) -- which is beneficial
both to the spiritual life and to the married life, as married couples who use
NFP have testified.

> And what about menopause?  Once a woman has gone through menopause, pregnancy 
> is no longer possible.  Is all sex after menopause sinful, since it is still 
> a "separation of the act of sexual union from God's procreative intention?"  
> The same goes for any sex during pregnancy - is that sinful?

Ah, but these are natural and according to God's plan.  They are part of God's
design to limit pregnancy, and are out of the control of us humans.  (Never-
theless, look at Elizabeth and Sarah -- both of them gave birth after men-
opause.) Of course one _can_ sin during these periods by focusing exclusively
on sexual pleasure, but typically in these periods the hormones are a bit more
relaxed anyway and the temptation is not as strong.

> Procreation is not the only reason for sex.  Intimacy and union are other 
> prime reasons.  God didn't only say "go forth and multiply," He also said 
> "They shall become one flesh."

Procreation is not the only reason, no.

I recently picked up Don Feder's new book, "A Jewish Conservative Looks at
Pagan America."  (It's basically a collection of his columns.) I found it
interesting, because he says that in the Jewish faith, being childless is
viewed as a curse -- in fact, he says, they regard celibacy as sinful, and
one must be married to be a rabbi or one of various other roles.  They also
view contraception as sinful, although probably not in the same way that
Catholics do.  Having children is very important according to Jewish teaching.

Eric

>Besides, NFP opens the door to God and permits him to act naturally to conceive
>a child if He so desires.  Other forms of birth control are not as open to God's
>sovereign will.

My firstborn would dispute this claim, Eric.

And I'm glad she came along, though her coat was stolen today because she
wouldn't learn to open a combination lock and therefore did not use one
on her locker.

Mark

    
    >Other forms of birth control are not as open to God's
    >sovereign will.
    
    Sounds like a contradiction in terms here. God's sovereign will is
    sovereign regardless.
    
    >Of course one _can_ sin during these periods by focusing exclusively
    >on sexual pleasure,
    
    	Not to sound offensive here but, my wife and I get a lot of
    pleasure out of the union of sex.  I cant imagine what sex would be
    like if I didnt think it was pleasurable.
    
    Dan

    
    I also belive that if sex was ONLY to procreate then the female would
    be able to fertilize 100% of the time.

.16 is a pretty good point, especially when considering the Designer.
But in .15 I think you may have missed the word "exclusively" in Eric's 
statement.

When added, it means that sex for pleasure is fine and dandy as long 
as it is part of the whole spiritual union, and not the only focus of
the event.  Of course, a "one-flesh" couple who are united in spirit
cannot unite in flesh for the exclusion of all but physical pleasure
because by the nature of spiritual unity, it would be impossible.
Therefore, even the most pleasant physical experience, however focused
upon it a couple may be, is merged with the spiritual anyway.

MM

    Note 276.18 (and .19 and .20, which quoted .18) have been set hidden.
    While it is widely recognized that there are differences in belief
    between those of the Catholic persuasion and other faiths, this
    conference is not to be used as a place for bashing one another's
    religions.

    Mark L -- co-mod

>		While that has not turned out to be the case, dissent is
> virtually forbidden. ``Opposition to the teaching of the church's pastors
> cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of
> the diversity of the Spirit's gifts,'' writes John Paul. ``It is prohibited
> -- to everyone and in every case -- to violate these precepts. They oblige
> everyone, regardless of the cost.''
>==============================================================================
		When the wind of the Holy Spirit blows, there is nothing 
	that will be be able to resist Him.  Those miss Him, will miss it.
    
    
					heartfelt concern,

								Greg

    
    Hooray!  Glad to see such strong statements on im/morality from the
    Pope.
    
    jeff (protestant)

>		When the wind of the Holy Spirit blows, there is nothing 
>	that will be be able to resist Him.  Those miss Him, will miss it.

That could be true. But a lot of abuses have been committed in the name of the 
the Holy Spirit.  When we seek the Holy Spirit for all of our guidance instead 
of the Church, we fall into Montanism, a heresy of the 3rd century (Tertullian
was involved in this) and, as today's neo-Montanist charismaniacal movements
demonstrate, not everyone who claims to be led or thinks he is being led by
the Holy Spirit, actually is.

If the Holy Spirit is leading His Church, as he promised in Scripture, then
he will not change his mind, and anything that a spirit leads you to do that
is contrary to what the Holy Spirit has led the church to, is not of God. God
has established the Church of the living God as the "pillar and foundation of 
the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Of course, I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is irresistible: while if God
wants something to be done strongly enough, it will be done, but we can and do
turn away often from the Spirit's personal leading in our lives, and we cannot
risk confusing the movement of the Spirit with emotions.

There are also other spirits other than the Holy Spirit who would be more than
willing to give us a nice exciting religious feeling and make us feel that we
are following the Holy Spirit.

"Keep away from every brother who does not live according to the teaching you
received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6

Eric

(As for artificial birth control, I have no desire to comment further.)

        In reference to the Holy Spirit , I think scripture states it best:
    
    v13 "But when He,the Spirit of truth,comes,He will guide you into all
    truth;for He will not speak on His own initiative,but whatever He
    hears,He will speak;and He will disclose to you what is to come."
          
    v14 "He shall glorify Me;for He shall take of Mine,and shall disclose
    it to you."
    
    v15 "All things that the Father has are Mine;therefore I said,that He
    takes of Mine,and will disclose it to you ." 

    	BTW...
    
    		We should not discount the operation of the Holy Spirit
     	as though we could actually do without Him.  We need Him!
    
    		St. Ignatius said that without the Holy Spirit, Christ
    	really cannot be made real within a person.  He said that without
    	the Holy SPirit, Christ is like a foreign image that people can
    	see, but they really cannot come into contact with.  The operation 
    	of the Holy Spirit is essential.  Remember, "if any have not the
    	Holy Spirit, then he is _none_ of this". ( Romans 8 ).  And,
    	"the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children
    	of God."  And... "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
    	are the children of God".  And... "But we all, with open face
    	beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into
    	the same image from glory unto glory, even as by the Spirit of
    	the Lord".  The Holy Spirit is vital to a true walk with Christ.  
    	He is more important than the air that we breathe because He 
    	makes Christ _real_ to us. 
    
    								/Greg

 .27 has been set hidden.  The moderators of this conference remind all noters
 that while it is one thing to discuss the doctrinal differences amongst us, we
 will not tolerate any notes that make inflammatory statements about those
 beliefs.



  





 Jim co-mod

    Gee ... I guess I'm stirring up a hornet's nest judging from all these
    hidden notes!
    
    Let me say that I do appreciate the work of the moderators in
    moderating these.  It is not my intention to incite flame wars -- I
    am quite busy with work not to mention Usenet newsgroups and I don't
    have time to engage in them here, anyway.
    
    Regarding the Holy Spirit: Greg, you are quite right that the Holy
    Spirit is essential to the believer.  The Holy Spirit enlivens and
    vivifies us, helps us to understand our faith, gives us power to live
    out the Christian life, and opens our mind to Christ.
    
    I'm just cautioning against misinterpreting the freedom of the Holy
    Spirit as license to sin, to rebel against God's church, or to shirk
    accountability.  St. Paul tells us in Galatians 5 about life in the
    Spirit: he says that by living by the Spirit, we will not gratify the
    desires of the sinful nature. But among the latter he lists
    dissensions, factions, and discord.  St. Peter (2 Peter 2:10) says that
    those who despise authority are following the sinful nature and will be
    punished. What the world calls freedom -- freedom to do as we please, to 
    satisfy the sinful nature -- is really bondage, and true freedom is 
    obedience to Christ. And obedience to Christ means obedience to the 
    shepherds (pastors) he has set over us, as lawful authorities: "Obey your 
    leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men 
    who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not 
    a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Heb 13:17) 
    Romans 13 says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing
    authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has
    established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God. 
    Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
    what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
    themselves." Jude 8 also speaks against rejecting authority.
    
    So let us obey all authorities, but especially the authority of the
    Church of Christ, where God, by his grace and compassion, has appointed
    pastors to lead us to Christ.  Whatever church we are a part of,
    whatever church we call our own, let us humbly submit to its
    leadership; and where we think there is injustice, let us offer it up
    as a sacrifice while praying for our leaders, and seek the proper
    channels to redress the wrongs we perceive.
    
    Eric
    

    
    	Eric,
    			I personally believe that the ultimate authority
    	of the church is the Word of God and the Holy SPirit.  What do
    	you do if there is a contradiction between the authority within
    	the church, and the authority over the church?
    
    								/Greg

    
    	Eric,
    			As an example, this morning on channel 27 in
    	Worcester, I heard a Catholic priest say that it is not enough
    	to believe in order to obtain salvation.  He said that you 
    	have to believe in Catholic doctrine, and be in the Catholic
    	church.  What do you think of that?  Does the Catholic church
    	still believe that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic
    	church?
    					Thanks,
    							/Greg

    
    
    Not at all, Greg.  It's funny, noone hears the thousands of Priests who
    say otherwise, only the few who state something like this.  
    
    
    Mike

Well, I think "not at all" misses the mark.  The problem is that those
who state, as the Church has always taught, that there is no salvation
outside the Catholic Church, often stop without explaining what that
means.  The following two sections of the Vatican II document Lumen
Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, help to explain this.
Section 14 is not complete without Section 15 (or indeed without the
whole document, which at about 850 lines is too long to post here).

  14. This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic 
  faithful.  Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the 
  Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one 
  Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his 
  body which is the Church.  He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of 
  faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the 
  same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as 
  through a door.  Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the 
  Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would 
  refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.

  Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit 
  of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together 
  with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the 
  profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and 
  communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, 
  who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.  Even though 
  incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in 
  charity is not saved.  He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church,
  but "in body" not "in heart." All children of the Church should 
  nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from 
  their own merits, but from the grace of Christ.  If they fail to respond 
  in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be 
  saved, but they shall be the more severely judged.

  Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit 
  intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention 
  joined to her.  With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces 
  them as her own.

  15. The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who 
  are honored by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the 
  Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion 
  under the successor of Peter.  For there are many who hold sacred 
  scripture in honor as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere 
  religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in 
  Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour, who are sealed by baptism 
  which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other 
  sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.  Many of 
  them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate 
  devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.  There is furthermore a sharing 
  in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some 
  real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, 
  his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some 
  of them even to the shedding of their blood.  And so the Spirit stirs up 
  desires and actions in all of Christ's disciples in order that all may be 
  peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.
  Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may be
  achieved, and she exhorts her children to purification and renewal so
  that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the 
  Church.

    RE:33

    Mike,
          when one is looking for a stone to throw its easier to  pick up the
    one at hand. As a result, they carry their sack of stones with them 
    wherever they go.

    Jim

    John,
    
    >The following two sections of the Vatican II document Lumen
    >Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, help to explain this.
    >Section 14 is not complete without Section 15 (or indeed without the
    >whole document, which at about 850 lines is too long to post here).
    
     > 14. This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the
    >  Catholic  faithful.  Basing itself on scripture and tradition, 
    >  it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary 
    >  for salvation: 
    
    
    1Corinthians 1:12  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
    Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
    
This sounds like what is happening in this conference over 
denominations.
    
    13  Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized
    inthe name of Paul?
    14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
    15  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
    
When you state so boldly that a church is NECESSARY for salvation it is 
no less what was happening in the church of Corinth with people 
declaring WHO they followed as that person had lead them to Christ.
    
    
    16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know
    notwhether I baptized any other.
    17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not
    with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none
    effect.
    
Hmmm.... verse 17 is very provocative.  Then as you look at verse 18.
    
    18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
    but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
    
It matters not WHO lead you to Christ or WHO baptized you, what matters
is to continue to spread the Gospel.  The *true* Gospel with nothing 
added or taken away.
    
    
     19  For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
    bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    
The Gospel is for Jews and Gentiles alike. To claim exclusivity is
antiBiblical.  Salvation is not exclusive, it is a free gift to those
who do the taking.
    
    Romans 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
    were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
    
    Romans 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
    and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
    thou shalt be saved.
     10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
    mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    
Nancy
    

.32: 

>    	Eric,
>     			As an example, this morning on channel 27 in
>     	Worcester, I heard a Catholic priest say that it is not enough
>     	to believe in order to obtain salvation.  He said that you 
>     	have to believe in Catholic doctrine, and be in the Catholic
>     	church.  What do you think of that?  Does the Catholic church
>     	still believe that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic
>     	church?

This is not quite correct, or at least it is misleading.

What he should have said, is that one must not only believe, but one must
believe what is true -- or at least what one knows to be true.  Scripture says
it is necessary to cling to that faith which the Apostles taught, the faith
"once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3) Scripture also teaches that
there is "one faith, one Lord, one baptism," and one Church, which is "the
pillar and foundation of the truth."  He said to the Apostles, "He who hears
you, hears me; he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects
Him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).  We must believe that which the Apostles
preached, that is, the "word of God [that] stands forever" (1 Peter 1:25).
Therefore it is crucial not only to believe in Christ, but also to believe
the doctrine he taught through the Apostles.

The Catholic Church believes that it alone possesses the fullness of the
doctrine entrusted to the Apostles to preach for all ages, for in Scripture
Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth and to call
to mind all that he taught, and furthermore promised in Scripture that His
teaching would always be preserved in that church, "for God's gifts and his
call are irrevocable."  Therefore it follows that to believe the Gospel is to
believe what the Catholic Church teaches.  There is only one Gospel: the
Gospel taught by the Apostles, which is the Gospel jealously guarded and
taught by the Catholic Church.

And since Christ founded one church, the Body of Christ, which members enter
by believing the teachings of the Apostles and entering through baptism (1 Cor
12:13), and since we believe that the church founded by Christ is the Catholic
Church, it follows that it is Christ's will for all Christians to be members
of His one church.

However, the Catholic Church does _not_ teach that it is impossible for non-
Catholics to be saved: this was condemned as late as I think 1939, when a
certain Fr. Finney of Boston accused the bishop of heresy for teaching that
it was possible for non-Catholics to be saved.  Vatican II says that those
Christians who are not formal members of the Catholic Church are,
nevertheless, joined by their baptism in some way to the Church of Christ, and
thereby can be saved.  While the Catholic Church _does_ say that "outside of
the church there is no salvation," it includes within that definition of
"church" those known only by God who, though not formal members of the 
Catholic Church, are joined to it (to a limited degree) by their faith in
Christ.  So, too, are joined to the church those who have not heard the Gospel
but have lived out the laws God has written in their hearts.

Vatican II had this to say on the topic:

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism):

  3. In this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose
certain rifts [15], which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable [16].  But
in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large
communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church --
for which, often enough, men on both sides were to blame.  However, one cannot
charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these
communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the
Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.  For men
who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though
imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. . . . But even in spite of
them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are
incorporated into Christ [17]; they therefore have a right to be called
Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of
the Catholic Church [18].
. . .
  The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions
of the Christian religion.  In ways that vary according to the
condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most
certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can
aptly give access to the communion of salvation.

  It follows that the separated Churches [19] and communities as such, though
we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no
means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of
salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and
truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

  Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or
as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus
Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one
body, and whom he has quickened to newness of life -- that unity which the
Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim.  For it is
through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards
salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.  It
was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we
believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in
order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should
be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
[end of quote]

[to be continued]

> When you state so boldly that a church is NECESSARY for salvation it is 
> no less what was happening in the church of Corinth with people 
> declaring WHO they followed as that person had lead them to Christ.

> It matters not WHO lead you to Christ or WHO baptized you, what matters
> is to continue to spread the Gospel.  The *true* Gospel with nothing 
> added or taken away.

The question is not who led you to Christ, but who teaches the true Gospel
of Christ.  You are right in emphasizing the importance of preaching the
true Gospel, with nothing added or taken away.  

Therefore I have some questions we should examine.

You believe that there is only one Gospel, right?  And that we must preach the
whole Gospel, with nothing added or taken away?  Therefore to fail to preach
the whole Gospel, or to preach more than the Gospel, is really not to preach
the Gospel at all, right?

And we also believe that Christ promised to reveal all truth to us (John 16:13),
and that the Spirit has made all that belonged to Christ and made it known
to us (v. 15), and we can presume that this promise has already been 
fulfilled, right?  Therefore the whole Gospel has already been revealed to man,
right?

Awaiting your comments. . . 

Eric

[continued from .37]

Nevertheless, this principle applies only insofar as non-Catholics are,
through no fault of their own, unaware that the Catholic Church possesses the
fullness of truth and was founded by Christ as necessary for salvation.  (See
John's quotes, Lumen Gentium #14). I don't think I can presume to tell you or
any non-Catholic that you are not saved because you reject the Catholic faith;
God alone judges.  However, I think it is the duty of us all to pray for God's
mercy on us for whatever errors we may cling to, and in turn show mercy to
others whom we believe to be in error, and pray for their salvation.

The Catholic Church makes a distinction between those who adhere to wrong
doctrine simply because they have never had a chance to hear or understand the
truth, and those who adhere to wrong doctrine because they have heard and
understood but rejected the truth.  "To whom much has been given, much will be
required; to whom little has been given, little has been required."  In other
words, non-Catholic Christians who follow Christ faithfully according to the
doctrine they know, who have been honest and humble in their faith, even
though they may not believe the faith taught by Christ, will receive mercy
from God even though they do not confess the full Gospel of Christ.  For it is
in part because of the sins of our own church that the truth is obscured, and
there are many who are born into churches which do not preach Christ's gospel
and who are not personally guilty of turning away from the Gospel of Christ to
another Gospel, but honestly believe they have received that Gospel.  However,
those who have been taught the full Gospel of Christ, or have received and
understood it, yet reject it and persecute it -- for example, those who grew
up Catholics and received knowledge of the truth but who turned to other
doctrines and churches and spend their time mercilessly persecuting this
church Christ founded, the Catholic Church, these will receive less mercy from
God.  I cannot say that they will not be saved, but to receive the truth and
reject it out of the hardness of one's heart is a great danger to salvation.
(This assumes one receives knowledge of the truth in the first place, which
nowadays doesn't always happen due to the poor evangelization within the
church.)

Therefore let us all humble ourselves before the Lord, seek His mercy for our
errors, and not judge one another, for Christ teaches that insofar as we show
mercy, mercy will be shown us, and to the measure that we judge others, we
ourselves will be judged.

Eric

.38

>However, I think it is the duty of us all to pray for God's
>mercy on us for whatever errors we may cling to, and in turn show mercy to
>others whom we believe to be in error, and pray for their salvation.

Whatever else is said between Protestant and Catholic, this cuts both ways
and may be the best summation of how we should treat each other that I can
think of.

Mark

> Whatever else is said between Protestant and Catholic, this cuts both ways
> and may be the best summation of how we should treat each other that I can
> think of.

I truly believe that humility (and love) should be the primary fruit of the
Spirit we should cultivate when pondering these issues.

Those who have received the truth, have receive it not by any good deeds they
have done nor by any merit, but only by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have no reason to boast over others that we are in light and they are in
darkness, for not only is our enlightenment by the grace of Christ alone, but 
we ourselves our all to some degree blind ourselves.  Rather, as instructed by
our Lord, we should pray for those whom we perceive as enemies -- for we cannot
know to what degree our enemies may actually be our friends.

Lord, look not on our sins but on the faith of your servants; grant us the peace
and unity of your Kingdom where you live and reign forever and ever.

Holy Lord, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the
whole world!

Eric

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your notes and questions, I hope I can provide some answers for
you.

.31:

>    	Eric,
>    			I personally believe that the ultimate authority
>    	of the church is the Word of God and the Holy SPirit.  What do
>    	you do if there is a contradiction between the authority within
>    	the church, and the authority over the church?

The ultimate authority of the church is, indeed, Christ Jesus who is the Word
of God (John 1:1), the Holy Spirit, and also God the Father, that is, the Holy
Trinity.  The head of the church is Christ Jesus, our chief Shepherd and high
priest.

But let me answer your question with a question.  What do you do when two
Christians disagree over what that authority says, and one finds a contra-
diction between the authority within one church and the authority over the
churches, and the other finds a contradiction between the authority within the
other church and the same authority over both churches?

You say Church R teaches what is contrary to Scripture, and Church S teaches
what is not.  I say that Church S teaches what is contrary to Scripture, and
Church R teaches what is not.  Christ promised to reveal all truth to us (John
16:13), to teach us all things and bring to mind all that he taught (John
14:26), and that His Word which was preached by the Apostles would last
forever (1 Peter 1:25).  All that Christ possessed has been given to the
church (John 16:14).  Christ is with us always, to the end of the age (Matthew
28:20).  Therefore all Christian truth, without ambiguity and without doubts,
has been revealed to man by Christ. Now, how do we determine whether Church
R's interpretation of Scripture is correct, or Church S's interpretation of
Scripture is correct?

Eric

> that His Word which was preached by the Apostles would last
>forever (1 Peter 1:25)....Now, how do we determine whether Church
>R's interpretation of Scripture is correct, or Church S's interpretation of
>Scripture is correct?

His Word will last forever, we agree.  And it is the Word which determines
what is correct.  Apostolic succession is a debated subject; (many Protestant
minister believe they are also part of the apostolic succession).

How do we determine whether Church R has deviated at times from the
"proper" interpretation of Scripture.  You might say that because 
successionis passed from one person to another, the chain of correct
interpretation is unbroken, and those break-aways from the church
are those who break the correct interpretation.  The counter balance is
that those who pass in succession may have deviated from "proper"
interpretation at some point, and the institution of the church then
compels this deviation to become solidified and part of the accepted 
truth.  Just a thought.

Mark

> How do we determine whether Church R has deviated at times from the
> "proper" interpretation of Scripture.  You might say that because 
> successionis passed from one person to another, the chain of correct
> interpretation is unbroken, and those break-aways from the church
> are those who break the correct interpretation.  The counter balance is
> that those who pass in succession may have deviated from "proper"
> interpretation at some point, and the institution of the church then
> compels this deviation to become solidified and part of the accepted 
> truth.  Just a thought.

While I agree with your logic, if we extend it, then it says that the proper
interpretation is the one that, historically, is the oldest and most
consistent; i.e., if Church R deviated from "proper" interpretation at some
point, then historically we should be able to demonstrate when this happened,
and correct it by "undoing" it.  After all, we have lots of extrabiblical
information on Christian interpre- tation of Scripture all the way back to
even the first century.  But this is untenable: first of all, because it
recognizes authority outside of Scripture; second of all, because one will
find a number of errors of Church R for which no refutation can be found in
historical Christian writings, i.e., many erroneous interpretations go back at
least to the first and second century, with no evidence of the proper
interpretation prior to that (or contemporary to it).  Or else it would lead
to the conclusion that the church deviated from the truth faith very early on,
in the first or second century, but this can only be conjecture, since there
is no historical record that the church ever believed the proper
interpretation in the first place.

So in order to prove that Church R's interpretation is wrong, we would have
to examine history to see if it deviated at any point from what it previously
believed -- but if we do this, the entire foundation of Sola Scriptura
(Scripture Alone) is in danger, because it bases Christian truth on evidence
other than the Bible.

Eric Ewanco
(using a non-pagan node)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1065.0             NOW ONLINE: Veritatis Splendor                 0 replies
KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                            9 Lines   Feb 18  1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just acquired the electronic version of Veritatis Splendor.  You
can find it on my machine, file KOLBE::"~ftp/jp2ver.txt".  There is also
a ZIPped version, "jp2ver.zip".  The text version is in Unix text format,
so you may need to do the proper conversion command (EXCHANGE/NET something
or other) to get it in VMS text format.

Have fun, and keep the faith.

Eric


	Eric,

I always find your replies informative though I disagree with most of them. 8*)
Believe it or not though, in some ways I do not disagree with you. In any case,
your zeal for your beliefs is remarkable and should be an example to all of us 
to consider.

	To many non-catholics and former catholics (like myself), the Catholic 
Church is saturated with idols and idol worship. This is a big barrier. You may
deny there are idols and idol worship of "saints" and particularly of Mary, and
I would expect you to, but one doesn't have to be trained in seminary to 
recognize idol worship in the Catholic church. If kissing toes on statues and
lighting candles and burning incense to deceased saints, and calling on the
name of Mary and praying to her, and bowing down to statues, etc, is not
idol worship, then there is no such thing as idol worship anywhere in the 
world.

	It is therefore difficult to receive any "Veritatis Splendor -- The 
Splendor of Truth" from the head of an organization so permeated with idol
worship practices however "good" some of those Veritatis Splendor's may be. 
This doesn't mean that I cannot receive anything from any catholics. In fact, 
one of the most precious and spiritual sisters I have benefited from was a 
member of the Catholic church, that is, Madam Guyon.  
	
	Are there any catholics that you know who object to the idol worship?
Perhaps this is a separate subject but it seem to be in goos company with at 
least the last 20 replies or so.

Regards,
Ace

    RE:47

    Ace,
         idol worship is treating an idol as God. Praying to the object is
    idol worship. Catholics do not pray to statues or worship them. 
    
    The Catholic Church forbids the worship of anyone other than Jesus
    Christ.

    Catholics do not worship the statues in their Churches. Just because
    you saw Catholics kneel before a crucifix or  a statue of Mary,
    does not mean they are worshiping the statue or Mary. The statues,
    icons or pictures of Jesus, Mary and the Saints are only for the
    purpose of remembrance. Jesus alone is worshiped. Mary is honored.
    People ask for prayers from Mary or the saints just as people in this
    conference ask us for prayers. Catholics believe that Mary and the
    saints are in heaven with Jesus and  ask them for their prayers.

    Your accusations of idol worship in the Catholic Church is totally
    false. 

    Hopefully the accusations you make are based on ignorance and 
    not hatred.

    Jim

                           
    Re.48
    
    Jim,
    
    Change 'Catholic' to 'Hindu', and it is exactly the same thing.
    
    Hindus only worship God.  All objects, pictures, etc., are there
    only for remembrance.
    
    Cindy

re.49
Cindy,

> Change 'Catholic' to 'Hindu', and it is exactly the same thing.

Thank you. Exactly my point. There is no difference between what is practiced
in the Catholic and Hindu systems concerning statues, pictures, etc. from 
what I can tell.

I would think that this would disturb Catholics very much. 

Ace

re.48

Jim,

>   Hopefully the accusations you make are based on ignorance and 
>    not hatred.

	I love the people in the Catholic church, but I happen to believe that
the system is an abomination. We should hate what the Lord hates, agree?

	Jim, I've seen the brass toes of St Joseph worn down to the nubs from
people kissing it. Now really, is this not worship?

	Try not to take this personal.

Regards,
Ace

    
    Re.50
    
    Ace,
    
    Although I take Jim's position that Catholics (and Hindus) are
    not worshiping idols (graven images, whatever), I do agree with 
    you that what Catholics do and what Hindus do are the same thing.  
    In other words, if Hindus are guilty of idol worship, as they have
    so often been accused of here, then so are Catholics.  And any other
    denomination, for that matter, that has pictures, icons, and symbols 
    in their churches.
    
    To take it a step further though, the real key is the intent of
    the person.  A child kneeling down beside a bed with hands clasped
    to say evening prayers is certainly not worshiping the bed, for 
    example, although to the uninformed, it could very well appear to 
    be that way.  The same is true with pictures, idols, icons, etc.
    They are but reminders...they are not God Her/Himself.
    
    Cindy
       

re.52

But, but, but, Cindy, 

	What then does idol worship look like that's different from what you
described? I can think of no other name for it.

Ace

    Re: Note 276.50 by LEDS::LOPEZ
    
>> Change 'Catholic' to 'Hindu', and it is exactly the same thing.
>
>Thank you. Exactly my point. There is no difference between what is practiced
>in the Catholic and Hindu systems concerning statues, pictures, etc. from 
>what I can tell.
>
>I would think that this would disturb Catholics very much. 
    
    What is "worship?"  That would be a key point here.
    
    Hindus breath as well.  There is no difference between what is
    practiced in the Catholic and Hindu systems concerning breathing from
    what I can tell.  [ignoring meditative breathing for the moment]
    
    But I don't think this will disturb Catholics very much.  ;-)  ;-)
    
    Re: Note 276.51 by LEDS::LOPEZ
    
>	Jim, I've seen the brass toes of St Joseph worn down to the nubs from
>people kissing it. Now really, is this not worship?
    
    Good question.  Is repetitive kissing by hordes of visitors "worship?"
    
    James

    This is a good discussion.  

    Eric,
    
    Many thanks, the .zip has just flown over the Pacific tonight. By the
    time I read this document this note will be rather stale!
    
    Yours for the Lord,
    
    Erwin

    Kissing the toes of a statue of St. Joseph is no more worshiping the
    statue than when one kisses a photograph of a departed loved one.
    Its remembrance of the person that is observed. 

    Ace, your statement that the Catholic Church is an abomination is an
    insult to me and other Catholics. Your type of noting is what
    keeps most Catholics from participating in this conference.

    Jim

    RE: .51  So you know that the Lord hates the Catholic Church?
    
    
    
    Mike

> I always find your replies informative though I disagree with most of
> them. 8*) Believe it or not though, in some ways I do not disagree with
> you. In any case, your zeal for your beliefs is remarkable and should be an
> example to all of us to consider.

I appreciate your honest opinion!

> 	To many non-catholics and former catholics (like myself), the Catholic
> Church is saturated with idols and idol worship. This is a big barrier. 

I think it would be a bigger barrier if we actually _did_ believe what you
think we believe!

> You may deny there are idols and idol worship of "saints" and particularly
> of Mary, and I would expect you to, but one doesn't have to be trained in
> seminary to recognize idol worship in the Catholic church. If kissing toes
> on statues and lighting candles and burning incense to deceased saints, and
> calling on the name of Mary and praying to her, and bowing down to statues,
> etc, is not idol worship, then there is no such thing as idol worship
> anywhere in the world.

Idol worship is means offering worship that belongs to God alone to created
things.  I can assure you that Catholic theology forbids offering this kind
of worship to anyone but the Holy Trinity.  We honor and venerate -- but do
not worship -- saints.  In fact, as early as the 5th century, St. Augustine
addressed the same objection you addressed.  He emphasized the different
types of honor Catholics give: latria, which is worship (or adoration) given
to God alone, and dulia (or hyperdulia), which is _veneration_ given to
saints.

We do not burn incense to saints, nor do we offer them sacrifices.  As for
kissing, I assume you do not worship your parents or loved ones, so I don't
think that this proves we worship saints! (However, we do offer sacrifices
_for_ saints, that is, sacrifices to God for a specific intention regarding
that saint, and we also build altars to _God_ in honor of saints.)

As for prayer -- Protestants often make the mistake of confusing prayer with
worship. Because Protestants only pray to God, they come to assume that
prayer = worship.  But this is not true.  Prayer is a means of asking
someone's help; strictly speaking, we can pray to each other on earth -- in
fact, I think this is evident in the archaic phrase "Pray tell".  The
American Heritage dictionary gives this definition of "pray": 2. To implore,
beseech: "Pray be careful."  3. To make a devout or earnest request for: "I
pray your indulgence."  4. To move or bring by prayer or entreaty.

So you see, prayer does not imply worship.  When we pray to saints, what we
are really doing is asking their intercession -- asking them to pray for us
to God.  This is called the "Communion of Saints" -- all Christian believers
are so closely tied to one another that earthly deaThis is because "the
prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." (James 5:16).  This is
called the "Communion of Saints" -- all Christian believers are so closely
tied to one another that earthly death cannot even separate them.  We can
see in Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven _do_ carry our prayers to
God's throne (symbolized by incense).  So you see there _is_ Scriptural
support for this concept.

Prayer to saints is a very old tradition -- we can see in catecombs where
the Christians hid during the Roman persecution many prayers to martyrs
enscribed on their tombs.  Seeking the intercession of saints is much older
than the legalization of Christianity.  The idea of the Communion of Saints
is found even in the Apostle's Creed.

I recommend you read notes 1047.29 and .20 (maybe .16 and .33 too) in
notesfile LYCEUM::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY.  These are tracts which will help you
to under- stand the Catholic position on saints and why we venerate but do
not worship them.

> Are there any catholics that you know who object to the idol worship?

Hopefully all of them, because idol worship is forbidden by the Catholic
faith (as is superstition).

In the next note, I shall post some relevant quotes from very early 
Christians, to show how ancient this practice is, and later Christians, to
show that we do not worship saints.  (Protestants were not the first to raise
these objections.)

Shalom,
Eric

The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (157 AD) 17, 3 to 18, 3.
        "[Christ] we worship as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as
disciples and imitators of the Lord; and rightly so because of their
unsurpassable devotion to their own King and Teacher.  With them we may
also become companions and fellow disciples.  When the Centurion saw the
contentiousness caused by the Jews, he confiscated the body, and,
according to their custom, burned it.  Then, at last, we took up his
bones, more precious than costly gems and finer than gold, and put them
in a suitable place.  The Lord will permit us, when we are able, to
assemble there in joy and gladness; and to celebrate the birthday of his
martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already engaged in the
contest, and for the practice and training of those who have yet to
fight.

St. Ambrose of Milan, The Holy Spirit (381 AD) 3, 11, 79.
        "He that according to the flesh, was born of the Holy Spirit is to be
adored.  And let no one divert this to the Virgin Mary: Mary was the
temple of God, not the God of the temple.  And therefore, he alone is to
be adored, who was working in the temple."

St. Jerome, Against Vigilantius (406 AD) 6.
        "You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each
other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for
another can be heard; and this is especially clear since the martyrs,
though they cry for vengeance for their own blood, have never been able
to obtain their request.  But if the Apostles and martyrs while still in
the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be
solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their
crowns, victories, and triumphs?"

St. Jerome, Ad Riparium, (Circa 410 AD) 9.
        "We do not worship, we do not adore, we do not bow down before the
creature rather than the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the
martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are."

St. Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichean, (Crica 400 AD) 20, 21.
        "A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the
memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so
that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers.  But it
is done in such a way that our altars are not set up to any one of the
martyrs, - although in their memory, - but to God Himself, the God of
those martyrs.  Who, indeed, of the presiding priests assisting at the
altar in the places of the saints ever said "We offr to you, Peter, or
Paul, or Cyprian"?  What is offered is offered to God, who crowned the
marytrs...That worship, which the Greeks call latria and for which there
is in Latin no single term, and which is expressive of the subjection
owed to the Divinity alone, we neither accord nor teach that it should
be accorded to any save the one God."

St. John Damascene, Apologetic Sermons Against Those Who Reject Sacred
Images (726 AD) 2, 5 and 3, 4.
        "We would certainly be in error if we were making an image of the
invisible God; for what is incorpoeal and invsisble and
uncircumscribable and without defined figure is not able to be depicted.
 And again, if we were making images of men and thought them gods, and
adored them as gods, certainly we would be impious.  But we do not do
any of these things."
        "We worship and adore the Creator and Maker alone, as God who by his
very nature is to be worshipped.  We worship also the Holy Mother of
God, not as God, but as God's Mother according to the flesh.  Moreover
we worship also the saints, as elect friends of God, and as having
gotten ready audiance with Him."

Mike, 

  I would be glad if you could avoid the danger of steering this into 
  personal channels, but remain at the level of principle.

Generally:
  Bear in mind that the majority of participants hold strongly to the
  Bible-only position, which is the basis of this conference, and which 
  does not have room for extra dogma or what you may regard as an aids 
  to worship, which many of us perceive as dangers liable to lead to 
  idolatry. 

  We are happy to share fellowship on the basis of Jesus' shed blood for
  salvation, the essentials of the gospel.  This is not the place to
  expound specific Catholic dogma - there is another conference where you
  can share that to the full. 


							Andrew
						     co-moderator

    
    
    Andrew,
    
    It was entered that we are to hate what God hates.  The discussion is
    with regards to the Catholic Church.  I asked for clarification of a
    statement that was made to better my understanding of the point which
    was made in Ace's note.  Where have I done anything which you have
    asserted in .61?
    
    
    Mike
    co-noter :')
    
    

    RE:61
    Andrew, 
           why didn't you jump on Ace for bringing idolatry accusations up ? 
    He's the one who brought the whole subject up. Are we suppose to let
    false accusations and insults about our faith go unchallenged ? 

    Jim

Hi Mike, co-noter ;-)

  I was just wary in case the discussion was being taken on a personal level, 
  and wanted us generally to be aware of the dangers.  If you didn't feel it 
  that way (which I agree is perfectly possible), then no harm done. 
  perhaps I shouldn't have singled you out there - apologies for that!

								Andrew

� <<< Note 276.63 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

Hi Jim,

� why didn't you jump on Ace for bringing idolatry accusations up ? 

Because this is an area where strict Biblical doctrine (according to the
principles of this conference) is understood to prohibit any representation
of the object of worship, which precludes the danger of being tempted to
worship it.  However, Exodus 20:4 and :5 cover both eventualities. 

I understand this to be idolatry also, and liable to lead others into 
error, who don't realise that this man-made icon is not actually being
worshipped when you bow before it.

Therefore, although I understand that this is a very sensitive area for 
'you', it is also a very sensitive area for 'us'.

Hence the need to take care on both sides as we discuss it. 

�    He's the one who brought the whole subject up. 
Actually, as a purely Bible based conference (as opposed to following any 
other particular dogma), I believe that several strictly Catholic areas 
have been introduced which many of us would not agree with.

� Are we suppose to let false accusations and insults about our faith go
� unchallenged ? 
					- precisely

							Andrew

    
    Andrew,
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  I just wanted to understand his
    statement because things weren't said but rather implied.  I stay 
    in this conference as mostly read only to learn and try to grow.  
    I have to admit that it is rather hard sometimes when you feel as
    though you are unwelcome and constantly being attacked via what Church
    with which you are affiliated.  I try not and judge because I don't
    know ones heart.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike 

    RE:Andrew

     I guess you missed my point. This note never presented idol worship or
     veneration of saints until Ace made false accusations  on it. 
     
     When we attempt to address the false accusations, you warn us that it is
     Catholic dogma and isn't allowed.

     I see bias and inconsistency here.

      Jim

    A couple of thoughts on a couple of recent notes:
    
    Re: Note 276.59 (Eric)

>  Seeking the intercession of saints is much older
>  than the legalization of Christianity.
    
    Not that this especially pertains to the discussion of prayer to the
    saints, but this caught my eye.  Many Christians that study the history
    of Christianity identify the above event as on of the singularly worst
    things that ever happened to the church.
    
    Re:
>The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (157 AD) 17, 3 to 18, 3.
>        "[Christ] we worship as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as
>disciples and imitators of the Lord; and rightly so because of their
>unsurpassable devotion to their own King and Teacher.  With them we may
>also become companions and fellow disciples.  When the Centurion saw the
>contentiousness caused by the Jews, he confiscated the body, and,
>according to their custom, burned it.  Then, at last, we took up his
>bones, more precious than costly gems and finer than gold, and put them
>in a suitable place.  The Lord will permit us, when we are able, to
>assemble there in joy and gladness; and to celebrate the birthday of his
>martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already engaged in the
>contest, and for the practice and training of those who have yet to
>fight.
    
    Other than the comment on the value of the bones of a departed saint
    (and, I, as does the New Testament, regard all of those who have been
    born again as "saints"), I don't think there is anything here that
    anyone will disagree with.  However, neither is there anything to
    justify the postion of praying to departed believers for their
    intercession on our behalf.  Can you site any *Biblical* justification
    for this practice?  After all, this is the premise for this conference.
    
    Mark L.

Hi Jim,

� re    <<< Note 276.67 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

�     I guess you missed my point. This note never presented idol worship or
�     veneration of saints until Ace made false accusations  on it. 
     
I'll have to check back now, and see where we were coming from precisely.

� When we attempt to address the false accusations, you warn us that it is
� Catholic dogma and isn't allowed.

These are emotive terms which escalate the personal aspect of the dialogue. 
Discussion of the principle has not been excluded at all.

I did draw attention to the fact that Catholic dogma has been included as a
general Christian principle, where, in fact, it is contrary to the faith of
many here.  I was asking that we conform to the guidelines for this 
conference.

�     I see bias and inconsistency here.
I suspect this is because you are liable to read your faith into the
guidelines to some degree, rather than the basic principles they are 
intended to represent.  The bias is (hopefuly) towards the Word of
Scripture.


							Andrew

    
    Re.53
    
    Ace,
    
    I agree with what Jim wrote in his first paragraph in .57.  
    
    Back in the OT, there was a reference to the people creating a 
    cow/calf out of gold and worshiping ***the statue itself***.  
    This is clearly idol worship.
    
    If a Catholic, or a Hindu, or anyone, treats an icon, statue,
    picture, or symbol as ***God Her/Himself***, then it is idol
    worship.  However this is not what I see happening in Hindu
    temples and in Catholic churches.  The icons, images, statues,
    pictures, symbols, etc., are only *reminders* of God.  
    
    What you must find out then, is what is going on inside the 
    person. Is the child praying to *the bed itself* when kneeling 
    beside it with hands clasped?  Is the Hindu or the Catholic
    praying to *the icons, pictures, etc. themselves*?  If the 
    answer is 'no', then it is not idol worship.  
    
    When I'm at my terminal, with hands folded that my program 
    compiles OK, am I worshiping the terminal?  No.  I'm praying
    to the Goddess of Programming.  Obviously.  (;^) (;^) (;^)
    
    Cindy

re:69

>�     I see bias and inconsistency here.
>I suspect this is because you are liable to read your faith into the
>guidelines to some degree, rather than the basic principles they are 
>intended to represent.  The bias is (hopefuly) towards the Word of
>Scripture.

     Well you did not act on note .47 which got into issues of Catholic beliefs
     and attacks on my religion, but you didn't take action then. How come ?

     I'd agree with the guidelines, I only wish you had treated Ace's .47 
     note in accordance with them.
     
    
     Jim

    .71
    
    Ace's note was explaining from the point of view of an ex-catholic.  He
    obviously has a position that is arbitrary to those of the catholic
    faith... but that does not make his note attacking.  I see Ace trying
    to wrestle for truth not create Hiroshima.
    
    He asked questions that have been on my mind for a long time....  And
    your responses are coming in greatly [especially from Eric].  I have
    learned much that I did not know as a result of .47.
    
    Now how long does the struggle between Catholic and Protestant
    continue?  Until Hiroshima I think... figuratively speaking.  
    
    I hope this discussion can continue without the same old rut other
    ntoes get into.
    
    Nancy 
    

�    <<< Note 276.71 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

� Well you did not act on note .47 which got into issues of Catholic beliefs
� and attacks on my religion, but you didn't take action then. How come ?

Hi Jim,

I believe you're being too defensive here.  In .47, Ace wasn't attacking,
he was stating that these were areas where we have a significant difference
in interpretation, and would have serious difficulty with the Catholic
application.  I perceive this as opening it up for honest discussion.

You can be assured that notes have been entered from other sources which 
are very outspoken against Catholic dogma, which the moderators have 
removed.  We value you as people, believe that you also venerate God's 
Word, the Bible, and this is why we believe we should be able to discuss
the principle without making it personally destructive. 

I hope this helps some, Jim...

							Andrew

| <<< Note 276.66 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER "the ???'s kids ask" >>>




| I have to admit that it is rather hard sometimes when you feel as
| though you are unwelcome and constantly being attacked via what Church
| with which you are affiliated.  I try not and judge because I don't
| know ones heart.

	Mike, come on, you don't judge? PULEASE! ;-)



Glen

I agree that there are things in the Catholic church that I find questionable,
the level of reverence accorded created beings as one of them, and I'm glad
that this topic is open for discussion.  So I can see the moderator's point of
view, that these were valid questions to raise, which they were.

However, raising them in terms of "If [this] is not idol worship, then there is
no such thing as idol worship anywhere in the world," or "I happen to believe
that the system is an abomination. We should hate what the Lord hates, agree?"
are not exactly simply raising the question.  The second, in particular, seems
to step beyond raising questions and differences into attacking, and I can
certainly understand why our Catholic brothers and sisters took offense at it.

Perhaps it is in fact idol worship, perhaps it really is an abomination, and if
so, we should hate it as the Lord would.  But is that really the best place to
START the discussion?

Paul

    Paul, et.a.,
    
    Saying that the Lord calls it in abomination [idol worship] and that we
    are to hate the what the Lord hates, may sound attacking, but in fact
    is revealing to the vast differences between two Christian faiths.
    
    Does anyone remember the BCC topic, or the JW topic?  
    
    I'd say that this note string shows a better record at discussion then
    either of those and it should continue.  Let us not revert into
    namecalling, labeling, but truly struggle/wrestle for Truth.
    
    Now will anyone change their minds in this conference after the
    struggle... maybe not of the participants, but certainly of the
    read-onlies it is possible to influence change.  [Well, maybe even
    the participants].
    
    As I stated, after reading Eric's notes, I HAVE LEARNED a great deal.
    I, for one, hope to continue.
    
    Nancy
    

re:Nancy and all.

    I'm glad that you wanted to have an open discussion on this. However,
    that is not what happened. Ace made accusations and we followed up
    with information in order to show that the information he was
    presenting was incorrect.

    Then Andrew steps in with his moderator hat on and you can read what
    he says for yourself.

>Generally:
>  Bear in mind that the majority of participants hold strongly to the
>  Bible-only position, which is the basis of this conference, and which 
>  does not have room for extra dogma or what you may regard as an aids 
>  to worship, which many of us perceive as dangers liable to lead to 
>  idolatry. 

>  We are happy to share fellowship on the basis of Jesus' shed blood for
>  salvation, the essentials of the gospel.  This is not the place to
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    expound specific Catholic dogma - there is another conference where you
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    can share that to the full. 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   

>							Andrew
>						     co-moderator

    So, Andrew allows Ace to speak falsely about the Catholic faith, but we
    Catholics are not to respond with the correct information.
     
    I guess I just don't understand, but I not going to  bother to continue 
    with this discussion, it just isn't worth it.

     Jim

    Jim,
    
    I respect your opinion.  I don't agree with it though.  Eric has not
    had one note set hidden.  He has given us lines and lines of Catholic
    doctrine, not without rebuttal, but nonetheless it's there.
    
    Let's clarify something though.  This is the CHRISTIAN notes conference
    as Andrew stated.  This topic was not started by a protestant looking
    to bash catholics.  This topic was opened in a Protestant conference
    purporting catholic doctrine.
    
    John has done this before and met with the same opposition.  But
    continues to enter these types of notes.  Which BTW, we do not set
    hidden.  
    
    So the real question is who did what where to cause what? :-)
    
    Go figure... I stand by Andrew's statement and I do apologize for
    the hurt that may cause you.
    
    Nancy

    
    >Mike, come on, you don't judge? PULEASE! ;-)
    
    
    Glen,
    
     Keep the personal attacks out of the conference.
    
    thanks

re.59

Eric,

	Thanks for your responses.

	I understand now your explanation of the difference between worshipping
and asking for assistance from a deceased person of which the statue is 
just a icon. But at the most fundamental level, I'm still not through the
knothole of the difference between the practice of asking with actual worship. 
You said that Protestants only have prayer to God and therefore confuse
Catholic prayers to saints as worship. What then constitutes worship from a
Catholic perspective that is different than that from a non-catholic 
perspective. Mass alone?

Regards,
Ace

re.77

	Jim,

	There you went and did it.

	I ask you not to take this discussion personal!

	Work with me on this one (said in my best Perot voice).

Ace

| <<< Note 276.79 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>



| Keep the personal attacks out of the conference.



	Dan, that was NOT a personal attack. It was an inside joke between Mike
and I. Please find out if someone is personally attacking someone before you
accuse them of it please......

	BTW, I guess you didn't read the header I added, huh? I had said he
speaketh the truth. You know, about NOT judging others......



Glen

    Hey Glen, don't look now but your header is missing. :-)
    
    I tell you if it wasn't attached to your [insert], you'd lose it.
    
    :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

    Now you got it right!
    
    Nancy

    
    I may joke and reparte with folks, but I try not to judge because who
    am I?  I think Glen is correct, I may be somewhat opinionated....:'), 
    but I do not judge as it is not in my authority, this I know.
    
    
    Mike

    Sorry Mike, but as I read your note only that last three words stuck
    with me and I began to sing..
    
    Jesus loves this I know
    for the Bible tells me so .... :-) :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

    
    
    I can name that tune in 2 notes. :')
    
    
    Mike

re Nancy:

>This topic was opened in a Protestant conference purporting catholic doctrine.

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense.  I thought this conference was for
Bible-believing Christians, not just for Protestants.

I would invite Nancy to go back and reread .0 (which I entered) and the first
reply or two.

Then I would ask her to think about what, if anything, is unbiblical about
this topic, as I started it.  I would ask her to examine the replies, which
begin an attack on a man who bases his whole life on the Truth of the bible
and a Church which is the most biblically based Church of all.
    
/john

    John,
    
    Thanks for the challange, I will do that.
    
    Nancy

re.88

John,

> and a Church which is the most biblically based Church of all.

I probably don't understand the relationship but bear with my question...

If you believe that then why are you not a member of the Catholic church?

If I believed that, I would certainly return.

Ace

> and a Church which is the most biblically based Church of all.
    
    I would add IYHO (where Y = Your) to the above statement.  Of course,
    IMHO, the place where I fellowship fits your statement quite well,
    although I usually would not place superlatives upon it.  Got to keep
    the H in IMHO. :-)
    
    There are many things that I could say in response, but I don't want to
    see this note (or this conference) turn into a Catholic vs.
    non-Catholic debate.  Honest questions and discussion, I'm all for. 
    But "we're right and you're not" type of debates *from either side* I
    can do without.
    
    Mark L.

    
    
        Hello everyone ,
    
    This I feel has been a great discussion from the begining ! Being an 
    ex-catholic I too am interested in the points of view from others who
    perhaps knows more than me :^) . The reasons why I do not attend the 
    catholic church any longer are few , so bear with me as I bring about a
    different view : 
    
         I was raised a catholic from birth , mom wanted me to be a
    priest(every catholics mother dream). I was an alter boy and at church
    every day serving/helping the priest.When mom died (I was 13) the
    church  didn't really do anything other than help with the burial
    items. We continued to go despite that . I then fell into the drug and
    liquor scene,but still showed up every saturday for confession . At 20
    I had the opportunity to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior through a
    cousin (who was a former catholic), he never said to leave the catholic
    church but to trust in Jesus for direction ! As I began my walk with
    Jesus I was hungry for the word , a friend of mine who was a christian
    told me about this church that teaches the bible verse by verse so I
    went and checked it out , it was exactly what I was seeking.....but of
    course I still was attending the catholic church . As I compared the 2
    and was seeking the Lord for direction He pressed upon my heart to go
    where I was being fed the most . I spoke with the priest about my
    intentions and he stated to do as I feel God would want me to, so I
    stopped attending the catholic church and have been attending the
    church I currnently attend since . 
    
    	My point to all this .......I honestly believe that though there
    will be disagreements by all about the catholic church(including me)
    ,if it wasn't for them I probably would have never known of
    God,Jesus,the Holy Spirit etc.....I honestly believe that there is a
    remnant in the church . 
    
       I too have many question about why the catholic church does certain
    things that *I* do not understand but perhaps this discussion will
    answer alot of that .
    
    
    	Thanks for bearing with me , I hope to add more today .
    
    
    			Fonz(ALfonso)
    
    
    
    

    RE:92

    That was the best reason for leaving the Catholic Church, or any 
    Church, I have ever read in this conference.

     If the Lord leads you to another religion, then go in peace. Jesus
     blesses us with His grace through many means. I thank God for all
     the blessings He gives to others no matter where they are.

     Jim

    re: .92
    
    Alfonso,
    
        Catholics believe that they are fed two ways:  1) the Word, given in
    the Liturgy of the Word, the first part of the Mass, and 2) the Body
    and Blood of Jesus Christ, received in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. 
    
        When I made my choice to return to the Catholic faith I did so
    because although I could find other outlets to compensate for a weak 
    homily at Mass (food of the Word), I could not find the Eucharist
    elsewhere. 
    
        I have found plenty of available Bible Studies and prayer groups,
    retreat houses, special speakers, tape series, study materials to 
    supplement and enrich my understanding of the Word and to have
    fellowship. I am surrounded by people who have a personal relationship
    with Jesus and who have Him as the center of their lives. It is a
    stereotypical myth that these things are lacking in the Catholic world;
    anyone who seeks God beyond 1-hour per week will easily find such
    groups of believers and means of having all that is part of a typical
    service. 
    
        The Mass [to answer Ace in .80] IS Worship. It is the ultimate 
    Worship as it is a timeless re-presentation of Jesus' one sacrifice on
    Calvary; we participate in that worship and Jesus' offering to the
    Father through our presence, prayer, hearing the Word, and receiving
    Jesus in the Eucharist. Jesus is the Perfect Sacrifice, and therefore
    in unity with Him, we give perfect worship through Mass.
    
        If Protestants [and many Catholics] could understand the depth of 
    this worship which is the very heart of Catholic faith then they would 
    better understand how absurd it it to us to be held in suspicion of 
    'worshiping idols' when we make a simple act of outward love using a 
    statue as an object of rememberance.
     
    Peace,
    Mary

    
    Re.94
    
    Mary,
    
    You can add 'Hindus' to your last paragraph too...
    
    Cindy

    Re: .90 & .91
    
    Slightly off topic;
    
    >> most biblically based Church 
    
    This is a feeling used to support the habit of church hopping; moving
    to a church because it is more biblically based than the one you are
    currently in.  A christian newsletter I read (The Briefing) recently
    had an article pointing out the issues with church hopping, and drew
    the conclusion that people should go where they are _most needed_
    rather than where their needs are _most met_.
    
    So for a real challenge, go join a local congregation that you don't
    quite agree with.  Not to change it quickly, but to help them
    understand better what the bible says.
    
    James

>If you believe that then why are you not a member of the Catholic church?

The Church I belong to is supposed to be the same.  See .-1 for the
reason I haven't moved from the part of the Catholic Church I was
born and raised in to the Roman part.  I'm not ready to abandon it
to all the people who left the RC Church because they didn't believe
the bible-based moral teachings and are doing their best to make
our church the pinnacle of immorality.

/john

Tonight I came in on this at .45 which was from last Saturday, and began the
thread of idol worship, which I wanted to comment on.  Therefore, to review,
I extracted the entire note and read it off line.  That turned out to be
better than I intended.  Given the excellent moderator action to complement
the level of intensity, study, and thought of the participants, this note
is a gem!  If you ever have to try to explain the protestant-Roman rift in
practice, you could do a lot worse than to extract and edit this note as
a demonstration.  It came across best to me when taken as a whole (extracted).

Now for comments.

First, I want to remind all that this has a long history and we cannot 
expect to solve much in a short time here.  But this is also an emotional
topic of long standing for many, especially for some of us who were raised
in the Roman church, but for others also.

Idols: Eric and Ace: You will probably never come to any understanding on
this by going on as you are, because you are addressing different aspects
of the issue, and you are both right.  Eric correctly states the church's
position and dogma; Ace correctly states the frequently seen misinterpreta-
tion or mispractice of the dogma.  The first is easily verified, and is
also what is taught; the second is a certainty to my personal knowledge,
that is, very many cross the positionally drawn lines and fall into idol
worship.

This creates a grave difficulty.  The judgement of the church and/or
Christianity by earthly results or the sinful actions of individual members
is a problem we face together in evangelism, and we don't wish to make the
same mistakes internally.  However, the Catholic church virtually refuses
to recognize that this area is fraught with the danger of falling into
idol worship.  I suggest that a careful reading of .60 will show those
dangers only too well.

Birth Control:  This was really an interesting set.  .13 was very well
done, Eric.  There ARE those of us who find the finer points of this topic
very hard to decide on, and all of this was useful.

Authority of the Truth (re .42):  Nowhere in your list, Eric, is the promise
that any one of us, at any time, will understand all that is revealed, or
that, if someone does, the understanding can be passed to others.  In fact,
when pressed on a hard issue at one time, Jesus dismissed us with the
admonition that more things are possible in heaven than we can understand.
I don't have access to the reference now, but it seems in context, imho.

Finally, we could, I hope, all agree that the brunt of the pope's message is
a critical need for our time.  Let us all do what we can to combat the lie
of "liberal morality".

Late as usual,

Lew

    
    Forgive me father for doing this

	Mike,

	Can you provide a scriptural basis for asking forgiveness
	for a sin you are about to commit ? ?

	;-)

	Lew, great note!

� ....asking forgiveness for a sin you are about to commit ? ?

 If he hadn't, it wouldn't have had anything like the punch...  
 To have put SNARF on .99, and maybe asked forgiveness on .100???

								;-) ;-) 

 I appreciated yours too, Lew... thanks.


								Andrew

    Lew,
      Your comments were succinct and IMHO, correct. Thank you for
    eloquently stating something that I, could not. I have been wanting to
    respond to what I have been reading, but my lack of tack, has kept me
    at bay.
    
    I wanted to elaborate on one point you made. "appearance" of idol
    worpship.  This is not only a problem in the Catholic church, but is
    fast becoming a problem in the Protestant sects as well. I see more and
    more "displays" in church(es) now than say only five years ago. IMHO,
    churches find themselves in a time where visual aids "help" study. I
    think this is *in general* ok, but the appearance of "liberal"
    tolerance is just as sinful as the "thought" of adultry. One need not
    do *it* to sin outright. How does the verse go,..."it would be better
    to have never been born at all, than to lead on of these into sin..."
    
    We as God's servants must be cautious not to send the wrong signals.
    The appearance of idol worship is by far all to rampant. Even if to
    those who understand the meaning behind the action. We (they) all too
    often forget what it looks like from one looking on, the young babe in
    the faith that does not understnad the "heart" but imitates the
    "action."
    
      PDM

Wow, lots of notes on the topic.

Richard, while naturally I am on your side in terms of doctrine, I don't think
that we should expect not to be abused for the sake of the Gospel. Therefore
I'd encourage you to unite these sufferings with the sufferings of Christ,
"filling up in [your] own flesh what is still lacking in the sufferings of
Christ." (Col 1:24). St. Paul exhorts us to rejoice when we suffer for the 
sake of the Gospel, and predicted all of these things.

.80
> I understand now your explanation of the difference between worshipping and
> asking for assistance from a deceased person of which the statue is just a
> icon. But at the most fundamental level, I'm still not through the knothole
> of the difference between the practice of asking with actual worship.  You
> said that Protestants only have prayer to God and therefore confuse Catholic
> prayers to saints as worship. What then constitutes worship from a Catholic
> perspective that is different than that from a non-catholic perspective. Mass
> alone?

Good question.  I do not know the full answering to this; but I will say that I
think you have touched on an important point:  worshipping by the celebration
of the Sacred Mysteries, the Paschal Feast, the Mystical Supper, or, simply,
the Mass or Eucharist.

The Eucharist is for Catholics the most perfect and most glorious form of
prayer.  Through the Eucharist, we enter into the one sacrifice of Christ on
the Cross, and partake of the flesh of the Paschal Lamb sacrificed for our
sins.  When God led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt, he first had them
celebrate the Passover: first they slaughtered the lamb, then they spread its
blood on their doorposts and ate its flesh.  Without doing all three of these
things, the Angel of Death would strike down their firstborn.  This Paschal
feast also fed them through their journey in the desert, as did the Manna, into
the Promised Land of milk and honey.

Christ, as Scripture says, is our Passover: the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed
for our sins, of whom the Exodus lamb was a type.  The Last Supper, similarly,
was a Passover seder meal.  But if Jesus is the Lamb of God who was slain,
there remains according to the Passover type, one more step: not only was the
lamb sacrificed, but its flesh was eaten.  And the flesh _had_ to be eaten:
it was eaten during the Seder meal.  Through the Seder meal, the Jews received
the lamb's sacrifice: it was not enough for them to merely say, "I claim the 
blood of the lamb over my sins" but neglect to eat the sacrifice.

So, too, in order to enter into the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the Cross,
we must eat the flesh of that sacrifice.  Through the most wonderful gift that
Jesus left us for his remembrance, we are able to enter into the one sacri-
fice of Christ on the Cross and truly receive the sacrificed flesh of the Lamb
of God so that we, like the Jews of Exodus, may eat it.  This sacrifice of the
New Covenant is the "pure offering" prophesied by Malachi: "My name will be
great among the Gentiles, from the rising to the setting of the sun.  In every
place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name
will be great among the Gentiles." (Mal. 1:11)  

This is our Eucharist: an entering-in or re-presentation of the one sacrifice
of Christ.  As such, the Eucharist is a sacrifice, or rather is THE sacrifice:
it is one and the same as Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, with the same priest
(Christ) and the same victim (Christ).  This sacrifice feeds us so that we may
escape slavery to sin (as symbolized by the slavery in Egypt) and travel
through the spiritual desert of this life (the forty years), fed continously by
Manna from Heaven (again, a type of the Eucharist), until we reach the Promised
Land.  

Incidentally, it is interesting that the Jews would ask Jesus about the sign of
manna from heaven in John 6:30.  Jewish tradition said that when the Messiah
came, he would bring a new manna.  This is what the Pharisees were referring
to. When Jesus replied, "Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet
their died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may
eat and not die," (John 6:50) he was indicating that this was the new Manna
which he as Messiah was bringing: this "bread is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world" (v. 51)  This new manna brought by the Messiah, we
believe to be the Eucharist.

[to be continued -- be patient, I _am_ making a relevant point!]

[continued]
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation
in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in
the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16) -- this is the cup prophesied by the Psalmist
when he said, "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the
Lord." (Psalm 116:13).  He also prophesied the bread when he said, "But you
would be fed with the finest of wheat; with honey from the rock I would satisfy
you." (Psalm 81:16).  And again, "He grants peace to your borders, and
satisfies you with the finest of wheat." (Psalm 147:14)

Now, there is more wonderful news here. Scripture calls the Church the bride,
and Christ the Bridegroom.  Marriage is a symbol of Christ's relationship with
us: in fact, Scripture says that as a bridegroom marries his bride, so our God
will marry His Church.  Revelation, and the Gospels, speak of our fully reunion
with Christ as the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.  As marriage is a covenant, the
sign of which is conjugal union, so is Christ's relationship with us through a
covenant, the sign of which is His sacrifice on the Cross. It is through this
sacrifice on the Cross that we participate fully in the covenant our Bridegroom
has made for us.

Now, let us examine this wonderful sign of marriage.  When a man and woman are
married, and are conjugally joined with one another, what happens?  The man
imparts his essence -- his genes, which are in fact his physical nature --
to the woman, who receives it, and the man and woman become one flesh.  And
within the woman, she conceives and bears fruit, a new life.

I said earlier that the sign of God's nuptial covenant with us is His Sacrifice
on the Cross -- that is, His Body and Blood.  In order for each one of us
individually to participate in this covenental sign, God makes it possible for
us to make this sacrifice present again at every Eucharist: his sacrifice, his
body, and his blood, which are the sign of this covenant.  This sacrifice,
body, and blood we partake at the Eucharist.  We believe that Christ is truly
present in the Eucharist -- for St. Paul says that we are made partakers of the
Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4).  In fact, the Eucharist is the very Essence of
God, which God imparts to His people.  Through the Eucharist we come into union
with Christ: we become one flesh, one blood with Christ by partaking of His
flesh and blood.  Sound familiar?  Yes, just as a bride becomes one flesh with
her bridegroom through the marvelous sign of the marital covenant, so we become
one flesh with our Bridegroom through receiving the Eucharist.  Thus we are
united to Christ as a bride is united to her husband through the Eucharist.

Thus not only do we sacrifice to God as a sign of our Covenant with him -- a
form of worship which is basically taken for granted in the Old Testament --
but we also become one flesh, one blood with Him, intimately united with our
Bridegroom, through this sacrifice.  We do not do this with any saint: we
neither sacrifice to saints, nor do we become one flesh with them, as we do
with our Lord and Lover.  You do not offer this sacrifice to God, as we do:
therefore you worship exclusively through prayer and personal sacrifice, and so
it is understandable that it is hard for you to understand how we can say we do
not worship saints as we worship God.  But we do not worship saints because it
is to God alone that we offer the Calvary Sacrifice of His Son at Mass.

Is there another way to offer the worship owed to God other than this one
sacrifice?  I suppose there is, but I know that this is our central form of
worship, our highest form of prayer, and the sign of a covenant of love which
we enter into with God alone.

Now tell me that Catholic Eucharistic theology is not Scripturally based!

Eric

Good note,

and I especially liked .99 & .100. There is an historical precedent - the 
purchase of indulgences.

Chele

Dear brothers and sisters, I neglected to post the relevant SCRIPTUR REFERENCES
from the Holy Saints on the topics in .103-.104.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
maxima culpa:

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), circa 80 A.D.:

9:2 Regarding the Eucharist ...  5 Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist
but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the
Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred. [Matt 7:6]

14:1 On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks;
but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. [cf. 1 Cor
11:27]. 2 However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting
until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. [cf. Matt 5:23]
3 For here we have the saying of the Lord: In every place and time offer me a
pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads
terror among the nations.  [Mal 1:11,14].

St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St. John the Evangelist), 110 A.D., 
Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ
which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of
God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not
confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh
which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up
again.  They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Justin Martyr, Apology, circa 150 A.D., I.66-67

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call
Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true,
who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins
and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us.  For we do not
take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink.  Just as our Savior
Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for
our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving
has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our
blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who
was made flesh.  Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are
called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus,
having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is
my body.''  Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This
is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Origen, Contra Celsum, 3rd cent., 8:57:

We are not people with ungrateful hearts; it is true, we do not sacrifice ...
to such beings who, far from bestowing their benefits upon us, are our
enemies; but to God who has bestowed upon us an abundance of benefits ... we
fear being ungrateful.  The sign of this gratitude towards God is the bread
called Eucharist.

St. Irenaeus who lived in the 2nd century, died 202 A.D. said:

The flesh and blood of Jesus "are the new sacrifice of the New Covenant which
have been handed down to the Church by the Apostles, and which throughout the
whole world offers to God in fulfillment of the Prophecy of Malachi."

St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:

"The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of
Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the
Father."

With all of the commentary on idols, I'd like to add some personal experience.
This is all it is, personal experience, but I really feel burdened to share it
with you.

I have in my apartment a table against the wall where I stand and pray.  Hung
above this table on the wall is an icon, entitled Christ the Light Giver. I
gaze upon this icon as I pray.

And do you know what?  It has made my prayer life incalculably richer.  In
order to understand this, I'll first explain what it is like when I do not have
an icon to pray before, and how hard I found it to pray before I had the icon.

I help out a fellow Digital employee (former supervisor) with sound at his
church.  And when I go there and join in their praise and worship, I find
myself confused and disoriented, because, I have *no place* to direct my
prayers!  Do I stare at a wall and pray that way?  Do I look at the ceiling
fans?  Do I gaze at the pastor?  Being the good anti-idol Protestants they are,
they have no Jesus on their cross, and so I cannot even look at that.  And so
my prayer has no anchor, nor mooring.  Closing my eyes is an option, but not
for the whole time, plus one risks falling asleep or getting distracted.

Which brings me to my second point.  I had immense difficulty before I had my
icon in developing a daily prayer routine.  Why?  Because there are two logical
times to pray: upon rising and upon retiring.  Having no icon, nor even an
orientation in which to pray as I would even in a Protestant church, I often
closed my eyes.  But, in either case, rising or retiring, I always had
difficulty staying awake during prayer.  My friends in IVCF in college will 
testify that this was true even in our daily 5:00 prayer meeting; I nearly
always fell asleep, because everyone was very quiet with their heads down and
eyes closed.  I was simply unable to establish any kind of daily prayer because
I would either fall asleep, or, if I wasn't falling asleep, I'd get distracted
by something my eyes would fall upon.

But now I have my blessed icon. Not only can I now pray with diligence and
alertness, the icon has become a means by which I can bond intimately with
Jesus.  No longer do I have to form vague, misty images of Jesus in my mind to
focus my prayer on.  No longer do my thoughts distract me.  I say, Jesus is
there through the icon, and I gaze upon the image -- and see the loving face of
my Lord and Savior, who every day draws me close to his bosom through his image
on the icon.  I can see Christ here with me, in the icon.  I can focus on Him
and on my prayer, rather than putting all my effort into vainly forming sketchy
images of him in my mind.  The icon has freed me to LOVE JESUS, to PRAY TO
JESUS, and to see His beautiful face as he listens to his beloved.  The icon is
wonderful! I can kiss Jesus, I can bow down to Jesus, I can even hold Jesus to
my heart and cuddle Him intimately as a son cuddles His Father!  And I have
Jesus visibly watching over me, loving me, blessing me.

Not only that, but in having an image of Jesus, I can receive the kind of
comfort from it that you receive when you see the faces of those whom you love.
You know how it is, when you are sad and depressed, sometimes even just seeing
those you love causes joy to well up deep within you and lift your spirit.  So
it is with my icon: simply gazing upon the image of my Lord fills me with the
joy and delight that a bride is filled with when she sees her Lover.

How dreary a marriage would be if you never saw your spouse!  You can love
someone only so much without gazing upon them and having a concrete presence of
them.  Ah, Lord of all kindness, what a blessing it is, my Lover, to see you!
What a blessing it is, my Lover, to become one flesh, one blood with you at the
Wedding Feast of the Lamb, the Holy Eucharist!  A blessing to touch you, to
feed upon you, to receive your divine nature and very essence!

"Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest is my lover among the young
men.  I delight to sit in his shade, and his fruit is sweet to my taste. He has
taken me to the banquet hall, and his banner over me is love." (Song 2:3-4)

.106

> and I especially liked .99 & .100. There is an historical precedent - the 
> purchase of indulgences.

A can of worms indeed.

Do you know what indulgences really are, first of all?

Hint: Indulgences do not obtain forgiveness of sins, and never have.

Before accusing us of a crime, you should ensure you know the facts . . .

re -.1

Goodness, a bite.

I vaguely remember from history lessons at school the theory of papal 
indulgences. 
My understanding of them, admittedly limited, was the idea of "pay now, sin 
later". I don't have the sources here ( if I still have them at all)

Houghton Mifflin's definitions are as follows:

indulgence

 Noun: A kindly act.
 Noun: An act requiring special generosity.
 Noun: Forbearing or lenient treatment.


 indulgence,service,favor,grace,kindness


Chele_not_being_terribly_serious

That practice was condemned by the Church in 1532.

If God has forgiven the 14th century priests and bishops who
raised money in a heretical way, can't you?

The current theology of indulgences (which are neither sold nor
granted in advance of committing sins; that would compound the
sin with the sin of presumption) is consistent with the Bible
and the Apostles' Creed.

/john

re <<< Note 276.111 by COVERT::COVERT 

The term I was taught WAS "papal" not "prior" indulgence.

>If God has forgiven the 14th century priests and bishops who
>raised money in a heretical way, can't you?

Good grief - I'm not condemning anyone. The practise of selling indulgences 
_did_ happen. I'm not saying it's happening now. 
People were punished by the church & state for saying the earth went round the 
sun. As far as I know, that doesn't happen any more.
Cultures, and ANY church comprises not just faith, but a culture also, change. 
If they don't change, they die. Met any Incas lately?

>The current theology of indulgences (which are neither sold nor
>granted in advance of committing sins; that would compound the
>sin with the sin of presumption) is consistent with the Bible
>and the Apostles' Creed.

I am not familiar with "modern" indulgences. Perhaps you could explain.


Chele

    We welcome your input, Chele...
    
    _or_
    
    Gosh!  You're being brave, Chele!

James, 

You are being a cad again. (but I won't condemn you for it)

Chele

    Re: Note 276.114 by GIDDAY::BURT
    
>You are being a cad again. (but I won't condemn you for it)
    
    ;-)

>I am not familiar with "modern" indulgences. Perhaps you could explain.

As the bible tells us, God's free gift of forgiveness is available to
anyone who, possessing faith, asks for forgiveness.

The bible also tells us that even though forgiven, there may still be
consequences or punishment.  (Read about David.)

And the bible tells us that God listens to our prayers and is merciful,
reducing or removing punishment for ourselves or for others when we
request His indulgence.

/john

Thank you, Eric, for your beautiful explanation of what the Eucharist means to
you and to Catholics.  I think you'll find that Protestants will agree with
nearly all of it.  We DO include that as part of our worship.  Personally I
agree that we should include it with every worship service, not just once a
month as many churches do.  I agree that it is one of the most profound forms
of worship, and I agree that some protestant churches don't give it the full
respect it is due.  The only real point of contention I see regarding the
eucharist between Protestants and Catholics is the oft-discussed question of
whether the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.  For
me, that falls into the category of questions whose answer won't change my
behavior or attitude:  If it really is the body and blood of Christ, I must
take the Eucharist with utmost seriousness.  If it is only symbolic, but was
the one thing Christ told us to do as a SYMBOL of taking his body and blood
into ourselves, as you beautifully put in the comparision to the man and woman
becoming one flesh, then I also must take it with the utmost seriousness.

Regarding the icon.  I think it is wonderful that you have found an image of
Christ to be helpful to you in your prayer life, and I believe that the Lord
is delighted also.  I don't think protestants have much if any difficulty with
images of Christ.

Where the question is raised is where the icons or images are of saints
instead of Christ.  In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8, an angel tells John not to
worship him, though all John has done is fall at his feet.  Peter says the
same thing to Cornelius in Acts 10:25.  Both the angel and Peter claim that
they are not to be worshipped, as they are only part of God's creation; God
alone is to be worshipped, as Christ says to satan in Lk 4:7 and Mt 4:10.  To
neither the angel or Peter was there going to be any form of worship like the
eucharist, it simply involved bowing at their feet and giving them reverence.
It makes us a bit leery about bowing down or giving undue reverence to any
human being.

I guess the piece that I'm missing is what the benefit is of investing the
amount of energy in the reverence of the saints that the Catholic Church does.
I'm well aware that admiration for and a desire to emulate people who have
followed the Lord closely is a very helpful thing for us, but the Catholic
church, at least to appearances, goes a step beyond that in their reverence.
How does 'revering' the saints to that extent bring us closer to God?

Paul

    Notes .118 - .124 have been relocated to topic 97.
    
    As John Covert suggested, note 97 in this version of the conference
    already contains *much* discussion on the topic of trans-substantiation.
    Please take further discussion on that topic to note 97, rather
    than repeat much of what has already been discussed there in this
    topic.  (Hint -- you might want to read through it before adding what
    might already have been said).
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mark L. (co_mod)

    Eric provided us with a copy of the document supposedly under
    discussion but I don't recall reading anything in here about its
    contents. I found it difficult to read and harder to understand because
    the contents are "technical" in nature directed to church
    professionals; something like a DEC techo manual full of industry
    buzz-words. However there are sections which are quite readable.
    
    Some comments:
    
    Section 6 re Mt 19:16-21. Jesus listed those commandments which we all
    find relatively easy to obey when considered "do"/"don't do" acts, but
    he did not list the whole 10 commandments. What the young man failed to
    see was that he had placed other "gods" first in his life. Jesus told
    him to ditch his posessions (gods) and follow him. The young man's god
    was his wealth. Was he not a little like us today? Because he was
    unable to say "I have no other gods before Thee" the young man  turns
    his back on Jesus.
    
    Section 13. "Jesus does not intend to list each and every one of the
    commandments required to "enter into life", but rather wishes to draw
    the young man's attention to the "'centrality of the Decalogue" with
    regard to every other precept, inasmuch as it is the interpretation of
    what the words "I am the Lord your God" mean for man." IMHO (and
    humble) opinion the Pope has missed the point here a little; Jesus is
    trying to demonstrate to the young man that his performance of the
    commandments is deficient and that to "follow Me" in response to God's
    call is the only way. The Pope has set up a very complicated argument
    to convince Catholics to concentrate on obeying the commandments
    thereby removing any freedom of choice on moral issues.
    
    Section 28. "In her reflection on morality, "the Church" has always
    kept in mind the words of Jesus to the rich young man." Morality?? I
    suppose it is a matter of right and wrong but is this a "moral" issue
    that the young man worship his God? Perhaps it is.
    
    Section 22. Mt19:26. Why were the disciples astounded? Simply because
    the Jews had believed a man's riches were a sign that he was favoured
    by God, and here was Jesus speaking at odds with traditional Jewish
    teaching. If a man was down & out that was a sure way of telling
    whether he worshipped God properly or not! I think some still believe
    that today.
    
    Some great quotes:
    
    Section 66. "Jesus' call to "come, follow me" marks the greatest
    possible exaltation of human freedom, yet at the same time it witnesses
    to the truth and to the obligation of acts of faith and of decisions
    which can be described as involving a fundamental option."
    Section 64. ".....freedom of conscience is never freedom "from" the
    truth but always and only freedom "in" the truth...."
    
    So may I suggest you read this document and debate its contents rather
    than our various ritual performances.
    
    By the way, I will be unable to debate any of the above as I
    will not be able to look back in here until December.
    
    Yours for the Lord,
    
    Erwin 

.119

Yeah, Erwin is right in that there is a lot of really technical stuff in V.S.,
but the beginning and the end are really good.  (There is one paragraph in the
middle though that receives my vote as the "Most Obfuscated Exhortation" :-))

The middle part is designed to refute some errors of certain philosophical and
theological systems developed recently by liberal theologians; I won't attempt
to explain what they are, and they're not quite relevant to folks here since
they deal with a doctrine most here reject anyway, and that is the idea that
one's state of grace with God can be lost by a single sin of sufficient gravity
(i.e. seriousness).

V.S. fell a little short of my expectations, but I had very high expectations
for it.

Eric

Eric, as you have the time, I'd really appreciate your personal answer to the
question I raised at the end of .117.  Not at all to attack your answer or you,
but because I really appreciate your ability to explain what you believe and
I'd really like to understand.  How does the reverence that the Catholic church
bestows upon created beings - the saints - bring us closer to God?  And how
does Peter's and the angel's rejection of undue reverence bear upon this?

Paul                                

    	Eric,	
    
    		     Its nice to see that there was sufficient conviction 
    	to permit a discussion of those differences pertaining to idolatry.
    	The question I have is this: how does Catholic theology justify
    	the specific act of bowing down before the statue of Mary? 
    
    									/Greg

Who says it does?  References, please.

If you're referring to people bowing while reciting the rosary, the rosary
includes the word "Jesus".  Some Anglicans and Roman Catholics bow whenever
they say the word "Jesus" in worship.

/john

By the way, Catholic worship, especially as practiced by Anglo-Catholics,
involves the whole body and all the senses.  Sight, sound, touch, taste,
and smell.

We bow not only when saying "Jesus", but when invoking the Trinity (e.g.
"Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost"), when
saying the word "worship", and when saying "receive our prayer".

The "Incarnatus" in the Creed is so important (after all, the thing which
distinguishes Christianity from almost all other religions is the Incarnation)
that during the recitation of the Nicene Creed at every Mass we kneel for the
words "and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made
man".  (Roman Catholics, since Vatican II, only bow for this, except during
Christmastide, when they also kneel.)

/john

        Hi John,
    
    			I picked up a tract published by the Catholic
    	church in 1951 and distributed by the Marianist society in 
    	which the pope advocated that families bow down before the 
    	image of Mary to recite the rosary.  It is my understanding 
    	that this is regarded as acceptable practice in the Catholic 
    	faith.  The tract was on a literature tray at Sacred Heart
    	Church in Gardner, Ma.  
    
    						Thanks,
    
    								Greg

Please tell us _exactly_ what the tract says.

/john

   
>    			I picked up a tract published by the Catholic
>    	church in 1951 and distributed by the Marianist society in 
>    	which the pope advocated that families bow down before the 
>    	image of Mary to recite the rosary.  It is my understanding 
>    	that this is regarded as acceptable practice in the Catholic 
>    	faith.  The tract was on a literature tray at Sacred Heart
>    	Church in Gardner, Ma.  
>    

Anyone even remotely familiar with Catholic sacramental theology knows that
Catholics do not bow to worship, they genflect on their right knee.

If you attended a solemn liturgy (done well) you would see various people 
during the liturgy in the sanctuary bowing to one another.  This of course
does not mean we worship one another.  If the acolyte comes to incense the
people, you will bow to the acolyte and the acolyte will bow to you.

Bowing is a form of honor, like it is in Japan, where instead of shaking hands
two people will bow to one another.  So it is in the Catholic Church.

You will find us making a very sharp distinction between what we worship as
God and what we honor as creature.  We genuflect towards the Eucharist in
worship, because it is God-with-us, Christ made flesh; however, when we honor
statues, or the altar, or one another, we will bow.

Therefore, I ask, is there anything wrong with bowing toward a statue?

Eric

re: .125
    
Hard to say the real background of this statement.

It is probably not bowing, but kneeling that was suggested. It has long been
common to kneel when praying the rosary. This is not because of Mary or
to worship her, but because we are praying the rosary to God. The statue is,
as said time and again, a focal point for our attention as though remembering
that we are praying to God WITH Mary's intercession.

Many Catholics who were brought up in devout Catholic families can tell you
that their practice during the family rosary was to kneel; it has never been
to Mary or to a statue of Mary. Kneeling during prayer is an extremely 
common prayer practice.....beside the bed at night, on kneelers before an
icon, candle or statue, or in church. 

Mary
                                         

    
    	Thankyou for the explanation, Mary.   Especially, since we do not
    	have to discuss what I saw or did not see.  I realize that there 
    	is an intended implicit distinction that you draw, but to external
    	appearances, how does one tell the difference between "kneeling
    	before" and "bowing down to"?
    
    								/Greg

    re: .129
    
    Greg,
    
        I would say that any Catholic you question would certainly answer
    that they were certainly NOT "bowing down to" the statue or the person
    represented. As Eric and John has also tried to show, the Catholic
    Church repeatedly demonstrates in official teaching that God alone is
    to be worshipped. All but the most muddled and obtruse among us clearly
    know the difference between our Triune God and the Saints (Mary,
    Saints, us) as His creation. The body of even the nominal believers
    knows the difference and would scoff at any insinuation of worshipping
    statues, saints, icons, etc.. 
    
        Therefore, I say that anyone who honestly investigates this both
    through Church teachings down through the ages and by accepting the
    response of practicing Catholics will see the distinction. 
    
        Catholics readily give an answer for their practices and therefore
    there should be no need to perpetuate this issue. The sad thing is that
    we can explain until we're blue in the face, but our word is apparently
    not accepted. It makes me wonder what [or who] is behind all this
    division!
    
    Mary
    
    

    
    Re.127,.130
    
    The same thing about 'bowing' applies to Hinduism as well...
    
    Cindy

    
    	Hi Mary,
    			I am not condemning you or John or Eric.  I
    	personally decided that that was not for me, ( nor for my
    	family ), because the image can be more of a distraction and
    	a hindrance than a help.  Certainly, when I pray and focus my
    	attention, I want it focused on the Lord.  I want the love in
    	my heart to reach up, and to touch Him!  I want to literally
    	knock his socks right off with the amount of love that I send
    	to Him.  I do not wish to be distracted by icons, nor do I wish
    	to use intermediate objects as focal points.  I want direct one 
    	on one time: me and the Lord.  When this happens, I know that
    	He feels the love, because He takes it and sends it right back
    	at me.
    
    			Also, I do not want little children to
    	think that we are looking unto the statue to do something 
    	significant, or to think that we are somehow dependant upon
    	its presence. And I do not want them to get distracted by the
    	statue, icon.  
    
    			I continually envision myself on my knees 
    	before Jesus. 
                     
    						Regards,
    								Greg

    
    	BTW, there is an interesting book on using the 4th dimensional
    	power of dreams, vision, imagination by Reverend Dr. Yongi Cho.
    	He envisioned preaching to hundreds of thousands of people in
    	Korea, ( starting from a tent that he lived in which he called 
    	his church ).  That vision has been fulfilled.  The book is
    	called, "The Fourth Dimension" and discusses how Abraham, Jacob,
    	Joseph, Peter, Paul and others tapped into the inner ability of
    	4th dimensional thinking to work faith miracles for the gospel.
    	In one instance, he asked a man who had been hit by a taxi cab
    	to picture himself healed, and returning home for Christmas, 
    	and when he prayed for the man, the bed shook with the power of
    	God.
    								/Greg

> I am not condemning you or John or Eric.  I personally decided that that was
> not for me, ( nor for my family ), because the image can be more of a
> distraction and a hindrance than a help.  Certainly, when I pray and focus my
> attention, I want it focused on the Lord.  I do not wish to be distracted by
> icons, nor do I wish to use intermediate objects as focal points.  I want
> direct one  on one time: me and the Lord.  ...
 
> And I do not want them to get distracted by the statue, icon.  
    
Well, Greg, I admire your burning love for the Lord.  But I've found the
exact opposite is true, as I've shared: without an icon, I end up worshipping
the wall, staring at useless objects, or else distracting myself by trying to
conjure up images of Jesus in my memory.

Plus we have to consider that such mental visualization is actually how
sorcery is accomplished, and is the basis for contacting demonic spirit guides.
See, we're both doing "dangerous" things that pagans do! <grin>

To each his own, but my icon of Christ allows me to focus on worshipping and
praising Christ instead of trying to focus my attention and trying to conjure
up nice images in my mind.  I see Jesus clearly, with beautiful colors and
a peaceful face; not this misty, far-away stuff I get when I try to conjure
him up in my mind.  Plus when I am crying out to Jesus in pain and hurt, or
begging for Jesus's love and help when I'm severely depressed, or even just
loving him in ecstasy, the last thing I need is the stress of trying to
produce an appropriate image in my mind, which unless I'm lucky and spend a
lot of effort, makes Jesus feel a lot further away than when I rely on my
icon.  You can't hold a mental image in your arms; you can't kiss Jesus, nor
can you bow down before Jesus when he only appears in your mind (unless you
want to go through the extra effort of visualizing yourself in your mind doing
such things).

What do you look at when you pray, or how do you maintain a steady image in
your mind without distraction?  Maybe you have a gift for it, I don't know, 
but I can't do that.

Eric

    I think if you asked Catholics who have a significant prayer life
    how they pray then you will find that it is not only one way. 
    Public prayer time, such as at prayer meetings are often quite
    different than in private prayer.
    
    There are times when I focus on a statue, icon or painting. I think
    I tend to do this mostly during prayer meetings in church so as to
    keep from looking at the backs of other people or from staring at 
    the priest or other leader. When I do it at home, it is usually
    because I'm having a hard time focusing otherwise, or I'm in the kind
    of reflective mood that is aided by this.
    
    There is a wonderful Video series for the Rosary, the Gregorian Rosary,
    for example; while the rosary is sung, there are paintings and stain
    glass windows depicting each of the mysteries. This can really aid the
    mediations.
    
    However, most times I pray with my eyes closed. I would say that the 
    sense of being 'caught up in God' happens far more in this way than
    when looking at an external focal point.
    
    [As a person who was raised Catholic as a child, I never once thought 
    people who knelt before a statue were worshipping the statue. Even with
    my nominal religious upbringing I understood that God was not in the
    statue and the statue was not being worshipped or honored; I understood
    that these were acts of devotion like kissing a photo of a person far
    away. I do not recall that any of my Catholic childhood friends had any
    misconceptions about this either. None of this was even covered in 
    Religious Education...it was not needed.]
    
    Mary
     

    There is another reason for having visual representations of our faith
    such as icons and stain glass windows. They put before people,
    unbelievers as well as believers, truths of the Christian faith. 
    
    Do you ever wonder why there are so many Madonna and Child paintings
    and icons?  Well, one GREAT reason for this is that throughout 
    Christianity there has always been unbelievers and heretics who have
    tried to destroy the fundamental truth that Jesus Christ, the Son of
    God, became Incarnate as true God and true man, born of a virgin.
    This is still one of the lies and deceptions today and we can see its
    influence in the pressures that the 'New Age' and the radical feminist
    influences have on true faith today. 
    
    One aspect of the "abomination of desolation" spoken of in Daniel and
    in the Gospels is that of the 'stripping away' of the signs of faith.
    Once external signs of faith are removed then it is easier to make the
    heart 'forgetful' of God and from there Satan can tell 'new versions'
    of 'truth' which is corrupting. When enough desolation and corruption
    is achieved, then the Deceiver can get people to worship the ultimate
    idol, the Antichrist.
    
    There are plenty of documented stories of these attempts today. The
    radical feminist movement leaders have been documented as basically
    saying that in order to advance their cause they should make up their
    own 'truth myths'; Jesus is expendable to them. In one case, AT
    CHRISTMASTIME, the corpus on the crucifix in a major NYC church was 
    that of a woman! [The controversy that resulted from that attempt was
    apparently sufficient to end that episode.]
    
    It is true that the Bible is available to cite the truth, but it is not
    easily made publically visible. Statues, paintings, crucifixes, crosses
    on churches, and Christmas manger scenes serve to bring Truth to people
    who would prefer not to see or hear. In the home these things bring
    constant reminders each time ones gaze falls upon them and therefore,
    it calls us to a brief prayer or loving rememberance that might not
    have been so focused or directed to God otherwise.
    
    Statues and pictures of the Blessed Virgin instantly speak of Jesus'
    Incarnation. Statues of Saints speak as witness to the value of 
    Christian life and holiness. They remind us who might like to believe
    otherwise through rationalization, that God call us all to be holy. 
    
    The Saints say it is possible to be holy through God's grace and our
    cooperation with His Will. Their lives and writings ARE witnesses and
    testimonies to the greatness and mercy of God. The writings of many
    such as St. John of the Cross, Thresa of Avila, and many others, 
    demonstrates and illuminates a depth of prayer life, intimacy with God,
    and truths about the spiritual life that goes beyond the 'common coin';
    therefore, they are great aids to spiritual growth. The Saints are ready
    and proper role models. Since they have been abandoned, mankind has sought
    secular role models to much spiritual disadvantage.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary

    Myself, in addition to morning and evening vespers I say with with my wife,
    I do "centering prayer." I close my eyes and put myself in the presence of
    the Lord. I say the Jesus prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have
    mercy on me." I repeat the prayer from the center of my heart. I don't
    imagine anything, but only let the prayer flow freely. When a thought
    or image comes to distract me, I gently return to the Jesus Prayer. I 
    feel the presence of Christ Holy Spirit within my being to the point that 
    tears sometimes flow. He is so great to give us the gift of prayer. How
    can anyone live with out Him ?


    Jim
     

    
    		This morning, while praying in the Spirit, these words
    	popped out of my spirit into my soul:  "Here O Israel, the Lord
    	thy God is One God!  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
    	thy heart, and with all thy strength, and with all thy might!"
    	The Word of God still says that thou shalt not make any graven
    	image to bow thyself down unto, and, also- if my meat causes
    	my brother to stumble, I will eat no meat while the world stands.
    	I avoid statues because they bear too much of a resemblance 
    	to an idol.  I particularly avoid statues of Mary because 
    	Mary is not God, and because "kneeling down before" is too close 
    	to "bowing down to" for comfort.  Also, Mary statues cannot be 
    	seen as a symbol of Jesus, since they are a symbol of Mary.  I 
    	like pictures of Jesus, and even crucifixes of Jesus.  But, the
    	veneration of Mary through kneeling id too close to idolatry for
    me.

RE:                     <<< Note 276.136 by JUPITR::MNELSON >>>
                 -< a wider perspective on this general issue >-

       
   . One aspect of the "abomination of desolation" spoken of in Daniel and
   . in the Gospels is that of the 'stripping away' of the signs of faith.
   . Once external signs of faith are removed then it is easier to make the
   . heart 'forgetful' of God and from there Satan can tell 'new versions'
   . of 'truth' which is corrupting. When enough desolation and corruption
   . is achieved, then the Deceiver can get people to worship the ultimate
   . idol, the Antichrist.
   
   . There are plenty of documented stories of these attempts today. The
       saying that in order to advance their cause they should make up their
       
   
    A great big AMEN to that, Mary.




    Jim

    Could I ask a couple of questions of the Catholics who have been
    responding?  I was born and raised Catholic but am now in line with
    Protestant beliefs.  These are not trick questions in any way.  Just
    looking for some enlightenment.

    First, in light of the following Scripture, what is the purpose of
    Catholics saying the rosary?  I've heard mention of the rosaries in
    several past replies.

    Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
		do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much
		speaking.

    I'm not saying that all Catholics who recite the rosaries are making
    vain repetitions.  I'm sure this has great significance to many. 
    However, I think that a lot of Catholics probably simply recite them
    giving no thought at all to what they are praying.

    For example, at my father's wake, my brothers and our spouses were
    standing in a sort of receiving line for people to give their
    condolences when suddenly a priest from the Catholic church that my
    parents were members of started saying the rosaries.  Immediately the
    room fell silent and everybody chimed in with him.  Forgive me for
    saying this, but it seemed like it was simply a stimulus response.  It
    was as though this is what was supposed to be done at this time of the
    wake and everybody followed along.

    Second, in regards to worshiping statues, etc.  I remember when I was a
    child, at either my First Communion or my Confirmation (can't remember
    which) in the Catholic Church, that one of the higher level bishops
    decided to preside (is that the right term?) over this particular mass. 
    At one point in the mass we were to all go up front, bow down, and kiss
    the ring on the bishops finger.  Looking back at it now, it seems like
    a lot of emphasis was placed on what a privilege it was to be able to
    bow down and kiss the ring of this particular bishop.  Wasn't that a
    form of worship to one of God's creations?

    Again, I'm not trying to trick anybody or start an issue.  I'm honestly
    looking for some explanation of these practices.

    Ron

    
    	re: .139
        
    	We have to watch out for smokescreens.

    I am attending a theology class on prophets. The teacher, Dr.
    Mubblefritz, (Leslie help me out here), is VERY learned in the
    scripture. He constantly goes back to the hebrew to explain and
    clarify things. Often while explaining a prophetic point, he will
    go down a tangent...
    
    One thing he said last night struck a nerve and sounded a truth. He
    said, `we christians sometimes read INTO the text that which we want to
    get out of it. It is not until we ALLOW the text to speak that we
    learn.' He then went on to say that "TEXT without CONTEXT is PRETEXT".
    This made me think about our Catholic brothers. They can earnestly
    defend their beliefs on some verses. It is not until the Bible is taken
    in its entirety, that they can be shown to be incorrect or correct. - I
    for one do not have this skill or talent, and therefore can not pass
    judgement. But I CAN admonish what I "see and hear" the Catholic
    church, or any professed Christ believing church, taking to
    heresy. I say being taken to heresy, because this professor last night
    made a point that heresy is not something one wakes up in the morning
    and says, "hmm today I will distort this or exagerate that", rather it
    is a process that is allowed to go unchecked until it is completely
    wrong.
    
      What do I believe, - My current understanding leads me to say:
    As for paying any [devout] homage to a statue, or saint I believe that
    to be wrong. If focusing on Christ or something that reminds you of
    Christ helps, that may be good. But it should then be something
    private. But to publically display obedience or servitude to a "created
    heavenly manifestation" is wrong. Not personally to you (for you may
    know what you are doing), but for the image and message that is being
    sent to one that DOES NOT understand. We must be sympathetic to our
    weaker brothers and sisters! It is better to enter the kindgom of
    heaven with no eyes than to burn in hell whole. It would be better to
    never have been born than to lead "one of these" little ones to sin,
    [whether openly in deed or inwardly in thought.]
    
      PDM
   

     
    	Greg , 
    
    Could you please give scripture references for your statements in reply
    .133 , in regard to the "Fourth Dimension". Thanks .
    
    
    				Fonz
    

	Hi Fonz,
    			Most of the scriptures that Dr. Cho uses are from
    	the book of Genesis, i.e.,  15:1-6, 26:24, 28:10-22, 31:11-13,
	37:5-11, 40:1-23, 41:1-57
    
    								/Greg 

    
    Dear Greg,
    
    From you note in .133 it is apparent to me that you admit to certain
    practices and beliefs which I find non-biblical and bordering on the
    heretical.  Keep this in mind as you investigate the Catholics.
    
    jeff

>That edified me.

Was that meant as sarcasm?  I think his point is well taken.  Certainly God
speaks to us in dreams and visions, and certainly we can learn to be more open
to those words from the Lord.

But .133 doesn't sound like that at all.  "Fourth dimensional thinking" sounds
like some sort of way-out New Age idea, and the concept that Peter and Paul
"used" this kind of "thinking," as if it were somehow under their control, is
even farther away from the Truth of the Bible.

Now I haven't read Cho's book, so "Fourth dimensional thinking" may just be a
phrase he has coined to describe manifestations of the Lord in our thoughts,
and when he speaks of people "using" this "thinking," he may be describing
becoming more open to the Lord.  In other words, the book itself may be
perfectly in accord with Biblical teaching.

But I'd have to say that I don't get that impression at all from .133, and
heretical doesn't seem too strong a word for what that note seems to be saying.

Paul

    	Lets keep the discussion on topic.
    	please see 291. if you want to discuss it.
    
    							/Greg

>    Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
>		do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much
>		speaking.

>    I'm not saying that all Catholics who recite the rosaries are making
>    vain repetitions.  I'm sure this has great significance to many. 
>    However, I think that a lot of Catholics probably simply recite them
>    giving no thought at all to what they are praying.

Actually, it should be remembered that the Rosary involves not only the
prayer, but also requires meditation on certain "mysteries": Christ's 
crucifixion, His Scourging, his agony in the garden, or His Birth, his
presentation in the Temple, or His Resurrection, or the coming of the Holy
Spirit.  In fact one might say that this is the primary prayer of the rosary,
the meditations on these mysteries, rather than the repetition of prayers.

Without meditating on the Mysteries, you're really not praying the Rosary.

Another aspect of the repetitive prayers is to achieve a meditative state --
certainly not to impress God with the length or quantity of your prayer,
which is I think what the Gospel is forbidding.  It's a mystical type of
tool, designed less to impress God than to change us.

I'd also caution against too quickly applying these words of the Gospel to
the Rosary, until we can explain exactly what pagan practice it was that
Jesus condemned.  He could have been condemning something very different
that it appears.

>    the ring on the bishops finger.  Looking back at it now, it seems like
>    a lot of emphasis was placed on what a privilege it was to be able to
>    bow down and kiss the ring of this particular bishop.  Wasn't that a
>    form of worship to one of God's creations?

"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double
honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." (1 Tim 5:17)

"Greet one another with a holy kiss." (Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12,
1 Pet 5:14)

Thinking about this -- which is basically an act of _honor_, not worship,
called to mind all the times in the Old Testament when Jews would honor kings
and others in their command by various means. I find this relevant to the topic
at hand.

1 Kings 1:16f: "Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king. 'What is it you
want?' the king asked."  No rebuke from David.

1 Kings 1:31: "Then Bathsheba bowed low with her face to the ground and,
kneeling before the king, said, "May my lord King David live forever!"

1 Sam 24:8: "Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, 'My Lord
and king!' When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself
with his face to the ground."

1 Sam 25:23: "When Abigal saw David, she quickly got off her donkey and bowed
down before David with her face to the ground.  She fell at his feet. . ."
Again in v. 41.

1 Sam 28:14: "Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated
himself with his face to the ground."

2 Sam 9:6-8: "When Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to
David, he bowed down to pay him honor. David said, 'Mephibosheth! . . . Don't
be afraid, for I will surely show you kindness . . .' Mephibosheth bowed down
and said, 'What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?'"

2 Sam 14:33: "Then the king summoned Absalom, and he came in and bowed down
with his face to the ground before the king.  And the king kissed Absalom."

2 Sam 18:28: "Then Ahimaaz called out to the king, 'All is well!' He bowed down
before the king [David] with his face to the ground . . ."

2 Sam 22:40, in David's song of praise to the Lord: "You made my adversaries
bow at my feet."  Also Psalm 18:39.

1 King 1:22f: "While she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet
arrived. And they told the king, 'Nathan the prophet is here.' So he went
before the king and bowed with his face to the ground."  Nathan, the prophet,
bowing to King David!  What blasphemy! ;-)

1 Kings 2:19: "When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for
Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his
throne." 

1 Kings 18:7: "As Obadiah was walking along, Elijah met him. Obadiah recognized
him, bowed down to the ground, and said, 'Is it really you, my lord Elijah?'"
v. 3 says, "(Obadiah was a devout believer in the Lord...)"
 
2 Kings 2:15: "The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching,
said, 'The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.' ANd they went to meet him
and bowed to the ground before him."

Also see 2 Sam 15:5, 2 Sam 24:20, 1 Kings 1:53, 2 Kings 4:37, 1 Ch 21:21.

So you see, I find it rather inconsistent for you to suggest it is improper in
every case to bow down before a statue or even a bishop, for as you can see,
many saintly and devout Old Testament saints -- and even prophets -- showed
honor to authorities and to holy men by bowing down to them.  Gee, they even
called their king "lord"!

Perhaps I might turn the question around: Why to Protestants refuse to bow in
this Biblical way to each other?  If Nathan bowed down, and Elisha accepted
such honor, why should we now forbid it?

Eric

I picked up the following message on the Eastern Orthodox Christian list and
thought it was quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       Orthodox Christianity <[email protected]>
Poster:       "Franklin A. Sciacca" <[email protected]>
Subject:      St. John of Damascus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . .

St. John of Damascus, from The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (English
translation 1898) (8th century)

Concerning Images

Since some find fault with us for worshipping and honouring the image of
our Saviour and that of our Lady (sic), and those, too, of the rest of the
saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God
created man after His own image.  On what grounds, then, do we show
reverence to each other unless because we are made after God's image?  For
as Basil... says, the honor given to the image passes over to the
prototype.  now a prototype is that which is imaged, from which the
derivative is obtained. Why was it that the Mosaic people honored on all
hands the tabernacle (Ex 33:10) which bore an image and type of hevenly
things, or rather of the whole creation?  God indeed said to Moses, "Look
that thou make them their pattern which was shown thee in the mount." (Heb
8:5/other citation illegible in reprint) THe Cherubim too which overshadow
the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's hands?  What, further, is
the celebrated temple at Jerusalem?  Is it not hand-made and fashioned by
the skill of men?

Moreover the divine Scripture blames those who worship graven images, but
also those who sacrifice to demons.  The Greeks sacrificed and the Jews
also  sacrificed:  but the Greeks to demons and the Jews to God. And the
sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemned, but the sacrifice of
the just was very acceptable to God... And so the graven images of deities
were rejected and forbidden.

But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal,
uncircumscribed, formless God?  THerefore to give form to the Deity is the
height of folly and impiety.  And hence it is that in the Old Testament the
use of images was not common.  But after God in His bowels of pity became
in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the
semblance of man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly
man, and after He lived upon earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles,
suffered... since all these things actually took place and were seen by
men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were
not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still obtain
the blessing of the Lord.  But seeing that not everyone has a knowledge of
letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting
these events on images... WHen we see the image of Christ's crucifixion...
we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged; just as
we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, but what this
typifies...

Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (8th century)

We define that the holy images, whether in color, mosaic, or some other
material [no prohibition of statues here!], should be exposed in the holy
churches of God... WHenever these representations are contemplated, they
will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototypes.
 We define also that they should be kissed and they are an object of
veneration and honor (timetike proskynesis), but not of real worship
(latreia), which is reserved for Him who is the Subject of our faith...
The honor rendered to the image is in effect transmitted to the prototype;
he who venerates the image, venerates in it the reality for which it
stands..."

Meyendorff notes on above "The distinction established by the council
between the "worship" or "adoration" which is due to God alone, and the
"veneration" due to the images...was intended to refute the charges of
idolotry leveled against the Orthodox by the iconoclasts.  It is also
equally valid today in the dialogue with Protestants concerning the exact
meaning of icons..."
.................

In reality, though, among "common folk" who are not trained theologians,
nor readers of the Fathers, let alone the Philokalia! (I would image the
vast majority of Orthodox in the world) do in fact venerate icons as sacred
objects (akin to relics of the saints)..  This helps explain why certain
*specific* icons (not necessarily iconographic types)  are considered
miracle-working:  eg, the recent report of the Patriarch blessing Moscow
with the Vladimir Icon-- it had to be THAT ONE, not any of the numerous
copies.  I'm not sure exactly how a theologian would explain that.  It
seems clear that certain objects, for whatever reason, are deemed "not of
(or no longer of) this world."-- the ark of the covenant, the cross, the
relics of the Saints.  What do you think?

Arsenii
=========================

Eric

    As noted in .150, some objects and icons are considered to be
    miraculous or sacred. This is because such things like healings are
    attributed their use as holy objects. The New Testament precident
    for this is the 'prayer cloth' of one of the apostles that was used
    for a healing. 
    
    It is not the object itself, but it is the fact that in some way the
    Lord has made it holy. When the object is kissed or used it is in
    faith that the Lord has, through His pleasure to do so, given it to
    us for the graces intended. When we use the sacred object it is not
    with faith in the object, but in faith in God that He has made it
    sacred. Therefore, it demonstrates faith in God.
    
    

    Re: Note 276.150 by KOLBE::eje
    
    St. John of Damascus wrote;
    
>[...] But after God in His bowels of pity became
>in truth man for our salvation, [...]
    
    I gather the english has changed since the translation was made.
    What does "bowels of pity" mean?  Who is this St. John anyway?
    
    Re: Note 276.151 by JUPITR::MNELSON
    
>                           -< miraculous objects >-
    
    This could be a topic on it's own.  Are such objects available to us
    today, and if they are, should we use them?  How would we regulate
    their use?
    
    James

    reply to <<< Note 276.151 by JUPITR::MNELSON >>>
                     -< miraculous objects >-
    
    Hi Mary ,
    
    
       The prayer cloth that you are addressing is the one used by Paul in
    Acts 19:12 . What is so interesting about this that we(generic) think
    this to be some very fine cloth,perhaps made by his mother out of the 
    finest material, well it isn't . It literally is a sweat cloth which
    Paul carried with him while he was tent making.We(generic) need to be
    somewhat careful not to create something more than the text has. In the 
    previous verses we know that Paul was in Ephesus and "God was
    performing extraordinary miracles through Paul" .
    
    	Point being.....we just need to be careful not to create a teaching
    based solely on 1 incident . By the way Jesus never gave a teaching on
    how to annoint prayer cloths etc.....and no ,"when the women touched
    His garment" is not a teaching on prayer cloths .
    
    
      Just my $.02 .
    
    				Fonz
     
     
    

    re: .153
    
    The power of God was so great through Paul that when even cloth that
    he had on his person touched a sick person or one afflicted by a demon,
    the person was healed.
    
    Those objects that have come to be known as being 'miraculous' or
    'sacred' are considered so because of the same type of healings. How
    was Paul's clothing used in the first place? Did he send it instead
    of going himself? Or did someone, in faith, use it along with prayer
    in healing? By whatever means, the healing happened.
    
    Through the ages the same types of healings have occured in association
    with relics of the Saints. The faith is that God has so sanctified the
    Saint as to make holy and sacred the Saint's relics. The fact that 
    throughout the ages some of these relics have indeed been associated
    with miraculous healings bears witness to their claim and the overall
    'theology' of their use.
    
    There are volumes documenting cures, healings, miracles, and
    conversions associated with sacred objects, blessed objects, and
    certain places which become known as holy ground. This is also true
    about the intercessions requested of those people who are declared
    Saints.  
    
    In the formal process that the Church uses to investigate
    and elevate a  person to 'recognized Sainthood', two miracles are 
    required through the intercession of that person. The healings [usually] 
    must be of the type that cannot go into remission, but must be physically 
    beyond medical science to explain; these cures are accompanied by spiritual
    good fruits also and they usually occur in a dramatic fashion. The
    examination of the faith of the canidate and their life must also
    demonstrate the cooperation with the Holy Spirit in sanctification and
    holiness.
    
    Holy places, holy water, and sacred objects become known of such
    through the testimonies of people who receive healings or conversions.
    All of these point to God, His power and His Mercy. 
    
    Paul, a man of God, through his faith in God had the power of the
    Holy Spirit with him; as Paul acted in faith, the Holy Spirit brought
    about many cures and miracles for the glory of God. When people came to
    Paul in faith and received a cure then God was further glorified.
    
    This same principal is at work today; to recognize the power of God 
    manifest through a person [Saint] or through a relic, etc., is to 
    demonstrate faith in God and belief in His Mercy. The only reason a
    person is honored as a Saint is because people clearly see God in
    him/her. This, then, glorifies God and strengthens our faith in Him.
    
    Feel free to open a new topic and repost these last few...perhaps from
    Eric's posting of the writing on sacred images?
    
    Mary
    
    

    > I gather the english has changed since the translation was made.
    > What does "bowels of pity" mean?  Who is this St. John anyway?
    
When we speak of the seat of someone's emotions, we refer to one's
"heart."  In Eastern thinking, the seat is the bowels; hence, while we
would say, "My heart goes out to you," in Greek you might say, "My
bowels got out to you."

If you ask me I'd rather have someone's heart come to me than their
bowels :-)

Scripture uses the term "bowels"; if you ever get an interlinear
translation of the New Testament, you'll see a number of places where
the word "bowel" in this context is translated "heart" in English.

St. John of Damascus was one of the Fathers of the Catholic and Orthodox
church; he is best known for writing against the Iconoclasts, who
insisted that icons are idolatrous and must be destroyed.  Iconoclasm
was a heresy (or it was condemned as a heresy by the 7th Ecumenical
Council of the church which followed) that arose around the 8th century,
largely related to the growth of Islam, which caused great upheaval in
the church, especially in the Eastern church (iconoclasts were those who
embraced iconoclasm).  It was settled at the aforementioned 7th
Ecumenical Council. I mayhave posted earlier the proceedings of this
council where the difference between honoring images and worshipping God
was made.

Eric

    Thanks.

                        
    Re.155
    
    Eric,
    
    >In Eastern thinking...
    
    Is that Christianity, or are you referring to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.?
    
    Cindy

I found the following good explanation on an Eastern Orthodox list; Tony is a
recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy from Protestantism. I thought he had some
good things to say (plus given the fact that I'm quite busy and unable to 
write in depth about it).

Date:         Wed, 27 Oct 1993 01:37:35 -0500
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[email protected]>
From: Tony Zamora <[email protected]>
Subject:      Re: How would you respond?
Comments: To: Orthodox Christianity <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list ORTHODOX <[email protected]>

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       Orthodox Christianity <[email protected]>
Poster:       Tony Zamora <[email protected]>
Subject:      Re: How would you respond?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Lieuwen writes,
> A friend of mine wrote me a letter which arrived last night telling
> me that:
> 1) she thinks icons are idols
> 2) she thinks the communion of the saints living and the dead is
> completely unscriptural
>
> Would you point out the inconsistancy between the two statements, or
> just answer points 1) and 2) (after prayer of course)?  I sort of waver
> between the two, although I think the second may be better.

Here's something that I wrote a while back to explain about communion of the
saints and prayers to the saints to my Protestant friends.  Many of my friends
have found it helpful.  Let me know if you see ways it can be improved.

Tony
-------------
You ask about prayer to the saints.  There is strong biblical
support for the practice, but it is not quickly summed up (e.g.
there is no one verse that says, "Go ye therefore and pray unto the
saints..."), and it draws together the doctrines of communion,
worship, the nature of the Church, life after death, and our
relationship with each other and with God.  It often happens that
people who disagree with Catholics and Orthodox on the doctrine of
prayer to the saints do so primarily because they disagree with us
on one of these doctrines that I mentioned, and if you agree with
our view on those doctrines, it is a short step to the doctrine of
prayer to the saints.

I'll do my best to present the facts and the biblical and historical
basis for the practice.  Having recently become Orthodox after being
Protestant, I understand (and have experienced!) the difficulties that
come along with this practice, and I'll try to explain it and what it
means to me personally.  I'll answer this by explaining what it means
to "pray to the saints," what it doesn't mean, and answering some
common questions about it.

The practice of "prayer to the saints" simply means that we ask the
saints in heaven to pray for us or to join us in praying to God.  It
does *not* mean that we worship the saints or think that the saints
are God or believe that the saints have any power of their own to
answer prayers the way God does.  All prayer, ultimately, is answered
by God alone.  When we "pray to the saints," we are simply asking the
saints to pray along with us to God.  It is *exactly* the same thing
as asking others here on earth to pray for us and with us.

One *very* important thing to keep in mind is that the phrase "prayer
to the saints" sounds very different to modern ears than it used to
because the meaning of the word "pray" has narrowed in meaning.
"Pray" simply means "to ask" (see Webster's dictionary), and it used
to be a common formal way of asking for something from anyone, not
only of God.  In many of Shakespeare's plays (_The Taming of the
Shrew_, Act 4, Scene 3, Lines 15 and 18, for instance), characters
will say to each other, "I prithee..."  "I prithee" is a contraction
of "I pray to thee." (Again, see Webster's) It is in this archaic
sense that we say that we "pray to the saints."  It's unfortunate that
the older meaning has faded and that the phrase now causes confusion.
That is why you may hear people today refer to the practice as "asking
for the prayers of the saints", "asking for the intercessions of the
saints." or perhaps "prayer with the saints."  It's the same thing,
but it sounds better to modern ears, and the older phrase is probably
still used only because it's shorter and grammatically less clumsy.
Understanding this point alone can clear up lots of confusion.

Q: Why pray to the saints, when you could pray directly to God?

A: The problem with the way the question is worded is that it creates
a false conflict between God and man.  Our lives are not intended to
be separate from God and from each other.  On the contrary, God has
united us, called us together to live and have communion and
fellowship with each other and with him.  Our whole lives are to be
lived as a community, shared with other Christians, united by Christ.
We attend Church and worship with others; we ask others to pray for
us; we love one another.  One might as well as why ask others here on
earth to pray when we could ask God instead?  Or why pray at all when
God knows what we need before we ask anyway?  The answer is that to
ask such a question is to miss the point and to fail to realize that

prayer builds the community of faith and strengthens our relationship
with others and with God.

Paul asked others to pray for him (Romans 15:31, Ephesians 6:19,
Colossians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, 2 Thessalonians 3:1).  Certainly
Paul didn't feel that asking others to pray for him was fruitless or
showed a lack of faith or that he was denying the power of God by
asking others to pray for him.  Neither did James, who specifically
tells the Church to pray for each other because the prayer of a
righteous man is powerful and effective (James 5:16).  This is because
we are not to be "lone ranger" Christians.  We are the household of
God (Ephesians 2:19, 1 Timothy 3:15), a family united in Christ.  And
family prays for each other, shares each others sufferings and bears
each others burdens.  A relationship with God is not a zero-sum game;
love we have for God does not take away from the love we have for our
brothers and sisters.  Indeed, we are told to love God *and* love our
neighbor.  Of course, we love God differently than we love our
brothers and sisters.  We love and honor them as Christians who
successfully lived a Christian life, but we never give them the
worship that is due to God alone.  We are clearly told, "Worship the
Lord your God and serve him only." (Deuteronomy 6:13) Similarly we ask
God to use his power to grant our request, but we ask the saints (in
heaven and on earth) to do the only thing in their power, namely pray
for us.  So we *do* pray to God.  Prayer to the saints is not and
should never be used as a substitute for prayer to God (that would be
a distortion of the practice).  This would be exactly like asking
others on earth to pray for us but never praying ourselves.

Q: But aren't the saints dead?

A: First of all, it is wrong to think of the saints as being dead.
Christ said, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will
have the light of life" (John 8:12).  Christ by his death destroyed
death and the power of death (Hebrews 2:14-15) in order that all who
believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
No, the saints are not dead.  He is not the God of the dead but of the
living! (Mark 12:27)

There are many instances in Revelation of the saints being alive and
worshiping God.  Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 show the reality of the
prayers of the saints.  Revelation 5:9 shows saints singing to the
Lord. Revelation 11:16-18 describes the prayers of thanksgiving of the
saints.  Perhaps the clearest verse attesting to the life and prayers
of the saints in heaven is Revelation 6:9-11:

"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of
those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony
they had maintained.  They called out in a loud voice, 'How long,
Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the
earth and avenge our blood?'  Then each of them were given a white
robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of
their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had
been was completed."

Note that here the saints still living on earth are called "fellow
servants and brothers" of the saints in heaven.  This point cannot
emphasized enough.  Obviously if the saints are dead, there is no
point is asking them to pray for us.  But they are alive and with God
(Romans 6:1-14 (esp. vv. 4,8,11,13), Philippians 1:23).  It is also
crucial to remember that the saints in heaven are as much a part of
the Church as we are.  The Church is one (1 Cor 12:12-13, 1 Cor
10:16-17), and this one Church exists both in heaven and on earth.
That's why it is wrong to think of there being two Churches, one in
heaven and one on earth.  Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, not just
of heaven or just of earth, and he is with us always, even until the
end of the age.  Therefore we should not feel separated from God and
his saints in heaven just because we are on earth.  We are to pray
with faith that even though we are still on earth God hears our prayer
and Jesus is with us.  Elsewhere in Scripture, we are further told not
to despair because we are seated with God in the heavenly realms in
Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6) and that our citizenship in is in heaven.

Far from denying the reality of the saints in heaven, Scripture
constantly encourages to pray with faith because in Christ we are
fellow citizens with the saints in heaven even though we still live on
earth.  Scripture tells us that we are surrounded by a great cloud of
witnesses (Hebrews 12:1) and that we "have come to Mount Zion, to the
heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God.  You have come to
thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church
of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.  You have come to God,
the judge of all men, *to the spirits of righteous men made perfect*,
to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood
that speaks a better word than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12:22-24,
emphasis mine) This makes it clear that we are not alone in our faith
but are fellow citizens and family with the saints who live and reign
with God in heaven.

So seen from the biblical perspective, it is clear that our brothers
and sisters and fellow members of the Church are with God in heaven
and that our citizenship and life is with them as well and that we
worship and have communion with them, we ought not draw distinctions
between the Church on earth and the Church in heaven because there
is only one Church.  Neither can we separate the saints on heaven
from the saints on earth.  Saints do not stop being saints when
they fall asleep in the Lord, and we will not stop being Christians
when we fall asleep.  Rather we are all part of one body and we
ought to think of the departed saints, not as being dead or separate
from us but as brothers and sisters who are a part of us (because
we all belong to one body) and pray with us and for us; therefore
it is no less appropriate to ask for their prayers than it is to

ask for those of our brothers and sisters here on earth.  Perhaps
it is also significant to note that this idea has not disappeared
entirely in Protestantism.  The hymn, "The Church's One Foundation"
has a line (in the third verse, I think) that says we on earth have
"mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won."  This idea
of communion with the saints in heaven is what the Apostle's Creed
speaks of when it says, "I believe...in the communion of saints."

Q: But doesn't Deuteronomy 18:11 forbid consulting the dead?

A: Yes it does.  Deuteronomy 18:9-13 clearly forbids Israel to
practice the idolatrous and detestable practices of the pagan
nations.  This includes the practices of sorcery, divination,
witchcraft, consulting the dead, etc.  The difference is that prayer
to the saints is an entirely different thing.  First of all, what
few people realize is that the "prayers to the saints" hardly count
as consultation with the dead.  Most prayers to a saint boil down
to simply something like "St. (name), pray for us."  That's it.
No fancy words, no "St. Paul, how are you doing?", no "Virgin Mary,
what's going to happen to me tomorrow?", no sensational experience,
no nothing.  Just, "St. (name), pray for us."  In short, there's
nothing that even *looks* like consulting.  Also, unless God grants
you a special gift of prophecy or vision, we never hear back from
the saints (which is part of the definition of consulting the dead).
This is clearly entirely unlike the wicked consultation that Saul
had with Samuel in 1 Samuel 28.  So it is manifestly unfair to label
this as consulting the dead.  Also, the pagan religions used sorcery
and consultation of the dead as a way of gaining control of the
spiritual world and setting themselves up as masters of it.  As I
explained above, the Christian idea of the saints in heaven is
centered around the biblical view of worship of God and communion
with him and his Church.

Q: How can the saints hear us if they're not omniscient or omnipresent?

A: That's a good question, and the only truly correct answer is
that the "how" is a mystery that only God knows.  But there is good
biblical evidence that they do hear and are aware of what happens
on earth, even though they are neither omniscient nor omnipresent.
The reason for this is the special relationship that we have with
God in Christ Jesus.  In particular, we, as the Church, are partners
in the gospel (Philippians 1:5, 1 Cor 3:9, Matthew 28:19) and have
been given the responsibility of doing the work of God.  This
involves the entire Church, not just the Church on earth.  As we
have seen above, the Church in heaven is in the fullness of the
presence of God, and the primary way the Church in heaven is involved
is through prayer.  God gave us this commission, and he lets us
know through the Holy Spirit what he wants us to do.  For Christ
said, "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not
know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for
all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."
(John 15:15)  Certainly in Revelation 19:1-8, the saints in heaven
seem to be aware of the events on earth.  We also see that God's
other helpers, the angels, are aware of what is going on, even
though they are neither omnipresent nor omniscient:

Luke 15:7 - "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven
over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons
who need no repentance."

Luke 15:10 - "Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of
God over one sinner who repents."

So it is clear from Scripture that those in heaven are aware of a
great deal more than we might think because they are in heaven with
God and therefore beyond the limits of space and time as we know them
and because we know the Master's business.  So the "how" the saints
hear is a mystery, but biblically, we can see that it is through the
Holy Spirit.

Q: Doesn't 1 Timothy 2:5 say, "For there is one God, and there is one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus?"

A: Yes, it does.  Some people think that by asking the saints to
pray for us we are destroying the unique mediatorship of Christ by
making the saints into mediators.  This obviously cannot be what
this verse is teaching.  As I explained above, we are *commanded*
to pray for each other, so intercessory prayer certainly does not
destroy the mediatorship of Christ.  The saints in heaven are not
assuming the mediatorship of Christ any more than we are when we
pray others.  Christ's unique mediatorship consists in the fact
that he has established the covenant between God and man (Luke
22:20) and that he is the only way for men to come to God and have
union with him. (John 14:6) So Christ's mediatorship is much, much
more than mere intercessory prayer and is something that no man
could accomplish.  We, like the saints in heaven, do intercede for
each other, but we are never mediators of the new covenant as Christ
is. (Hebrews 9:15)

Q: Doesn't this practice lead to "saint worship?"

A: It can.  Anything can be distorted and turned into idolatry.  Some
modern Protestant preachers have developed a "cult of personality"
that's equal to any "cult of the saints" that we might worried about
(in fact, Chuck Colson's book, _The Body_, describes many such
abuses).  The problem doesn't lie with the practice; it lies in the
fact that we are weak and sinful.  That will be cured only by the
grace of God, prayer, and humility before God.  One thing that helps
keep abuses from happening is the form of the liturgy of the Church.
In services and the daily cycle of prayer prayers to the saints occur

only in certain contexts where it is hard to misunderstand what they
are and what they are for.  Also, we never close a service or prayer
with prayers to the saints; we always close with a prayer to Christ
asking for his blessing and for him to answer our prayers and the
prayers of the saints.  This makes it crystal clear that it is God
alone who has power to answer prayer.  All we can do is pray.  On a
personal level, I worried much more about this when I was Protestant.
I can say in total honesty that I've never met a single Orthodox
Christian who was more devoted to a saint than to God.

Q: Do I have to pray to the saints?

A: Of course not.  If you come to an Orthodox Church, no one is going
to make you do anything against your will or that will make you feel
uncomfortable.  In fact, if you come to an Orthodox service on Sunday
you might be surprised to find that it is hard to identify any prayers
to the saints (offhand, I can think of only one that occurs in the
usual Orthodox liturgy).  Orthodox services are totally centered
around the worship of the Holy Trinity.  You definitely get the
impression that we are worshiping with the saints (as the Bible says
we are), but there are very few times when we pray to the saints per
se.

Q: Wasn't prayer to the saints invented in the Middle Ages when people
were afraid to pray to God directly?

A: No, this is a practice that the Church has practiced since
apostolic times.  The earliest written reference that we have today is
in a writing, dating from around A.D. 140 called "The Martyrdom of
Ignatius."  Ignatius was bishop of the Church of Antioch and was
likely a disciple of the apostle Peter.  He was martyred by the Roman
Empire for refusing to renounce his faith in Christ.  The evening of
his martyrdom, those who had accompanied him were granted a shared
vision of Ignatius praying for them.  Those who saw the vision
rejoiced and went to tell others.  The catacombs where the earliest
Christians were buried (dated around A.D.  220) contain inscriptions
asking the departed for their prayers.  St.  Athanasius (the bishop of
Alexandria who was the most zealous defender of the deity of Christ
during the Arian controversy in the fourth century) wrote in a letter
(dating from around A.D. 290) instructing one of his students in the
Psalms (I can give a references to this if you want one) that he
should pray the Psalms and that in heaven the writer of the Psalm
would join him in prayer.  St. Basil the Great, around A.D. 380, wrote
a prayer in which he asks for the intercessions of St. Athanasius.  By
the end of the 4th century, liturgy of all parts of the Church
contained references to the saints.  So this is not a doctrine that
was unknown to the early Church.

Q: Are there any concrete examples in the Bible of prayer to the saints?

A: Not exactly, but there's some examples of something that is very, very
close and which, in fact, can be used as a start.  They are in Psalm
103:20-22 and Psalm 148 (esp. vv. 2-4), where David prays to or with the angels
and heavenly hosts:

"Bless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word,
hearkening to the voice of his word!

Bless the LORD, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!

Bless the LORD, all his works, in all places of his dominion.

Bless the LORD, O my soul!" (Psalm 103:20-22)

"Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts.

Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars.

Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies." (Psalm 148:2-4)

Prayer to the saints, like any form of prayer, cannot fully be
understood solely at the intellectual level; it must be understood
devotionally for its full meaning to come through.  If you want
understand the devotional value of prayer with the saints, a good
start is to end your daily devotions by praying Psalm 103:20-22 (or
the entire psalm, if you wish) and Psalm 148:2-4 and a short closing
prayer like, "O Christ our God, through the prayers of all your
saints, have mercy on us, for you are good and love mankind.  Amen."

This has been a very long message on a very touchy topic, and no
doubt it will take a while to absorb all of what I've said, but
I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you have.  The important
thing to focus on when coming to terms with this issue is first to
understand that the saints are alive and as much a part of the
Church as we are and that we worship God and have communion with
them.  Once you begin to understand this, things become a lot
clearer.  As I said at the beginning, you have to understand the
framework the doctrine is built on before you can understand the
doctrine itself.  That's why it is so commonly misunderstood and
seems so strange to many, and it's also way it's one of the last
doctrines you understand on your way to the Orthodox Church, and
one of the best ways to learn more about prayer to the saints is
to learn more about the other teachings of the Orthodox Church.

God bless,

Tony

	Greetings all.

	Don't have time to read all these notes, but ...

        1. Please provide scriptural basis for praying to the saints.

	2. Did any of the Old Testament prophets pray to the deceased?
	   Did Jesus?

	3. Find for us any scripture that describes praying in front of
	   graven images, for any reason, as anything other than idolatry.
	   I'm sure that Solomon, in all his wisdom, would've told you that
	   by praying in front of the image of Ashtera, he was only praying
	   to what it represents.  

        4. Doesn't the Bible says that Christ is the only intercessor
           between God and man?

        5. Jesus is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis.  Does this
           does make Mary the mother of God?  Can the Creator of all have
	   one of His creations as a mother?  Isn't she but the mother of
	   the vessel in which God chose to manifest the second Person of
	   the Trinity?

	6. The bible says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife.

	7. Scripture is clear that baptism does not save anyone.  Consider
	   Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
	   shall be saved."  Not whosoever shall be baptized, or fullfill
	   the sacraments, or any other thing.
	   Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be
	   saved."  Not, be baptised, speak in toungues, receive Communion,
	   be confirmed, none those things, but believe in the Lord Jesus
	   Christ.

	   Oh yes, the verse in 1st or 2nd Peter that says that you must
	   believe on the Lord Jesus and be baptized to be saved ...  Does
	   the bible then contradict itself?  Not at all, for Peter goes on
	   to say that he who does not believe is condemned, not he who is
	   not baptized is condemned.  Find the salvation verses and try to
	   plug-in all the other requirements that men have put on
	   salvation.  You will see that they appear incongruous in these
	   contexts.  God made salvation simple enough for the simplest and
	   vilest, even me, to understand it and embrace it.
	   
	Peace,
		Tony

If you don't have time to read, then why are you asking questions, most
of which have already been answered?

/john

RE:             <<< Note 276.163 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
         -< Scriptural support is there, if you take the time to read >-

        Just don't have time to wade through 161 replies at this time. 
        Please point me to the corresponding replies, or, better yet, just
        provide the chapter(s) and verse(s) that answer the numbered
        questions/posits in .162 without associated commentary.  I can
	assure you that I will take the time to read and study said
	associated scripture at home.

	Thanks, in peace,
		Tony
		

    
    So everyone else has the time which you do not?  I just don't
    understand.
    
    
    Mike

    That's why I try to avoid these rat traps.

    Jim

    I do not have the time to read through Catholic commentary either, I do
    however have the time to read scripture.  I would like to see an answer
    given to Tony. He has asked in a non confrontational manner and is
    due a proper response without the defensive attitudes that are often
    times presented. Nobody is saying to the Catholics that you are wrong
    or that you have no right to pntificate what you do. I think though
    Tony is due a SUCCINT and proper reply to his questions - REAGARDLESS
    how many times they have been ask or thought to have been answered.
    Why? because he is asking in sincerity and not mockingly as others
    from time to time have done.
    
    PDM

    re:167
    
    But he got an answer.
    
    Jim

    Jim,
    
    I understand why you think he got an answer... but what I read was
    reasoning around those areas ... not a Biblical basis... now if I'm
    wrong, please point me to the error of my speed reading. :-)
    
    Nancy

        I have scanned a few (about 40) of the early replies to this note
        and have seen only excerpts from Vatican pronouncements and
        examples of the traditions of men, not scriptural exegesis.  

	Please provide scriptural evidence for your positions vis-a-vis the
	posits enumerated in .162.

        Peace,
		Tony

>    >In Eastern thinking...
    
>    Is that Christianity, or are you referring to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.?
    
I am thinking primarily Eastern Christian and Hebrew thinking, although other
religions may think similarly.

Eric

I am happy to answer your questions, Tony.  You might also read some of the
tracts in LYCEUM::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY note 1047 (I think).

>         1. Please provide scriptural basis for praying to the saints.

"Hold fast to the traditions you received, whether by word of mouth or by
letter." (2 Thes 2:15, NIV)

Can you provide a Scriptural basis for insisting that only a Scriptural
basis is acceptable?

> 	2. Did any of the Old Testament prophets pray to the deceased?
> 	   Did Jesus?

Remember when Jesus said, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani" on the cross, and
some people thought he was calling Elijah?

They are referring to a Jewish tradition that Elijah would come and help
those who called to him.  Naturally Elijah, not having died, could have done
this.  As explained in the four notes I posted from my Eastern Orthodox
friend (who mentioned some Scriptural support), those who died in the Old
Testament were dead, but those who die in Christ, and the righteous dead in
the Old Testament, are now not dead, they are alive.

> 	3. Find for us any scripture that describes praying in front of
> 	   graven images, for any reason, as anything other than idolatry.

How about the bronze serpent, which God promised, if anyone looked to it,
they would be healed?  Is there then not a distinction between praying to an
image and an image being a means of grace?

>         4. Doesn't the Bible says that Christ is the only intercessor
>            between God and man?

No. It says he's the only _mediator_.  Do you ever pray for one of your
friends?  Praying for one another is intercession, as Paul testifies.  Again
refer to the series I posted from my Orthodox friend (.158-.162).

>         5. Jesus is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis.  Does this
>            does make Mary the mother of God?  

If not, who _is_ Jesus's mother?

> Can the Creator of all have one of His creations as a mother? 

yes.

>  Isn't she but the mother of the vessel in which God chose to manifest the 
> second Person of the Trinity?

You cannot deny that Mary is the Mother of God without denying that Jesus is
fully, completely, and perfectly God Incarnate.  Scripture says that Christ
created all things: therefore he created his own mother.

Do not think like the pagans think when they refer to parents of gods.  A
mother is someone who bears an incarnate human being.  Mary no more created
God than your mother created you.  However, God was conceived in Mary, God
dwelt in Mary's womb, God was born of Mary, God nursed at Mary's breasts.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

> 	6. The bible says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife.

No, the Bible says that the pastor bust be the husband of BUT one wife, meaning
married no more than once.  St. Paul would be rather shocked to hear you say
that he could not be a pastor.  He might even be indignant since he instructed
his hearers that celibacy was a superior state for a man of God than marriage.
And Jesus might be upset, too, because he said of celibacy, "Let him who can
accept this, accept it."

> 	7. Scripture is clear that baptism does not save anyone.  

Show me Scriptural support that baptism is merely a symbol.

Consider 1 Peter 3:29: "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the
Spirit, through whom he also went and preached to the spirits in prison who
disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark
was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all, were saed through
water, and this water symbolized baptism that now saves you also . . ." (NIV)

Mark 16:15: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not
believe will be condemned." 

Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Chris for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 22:16: "Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away, calling on his
name."

Baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), the bath of water with
the word (Eph 5:26), that which washes us in pure water (Hebrew 10:22). In
baptism we were washed (1 Cor 6:11).  We are buried and rise again with Christ
in baptism (Romans 6:3).  We are clothed with Christ through baptism 
(Gal 3:27).  We become a part of Christ's body through baptism (1 Cor 12:13).
Baptism bestows the Holy Spirit as it did for Christ at his baptism; it is
baptism that is referred to by Jesus in John 3:6, "No one can enter the king-
dom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit."  To prove that this is
baptism, see what Jesus does in verse 21, right after he says this: he goes
out and baptizes!  And Christ's own baptism, where he received the Holy Spirit
when he entered the water, testifies to the meaning of "water and the spirit."
It is of this that St. John the Divine speaks, "There are three that testify:
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (1 John
5:7).

Baptism is not only prefigured in the flood, as St. Peter says, where it
cleansed the earth of iniquity, but it's also prefigure by the crossing of
the Israelites through the Red Sea, where they were freed from sin and
delivered from the enemy, who, for us is Satan and his demons, and for them was
the Egyptians, by the washing of Naaman in the Jordan which cleansed him from
the uncleanness of leprosy (a type of sin) in 2 Kings 5:10, and by all of the
various times that Jesus healed someone by telling them to wash in the river.

>        I have scanned a few (about 40) of the early replies to this note
>        and have seen only excerpts from Vatican pronouncements and
>        examples of the traditions of men, not scriptural exegesis.  

There are no "Vatican" pronouncements in this note, unless by that you mean
a derogatory term for the Catholic Church.  I have quoted from church Fathers
and universal councils of the church. 

Whether they are "Traditions of men" is not for you to judge.  The very fact
that you refer to "Traditions of men" (which you got from scripture) implies
that there are traditions of God, and that Scripture does not condemn
tradition unilaterally as you claim it does.  Cf. 1 Cor 11:2, Rom 16:17,
2 Thes 3:6.

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God,
which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it 
actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thes
2:13)

Eric

> There are no "Vatican" pronouncements in this note, unless by that you mean
> a derogatory term for the Catholic Church.  I have quoted from church Fathers
> and universal councils of the church. 

I take this back.  There are some very early texts from Second Vatican
Council that I posted, but these had nothing to do with the topics you asked
about. They were about other topics and were not used to prove doctrine, but
rather to explain what we as Catholics believe.

Regarding Sola Scriptura, the concept you expressed when you expected to see
Scriptural documentation of prayer to the saints, as if it could not be true
unless it was conclusively proved by Scripture:

Sacred Scripture, the written word of God, is a means through which Christ
revealed His truth, but authority is something which resides in a person (or
Person), not in a book. The reason is, that Scripture "contain[s] some things
that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort [] to
their own destruction."  Scripture is insufficient as an authority, because,
due to human weakness and sin, men cannot agree on the meaning and
interpretation of Scripture without the help of God, and we are left without
knowledge of the whole truth because of the diverse ways in which Scripture
can be interpreted.

For this reason, in order to properly understand Scripture, we must call upon
the Holy Spirit: but as a church, and not as individuals, for the promise of
the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth is not made to individuals, but to the
church as a whole, "the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:16)" We can
do this by calling together all those right-believing pastors entrusted with
preserving the faith of the Apostles, that is, all the bishops of the world, to
pray and invoke the Holy Spirit, and then agree upon that interpretation of
Scripture to which the Spirit leads them and which in no way departs from what
the church has always believed: for God does not change his mind, nor has he
permitted His Word to pass away from the mouths of his New Covenant people
(Isaiah 59:21), but has promised to call to mind all that he taught us (John
14:26).

Because now the church is acting as one, in agreement with one another, 
trusting the promises of Christ and invoking the Holy Spirit, it cannot be
led astray, as individuals can and have been led astray by trusting in their
own wisdom and thinking for an interpretation of Scripture, or by believing
the fallacy that the Holy Spirit will lead them individually to all truth,
out of union with the rest of the Body.

When an authority within the church teaches contrary to the Gospel of Christ,
he is rebuked by the rest of the pastors and, if he persists in teaching
strange doctrine, is censured or even expelled from the church.

The idea that all authority lies in Sacred Scripture, or that Sacred Scripture
alone contains the Word of God, is entirely foreign to Sacred Scripture
itself and was never known to the church before the Reformation.  Indeed, it
is contrary to Scripture, for St. Paul tells us to hold fast to all traditions
which we have received, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2:15),
and that the word of the Lord is that which the Apostles preached (1 Peter
1:25), not that which they wrote down.  Never does Scripture identify the
Word of God as the Sacred Scriptures; such a concept would have been foreign
to the Jews and to the early Jewish Christians.  When Scripture refers to
the Word of God, it almost always refers to it as something verbal (cf.
1 Thes 2:13).

Eric

RE:             <<< Note 276.161 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                       -< E.O. on Prayer to Saints 4/4 >-

>>St.  Athanasius (the bishop of
>>Alexandria who was the most zealous defender of the deity of Christ
>>during the Arian controversy in the fourth century) wrote in a letter
>>(dating from around A.D. 290) instructing one of his students in the
>>Psalms (I can give a references to this if you want one) that he
>>should pray the Psalms 

	It is indeed good devotion to pray the psalms, or any other part of
	the bible that can be applied directly to your spirit,  back to God.  

>> and that in heaven the writer of the Psalm would join him in prayer.

	Isn't the writer of the Psalms and the rest of the Bible the Holy
	Spirit?  Isn't the Holy Spirit God?  Are we not then being joined
	by God in prayer?  Else, to repeat, what is the scriptural basis
	for praying to those who have gone on to glory?

        RE: Psalm 103:20-22 How can this be construed as praying to (or
        even with) angels?   And, isn't praying *to* someone and *with*
        someone completely different?   Don't the angels in the bible
        correct men when they bow to them (Revelation et al)?  Isn't it
        worship to pray to a spirit as though he has the power to change
        your destiny or in some way affect your life or circumstances? 
        Aren't we warned in Colossians NOT to worship angels?  Doesn't the
        overwhelming preponderance of scripture inveigh against the
        invocation of any spirit other than God?

>>I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you have.

	Thank you.  Please start with the ones in .162 and continue with
	the questions posed here.

	Peace,
		Tony
		

Re: .175

>         RE: Psalm 103:20-22 How can this be construed as praying to (or
>         even with) angels?   And, isn't praying *to* someone and *with*
>         someone completely different?   

Ah, but you didn't read Tony Zamora's post closely.  No, there is no real
distinction between praying to someone and praying with someone -- for when
Catholics as saints to intercede for us, they are asking them to pray with
us and for us just as we ask one another to pray for us.  When we "pray to
saints" -- an unfortunate term in today's language -- we are simply asking
them to pray with us to God.

> Don't the angels in the bible correct men when they bow to them 
> (Revelation et al)?  

Not always. Cf. Gen 19:1, Num 22:31 for starters. Note that in Revelation 22:8,
it explicitly says that John "fell down to worship at the feet of the angel."
The angel rebuked him, "Worship God!"  Thus it was the worship he was
objecting to; now the bowing. As a matter of fact, my concordance and my
online KJV do not find any occurrences of people bowing to angels and being
rebuked simply for bowing.

I pointed out earlier that on a number of occasions in the Old testament,
you find people bowing down to one another, even prophets to kings or people
to prophets, without anyone indicating that something is wrong.  Bowing in
Eastern culture is a form of honor, and not exclusively associated with 
worship.  This is evident because very frequently, when the Scriptures speak
of bowing down in worship to a deity, it says explicitly, "so and so bowed
down and worshiped."  But in other places, when people bow down to other people
in a non-worship context, it simply says that they bowed down. Thus worship
is not inherent in bowing.  Cf. Ge 24:26, 24:48, Ex 4:31, 12:27, 32:8, 34:8, Dt
29:26, 1 Ki 1:47, 2 Ki 21:3, 21:21, 2Ch 25:14, 29:28, 29:30, 33:3, Ne 8:6, 
Mt 2:11, and a number of other places.

> Isn't it worship to pray to a spirit as though he has the power to change
> your destiny or in some way affect your life or circumstances? 

We don't pray to them as if they had the power to change our destiny or
affect our life or circumstances.  We ask them to pray for us as we ask one
another to pray for us.

There has a thread here, by the way, on the distinction between the Catholic
form of worship and the Protestant form of worship.  Catholics offer sacrifice,
the one completed sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Eucharist -- and it
is by this sacrifice that we primarily worship God. Because Protestants do not
worship through sacrifice, they tend to confuse prayer with worship.  But we
as Catholics sacrifice only to God, which is proof that we worship only God --
not that sacrifice is the only way to worship, but it is clear within
Catholicism that worship belongs to God alone, for this reason. 

>         Aren't we warned in Colossians NOT to worship angels?  

If we worshipped angels, this would be a problem, but we don't.

> Doesn't the overwhelming preponderance of scripture inveigh against the
> invocation of any spirit other than God?

Does it forbid asking people to pray for us?

RE:	<<< Note 276.172 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>

	Thank you for your prompt reply.  I posted .175 before I saw this,
	so please forgive the time warp.  However I have some more
	questions concerning your replies.

>>"Hold fast to the traditions you received, whether by word of mouth or by
>>letter." (2 Thes 2:15, NIV)

        How does this provide scriptural basis for praying to the departed
        in Christ?  Isn't Paul talking about the traditions imparted by
        Christ and the apostles?  If not, how are we to know whose
        traditions are valid and whose are not?	

>>Can you provide a Scriptural basis for insisting that only a Scriptural
>>basis is acceptable?

        Isn't the Bible is rife with admonitions against the traditions of
        men and extrabiblical doctrines?  If we are to accept the doctrines
        of men in place of or besides those breathed by the Holy Spirit in
        scripture, who shall we trust?  Where will this lead us?  

>>Remember when Jesus said, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani" on the cross, and
>>some people thought he was calling Elijah?
>>They are referring to a Jewish tradition that Elijah would come and help

        We know that Jesus is calling to His father in this passage, not to
        Elijah.  Didn't Jesus lambaste his people them for the traditions
        whose obvservances they placed ahead of prophecy, breathed by the
        Holy Spirit through the prophets and recorded in Scripture?  Didn't
        Jesus say that, by adding new cloth to a torn garment, "the rent is
        made worse" in reference to adding the old traditions to the new
        covenant?

>>this.  As explained in the four notes I posted from my Eastern Orthodox
>>friend (who mentioned some Scriptural support), those who died in the Old
>>Testament were dead, but those who die in Christ, and the righteous dead in
>>the Old Testament, are now not dead, they are alive.

	Indeed, God is the God of the living.  And "to be absent from the
	body is to be present with the Lord" for a believer.  However, only
	Christ can be mediator (I used the right word this time ;^) between
	God and man.  Why petition anyone else?  Jesus also said, "none come
	unto the Father but by me."  How can this be reconciled with
	praying to the saints, baptismal regeneration, or any other
	doctrine that adds something to Christ for salvation?

>>How about the bronze serpent, which God promised, if anyone looked to it,
>>they would be healed?  Is there then not a distinction between praying to an
>>image and an image being a means of grace?

        Did anyone bow or pray to it?  They were required only to look to
        it.  Bronze is the symbol of judgement and the serpent is the
        metaphor for sin, making this icon "sin judged", the type of what
        Christ became for us on the cross.  Indeed this image became a
        means of grace.  What then, does the Bible contradict itself when
        the Moses who prophesied that those bitten by snakes in the
        wilderness should look to this image for healing, is the same Moses
        who condemned the children of Israel for worshipping the golden
        calf?  Is there not a distinction here between *bowing* and 
        *praying* before an icon and *looking-to* an icon typifying Christ
        on the cross?  Where in prophecy are we directed to look *today* to
        any icon for healing? Hasn't this prophecy been fullfilled at the
        cross?
	
>>No. It says he's the only _mediator_.  Do you ever pray for one of your
>>friends?  Praying for one another is intercession, as Paul testifies.  Again
>>refer to the series I posted from my Orthodox friend (.158-.162).

	Thank you for the correction for the use of terms.  Yes I pray for
	my friends and family.  None of them prays to me to pray for them,
	and it would be awkward for them to do so.  Jesus said to "ask in
	my name", not in Abraham's name, nor David's name, nor Athenasius'
	name.  Should we not "live by every word that proceedeth from the
	mouth of God" and not of men or their traditions?

If not, who _is_ Jesus's mother?

        Is there a distinction between Jesus' physical body and the Second
        Person of the Trinity God who inhabits that body?  Does being the
        mother of Jesus' physical body make Mary the mother of the Second
        person in the Trinity or even the entire Godhead? If Mary is the
        mother of God, is Mary then greater than God to be His mother? 
        Does God have to honor and obey his mother, as He tells us to do to
        our parents in His holy Word?  Is God a respecter of persons?
	Doesn't this doctrine make a lot of scripture contradict itself?

>>You cannot deny that Mary is the Mother of God without denying that Jesus is
>>fully, completely, and perfectly God Incarnate.

	Why?

>>Scripture says that Christ
>>created all things: therefore he created his own mother.

        Agreed.  He created the mother of the physical body He inhabits,
        not the mother of His being.  He preexisted her.  His virgin birth
        was to be a sign to that generation that the Messiah had come.  Not
        to chose someone to be God's mother.  After all, did he not
        manifest Himself in a physical body as Melchisedec? When we were
        created in our mother's wombs, our beings did not preexist our
        conception. Among the differences between us and Christ is that we
        have everlasting life, starting at a point and stretching into
        infinity, while He is eternal, having no beginning and no end.
        However, because God exists outside of the dimension of time, which
        is just another of His creations, he knows each of us personally
        eternally.

>>Do not think like the pagans think when they refer to parents of gods.  A
>>mother is someone who bears an incarnate human being.  Mary no more created
>>God than your mother created you.  However, God was conceived in Mary, God
>>dwelt in Mary's womb, God was born of Mary, God nursed at Mary's breasts.
>>Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

        Indeed Mary is deserving of special honor among men, not as a
        person, but for the office she attained to bear the Messiah.   In
        the effort to avoid the unpleasant associations with pagan "mothers
        of gods" you mentioned above, Evangelical Christianity tends to
        keep unecessarily distant from her. However, there is little
        mention of her in the New Testament, and nowhere does it say we
        should build statues of her (or anyone else) and pray to her (or
        anyone else other than GOd through Jesus). Even the altars in the
        old testament were not to be made from hand-hewn stone, that they
        would bear no semblance of man's handiwork when prayers, offerings,
        or sacrifices were made.

>>No, the Bible says that the pastor bust be the husband of BUT one wife, meaning
>>married no more than once.  St. Paul would be rather shocked to hear you say
>>that he could not be a pastor.  He might even be indignant since he instructed
>>his hearers that celibacy was a superior state for a man of God than marriage.
>>And Jesus might be upset, too, because he said of celibacy, "Let him who can
>>accept this, accept it."

	Jesus was here on business, not to make a family.  Indeed there is
	no evidence that Paul was ever married.  However, many of the other
	apostles were married.  As for what the bible says,

	1 Tim 3:2
		A bishop then, must be blameless.  The husband of one wife,...
	1 Tim 3:4
		One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
		subjection with all gravity.
	1 Tim 3:5
                For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
                he take care of the church of God?

        This was written by Paul under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. Paul
        was an evangelist, an itinerant preacher, not a pastor or bishop.
        As for those other verses you mentioned, wasn't Paul speaking of
        ministries other than pastoring that might be better served by
        celibates?  Didn't he follow up with saying that it was better to
	marry than to burn with lust and get into trouble?  And what about
	the following, also written by Paul?

	1 Tim 4:1
		Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times
		some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
		spirits and doctrines of devils;
	1 Tim 4:2
                Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared
                with a hot iron;
	1 Tim 4:3
                Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats
                which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
                them which know the truth.
	
        To paraphrase Paul; What then?  Does the Bible contradict itself?
	God Forbid.  For if the Bible contradicts itself, then our faith
	is vain.  And if our faith is vain, then we are men most miserable.

	Peace,
		Tony

    Keep writing folks, this is interesting.
    
    Re: praying to dead christians...
    
    My _primary_ reason for avoiding it is that I don't believe they can
    hear me if I do so.  Is there any scripture to challenge my belief?
    
    I know that people don't hear me when I "talk" silently to them, or if
    they are out of earshot when I speak.  The dead christians are not
    present here - I can't see them, feel them, or observe any effects
    caused by them.  Therefore they cannot hear me.
    
    I know from scripture that God does hear me when I talk to him.
    (Hallelujah!)
    
    I have other, secondary, reasons for avoiding talking to dead
    christians, such as have been raised already... but my primary reason
    seems to be the most important practical barrier for me.
    
    James

RE:             <<< Note 276.176 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                             -< Angels and bowing >-

	Hi, Eric.  Please forgive the time warp again.

Re: .175


>>there is no real
>>distinction between praying to someone and praying with someone -- for when
>>Catholics as saints to intercede for us, they are asking them to pray with
>>us and for us just as we ask one another to pray for us.  When we "pray to
>>saints" -- an unfortunate term in today's language -- we are simply asking
>>them to pray with us to God.

        But, how can they hear you from heaven?  They are with God, but
        they are not omniscient and omnipresent like God.  I still don't
        see any scriptural basis for this.  Isn't it better to pray to God
        through Jesus, direct-connect, together with those still living
        that can hear and share your concerns and intercede (right usage
        that time %^) for you?

..> Don't the angels in the bible correct men when they bow to them 
..> (Revelation et al)?

	Sorry for the incorrect usage of the word bow.  I meant "worship".

>>We don't pray to them as if they had the power to change our destiny or
>>affect our life or circumstances.  We ask them to pray for us as we ask one
>>another to pray for us.

	Again, how can they hear you from heaven?  Is it not better to
	share these things with your brothers and sisters here on earth
	that can hear you?  Again, where is the scriptural basis for this?

>>There has a thread here, by the way, on the distinction between the Catholic
>>form of worship and the Protestant form of worship.  Catholics offer sacrifice,
>>the one completed sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Eucharist -- and it

	If Christ's sacrifice were completed at the cross, why do we need
	to repeat it?  Is not this aspect of the law fullfilled in Christ?

>>Because Protestants do not
>>worship through sacrifice, they tend to confuse prayer with worship.  But we
>>as Catholics sacrifice only to God, which is proof that we worship only God --
>>not that sacrifice is the only way to worship, but it is clear within
>>Catholicism that worship belongs to God alone, for this reason.

        First, I do not consider myself a Protestant.  May faith has
        nothing to do with protesting anything, but to profess the
        salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner undeservingly
        saved by the precious blood of Jesus.

        I don't believe that I confuse worship with prayer.  Worship is
        loving God and obeying God with a glad heart.  Worship is something
        we should do all the time.  Prayer is giving acknowledgement,
        confession, thanks, and supplication to God.  We should also pray
        all the time.

        Church is the local assembly where God calls us to gather ourselves
        together in fellowship, prayer and song, to hear the "foolishness
        of preaching" in order to learn how to apply God's principals from
        His Word to our daily lives, to edify and exhort our brothers and
        sisters, and to participate in the interactive study of God's word
        in Sunday School.  

>>Does it forbid asking people to pray for us?

        Once again, how will they hear us without God's intervention?  And
        if God has to intervene for this anyway, why not just pray directly
        to Him or get someone who can hear you to join you?  Unless I can
        talk to them personally, I cannot ask my brothers and sisters in
        Italy to pray for me.  But I can talk to God from anywhere at any
        time.  And if I need a brother to assist me in prayer, I can go see
        him or call him on the phone.  I still see no scriptural examples
	of any Child of the Living God praying to anyone but the Living
	God.

	Respectfully, and in peace,
		Tony

	Greetings, again.

	I revisited my usage of the word "bow" in connection with idols.
	God makes no distinction between bowing to idols and worshipping
	them.  In fact, He equates bowing to images with hatred of God.
	Consider the following passage:

	Ex 20:4
		Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
		likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is
		in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
		earth:
	Ex 20:5
		Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for
		I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
		of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
		generation of them that hate me;

	In order to make sure we've got it right, God repeats this verbatim
	in Deuteronomy 5:8-9.

        If we are not to make any graven images of anything in heaven
	above, then that would have to include the saints, Mary, and even
	Jesus Himself.  Furthermore, God equates bowing to such images with
	hatred of Him.  Tell you what, I don't want to stir the anger of a
	jealous God.  If it's doubtful, don't do it.  We are to "avoid all
	appearance of evil."  That means, don't even "appear" to be doing
	it, even if you mean to be doing something else.

	Peace to you all,
		Tony

    RE:180

    Your taking the verses out of context here. God was speaking in the
    context of worshiping other gods. He was commanding that we shall not
    create and worship these false gods. 

    According to the way your using it, having statues and pictures made of our
    loved ones would be against the first commandment. Its not, unless we
    make them our god and worship them as such.

    Jim

RE:   <<< Note 276.181 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

	Leviticus 26:1
		Ye shall make no idols nor graven image, neither rear you
		up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of
		stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD
		your God.

        What other context can be construed from these verses?  In what way
        are they out of context?  The context is that we are a disobedient
        and adulterous people, predisposed to acts of spiritual adultery.

        From what is said in these verses, and in their context, God
        disapproves of bowing to these images.  Do you bow before the
        photographs of family and busts of your ancestors?  It is not out
        of context to say that God abhors this and considers it hatred of
        Him.  As for me, I will not provoke God by bowing to any image or
        icon.  How can you read these verses and not get the willies when
	bowing in front of a statue?

        If you are praying to what the statue represents, it still has the
        appearance (especially to unbelievers) of praying to the statue,
        which is evil.  We are to "avoid all appearance of evil."  We are
        not to do anything that may cause a brother to stumble or encourage
        the scoffers.  How can God's intent in this matter be construed any
        other way?

        An idol is any thing that displaces God in your spiritual life.
        Prayer is to be directed to God, not anyone else or anything else. 
        I repeat, how can God's intent in this matter be construed any
        other way?

        How can these things be so important that you would risk the wrath
        of God by bowing to them?  Does this not make them idols by
	default?  How does bowing to these things bring glory to God?  How
	does it win souls for Christ?  Are we not to differentiate
	ourselves from practitioners of paganism?

	God's peace and understanding to you all,
		Tony
		

RE:	<<< Note 276.172 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>

>>"Hold fast to the traditions you received, whether by word of mouth or by
>>letter." (2 Thes 2:15, NIV)

>        How does this provide scriptural basis for praying to the departed
>        in Christ?  Isn't Paul talking about the traditions imparted by
>        Christ and the apostles?  If not, how are we to know whose
>        traditions are valid and whose are not?	

We know whose traditions are valid and whose are not because Christ promised
that he would lead the church as a whole into all truth (John 16:13), call to
mind all that he taught them (John 14:26), and would not let His Word depart
from their mouths (Isaiah 59:21).  From this we can determine that Christ has
never let his teachings get lost, but has always preserved them and provided a
means of discerning them.  This is done primarily when all of the bishops of
the church gather in council with one another, seek the Holy Spirit, and agree
upon a decision.

Praying to the departed in Christ was a solid part of Christian teaching, not
doubted by any orthodox Christian, until the Reformation.  It was taught always
and everywhere and did not start in one place and spread to others.

Actually we as Catholics _do_ have Scriptural support for praying to the dead,
but it's in a book that is in our bible but is not in yours, 1 Maccabees, I
think.

>        Isn't the Bible is rife with admonitions against the traditions of
>        men and extrabiblical doctrines?  If we are to accept the doctrines
>        of men in place of or besides those breathed by the Holy Spirit in
>        scripture, who shall we trust?  Where will this lead us?  

Again, I'd point out that first of all, the Bible condemns the traditions
_of men_, which implies that there are other traditions, traditions of God we
might say, that are not condemned.  If you know of a place where Scripture
admonishes against extrabibilical doctrines are condemned, I'd like to know,
because as I pointed out later, Scripture actually commands us to obey the
traditions we received from the Apostles.

>        We know that Jesus is calling to His father in this passage, not to
>        Elijah.  Didn't Jesus lambaste his people them for the traditions
>        whose obvservances they placed ahead of prophecy, breathed by the
>        Holy Spirit through the prophets and recorded in Scripture?  Didn't
>        Jesus say that, by adding new cloth to a torn garment, "the rent is
>        made worse" in reference to adding the old traditions to the new
>        covenant?

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for "nullifying the Word of God" by their
traditions -- meaning, that they focused so much on obeying the letter of the
law in some areas that they didn't obey it in others.  For example, when Jesus
makes that comment, he makes it in reference to the rabbis excusing certain
people from honoring their parents by one of their traditions.

Jesus however does not wholly reject Jewish tradition -- in fact it's rather
remarkable that many of the things that Jesus taught that we think were new
because we do not find them in Scripture, were in fact not new at all to his
listeners: they were all part of Jewish tradition. Jesus's teachings on the
afterlife, judgment, heaven and Hell, "to the measure that you forgive, you
will be forgiven," the Resurrection, and so forth were all part of extra-
biblical Jewish tradition.

>	Indeed, God is the God of the living.  And "to be absent from the
>	body is to be present with the Lord" for a believer.  However, only
>	Christ can be mediator (I used the right word this time ;^) between
>	God and man.  Why petition anyone else?  

"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." (James 5:16).
Paul commands us to intercede for one another.  This is why we petition one
another for prayer, both those who live in Christ on earth and those who live
in Christ in heaven.

> Jesus also said, "none come unto the Father but by me."  How can this be
> reconciled with praying to the saints, baptismal regeneration, or any other
> doctrine that adds something to Christ for salvation?

Because Christ works _through_ these things.  When we are baptized, it is 
really Christ who baptizes, and it is Christ's grace and by Christ's death
and resurrection that baptism saves us (Cf. Romans 6:5).  The prayers of 
saints go to Christ, and it is Christ who answers them and accomplishes our
wishes.  It is Christ's sacrifice that we receive through the Eucharist.  All
of the sacraments are channels of grace through which Christ works.  None of
this adds to Christ's work, but rather it works through Christ's work, because
without Christ's work, without Christ's grace, none of this would have any
meaning.

>>How about the bronze serpent, which God promised, if anyone looked to it,
>>they would be healed?  Is there then not a distinction between praying to an
>>image and an image being a means of grace?

>        Did anyone bow or pray to it?  

Catholics do not pray to images!  Nor do we bow to them!  The prayer and honor
is directed to the saint whom the image represents.  It would be rather absurd
for us to think that Saint So-and-So dwells in this statue or IS this statue!
The pagans pray to idols because they believe the idols themselves have power.
We do not believe statues have power; we simply use them as visual aids to
focus our attention.

> Is there not a distinction here between *bowing* and *praying* before an icon
> and *looking-to* an icon typifying Christ on the cross?  Where in prophecy
> are we directed to look *today* to any icon for healing? Hasn't this prophecy
> been fullfilled at the cross?

Paul's handkerchief wrought healing -- Acts 19:12.  I'm not sure by what
Scriptural basis you indicate that Christ's death on the cross abolished any
usefulness of healing through an icon.  In fact, Christ's incarnation proved
one thing, and that is that God works through matter.  Some Protestants are
nearly Gnostic in their condemnation of matter: Matter is evil!  God doesn't
work through matter! God is spirit!  No, God is incarnate, and God's incar-
nation proves that he works through matter.   When Jesus healed, he put mud
on people's eyes, he touched them, he told them to wash in water, and so forth.
All of this is sacramental, and indicates that contrary to what you say, God
does indeed work through matter to heal.

>	Thank you for the correction for the use of terms.  Yes I pray for
>	my friends and family.  None of them prays to me to pray for them,
>	and it would be awkward for them to do so.  

The word "pray" means to ask; if they ask you to pray for them, then you can
also say that they pray to you to pray for them, as Tony Z. explained.

> Jesus said to "ask in my name", not in Abraham's name, nor David's name, nor
> Athenasius' name.  

This is why we always pray in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, and never in som Saint's name.

> Should we not "live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God" and
> not of men or their traditions?

The words that come from the mouth of God come to us through Sacred Tradition,
which is to be distinguished from the traditions of men.  Again I'd point out
that Scripture refers to the Word of God as something oral and handed down,
not confined to the written page.

>        Is there a distinction between Jesus' physical body and the Second
>        Person of the Trinity God who inhabits that body?  Does being the
>        mother of Jesus' physical body make Mary the mother of the Second
>        person in the Trinity or even the entire Godhead? 

Do you introduce your mother to people by saying, "This is the mother of my
body," or do you say, "This is my mother"?  Mary most certainly was the mother
of the Second Person of the Trinity, even though she did not create his 
person.  Motherhood indicates a relationship between persons as well as a 
generation.  Mary was the mother of the God-man in every way that the woman
who bore you is your mother and the woman who bore me is my mother. 

>If Mary is the mother of God, is Mary then greater than God to be His mother? 

Is your mother greater than you? Why do you think like the pagans and assume
that because Mary is the Mother of God, she is superior to God?

>        Does God have to honor and obey his mother, as He tells us to do to
>        our parents in His holy Word?  Is God a respecter of persons?
>	Doesn't this doctrine make a lot of scripture contradict itself?

Two principles.  1) Jesus fulfilled the Law in every way, including the 
commandment to honor his father and mother.  2) We imitate Christ.

>>You cannot deny that Mary is the Mother of God without denying that Jesus is
>>fully, completely, and perfectly God Incarnate.

>	Why?

Why do you make things so complicated? 1) Mary is the mother of Jesus -- this
much is proved by Scripture.  Scripture does not say that Mary is the mother
of the body of Jesus, it says she is the mother of Jesus. 2) Jesus is God,
fully, completely, and perfectly.  3) Transitively, Mary is the Mother of God.
Quod erat demonstrandum.  She is not the mother of the Father, or of the 
Spirit, or of the Trinity, but of Christ; but in the 4th century, a man named
Arius (forefather of the Jehovah's Witnesses) denied that we could call Mary
the Mother of God, and he did this to deny that Jesus was fully God.  He
wanted to use "Mother of Christ"; but because in the ensuing dispute this
term became associated with Arianism, and because the church wanted to
emphasize the full and completely deity of Christ, the term Mother of God
became a means of reminding everyone of who Jesus was.

>        Agreed.  He created the mother of the physical body He inhabits,
>        not the mother of His being.  He preexisted her.  His virgin birth
>        was to be a sign to that generation that the Messiah had come. . .

Agreed.

>        keep unecessarily distant from her. However, there is little
>        mention of her in the New Testament, and nowhere does it say we
>        should build statues of her (or anyone else) and pray to her (or
>        anyone else other than GOd through Jesus). 

Not that we particularly care that Scripture doesn't mention this, given that
we do not regard sola Scriptura as Biblical.

>	Jesus was here on business, not to make a family.  Indeed there is
>	no evidence that Paul was ever married.  However, many of the other
>	apostles were married.  

So are many of our priests, and there have even been Popes and bishops in the
past that were married.  

>	1 Tim 3:2
>		A bishop then, must be blameless.  The husband of one wife,...

My NIV says 'husband of BUT one wife,' that is, one wife is a limit -- not a
minimum.

>	1 Tim 3:4
>		One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
>		subjection with all gravity.

Does this mean that pastors must have children, too?

>	1 Tim 3:5
>                For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
>                he take care of the church of God?

Does this mean that he _had_ to have a family as a requirement for ministry,
or just that if he did have a family, he should rule it well?

>        This was written by Paul under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. Paul
>        was an evangelist, an itinerant preacher, not a pastor or bishop.
>        As for those other verses you mentioned, wasn't Paul speaking of
>        ministries other than pastoring that might be better served by
>        celibates?  Didn't he follow up with saying that it was better to
>	 marry than to burn with lust and get into trouble?  

You cannot prove this.  He also says elsewhere that those who are celibate
are concerned about the work of God and not the concerns of the world; this
would indicate that he wanted those in important ministries, probably 
pastorates, to be celibate.  

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
. . . I wish that all men were as I am" (i.e. unmarried) (1 Cor 7:1,7)

"An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please
the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world --
how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided. . . I am saying
this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right
way in undivided devotion to the Lord." (1 Cor 7:32-33,35)

"So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry
her does even better.  A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But
if her husband dies, she is free to mary anyone she wishes, but he must belong
to the Lord.  In my judgment, she is happier if she says as she is--and I think
that I too have the Spirit of God." (vv.38-40)

This, too, is inspired Scripture.

Interestingly enough, I've heard a number of accounts of how difficult the
pastorate is on the pastor's marriage and how high the rate of marital 
difficulties is for pastors.  And I've seen first hand in a Protestant church
the great difficulty the pastor had fulfilling his obligations both to his
church and to his family.  The syndrome afflicting children of pastors is
so widespread it has a name: PK syndrome, or "Preacher's Kid." In seeing this,
I saw the wisdom in Paul's words concerning how a married man is worried
about worldly things instead of the things of God.  Catholic priests have
immense freedom to do their work by being celibate.

Whether or not pastors should be celibate, it remain true that evangelical
Protestants not only do not cultivate the Scripturally-supported notion of
being consecrated to virginity for the sake of the Lord, but even hold it in
serious disdain. I find it interesting to note that even in Scripture, we
find the notion of a group of consecrated unmarried widows: the germ of today's
Catholic convent.

>And what about the following, also written by Paul?

>	1 Tim 4:3
>                Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats
>                which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
>                them which know the truth.

Honestly, this is nothing but a lame, cheap shot.  First of all, if you study
the background of the New Testament, you see that the first serious heresy the
Apostles fought was Gnosticism: and Gnostics taught that matter was evil, and
because matter was evil, marriage was evil and to be forbidden (sex, however,
was OK, outside of marriage.)  They also commanded people to abstain from
certain foods.  All the time, by the way, not merely on Friday.

This verse, then, applies to the Gnostics, as do a significant number of
warnings in the later books of Scripture.  It does not apply to Catholics,
because first of all, there is no "forbidding of marriage": Catholic priests in
the Latin Rite (but not in the Eastern Rites) are required to take a voluntary
vow of celibacy, but no one is forced to be a priest.  Second of all, while you
may think you have us on the "abstaining from meats" part, I think Paul was
referring to those who categorically regarded certain foods as evil and
commanded them to be abstained from, not those who voluntarily at certain times
abstained from meat, not because meat is evil, but out of honor for the death
of the Lord and as a sacrificial offering.

We base our practice of celibacy on Paul's words, so I hardly think he would
condemn the practice.

My NIV says "command people to abstain from certain foods."  This is also a
charge that can be levied against fundamentalists who forbid people to drink
wine!

> Note 276.179
> Re: .175

>        But, how can they hear you from heaven?  They are with God, but
>        they are not omniscient and omnipresent like God.  

Cf. +.1 -- maybe God relays the message to them for us!

> I still don't see any scriptural basis for this.  

Cf. Rev 5:8.

>	If Christ's sacrifice were completed at the cross, why do we need
>	to repeat it?  Is not this aspect of the law fullfilled in Christ?

Who said anything about repeating the sacrifice?  I spoke at length about this
earlier; cf. .104, .105, .107, 97.91 .96, .97, .100.

>        First, I do not consider myself a Protestant.  May faith has
>        nothing to do with protesting anything, but to profess the
>        salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner undeservingly
>        saved by the precious blood of Jesus.

Sure sounds like you're protesting the Catholic faith to me!

>        I don't believe that I confuse worship with prayer.  Worship is
>        loving God and obeying God with a glad heart.  

So does that mean you worship your parents, too, since you (ostensibly) love
them and obey them?  Probably not, so what _is_ worship?

>        Once again, how will they hear us without God's intervention?  And
>        if God has to intervene for this anyway, why not just pray directly
>        to Him or get someone who can hear you to join you?  

"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  I'd rather have
St. Paul or St. Francis praying for me than Joe Blow.  Besides, many of the
saints worked miracles here on earth, and continue to work miracles for us
in heaven.  In fact, today, before the Catholic Church will canonize any saint,
at least two miracles must be attributed to that person through their inter-
cession. Sounds better than the results I get from people I know on earth!

.178
>    My _primary_ reason for avoiding it is that I don't believe they can
>    hear me if I do so.  Is there any scripture to challenge my belief?
    
>    I know that people don't hear me when I "talk" silently to them, or if
>    they are out of earshot when I speak.  The dead christians are not
>    present here - I can't see them, feel them, or observe any effects
>    caused by them.  Therefore they cannot hear me.

I forgot to point out Revelation 5:8, where the 24 elders before God are 
holding bowls of incense before God, which it says are the prayers of the 
saints.

I overcame this objection by thinking, if they cannot hear me if I merely
speak, surely I can _ask_ God to relay my message to them, and I can also
say that when I ask them for their intercession, implicit in that is a prayer
to God to relay the message to them asking them to pray for me!

RE:                       <<< Note 276.187 by KOLBE::eje >>>
                              -< saints to James >-

>>I forgot to point out Revelation 5:8, where the 24 elders before God are 
>>holding bowls of incense before God, which it says are the prayers of the 
>>saints.

        Yes, prayers *of* the saints, not *to* the saints.  There are
        saints living on the earth as well as in heaven.  A saint is anyone
        who has set himself apart from the world and unto God through the
        salavation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. 
        Where does it say in scripture that one has to have died to be a
        saint?

>>I overcame this objection by thinking, if they cannot hear me if I merely
>>speak, surely I can _ask_ God to relay my message to them, and I can also
>>say that when I ask them for their intercession, implicit in that is a prayer
>>to God to relay the message to them asking them to pray for me!

	Why not ask God directly?  While you've got His ear, why not just
	give Him your supplications?   Instead of using our minds to
	overcome disparities between our practices and traditions on one
	hand, and the scripture on the other, why not simply follow the
	word of God?   If it's doubtful, don't do it.  

        I know, brothers and sisters, that I cannot sway your hearts in
        these matters.  Only the Holy Spirit of God can do that.  I implore
        you, however, to seek the answers in God's Word, not traditions or
        customs.  For the Bible tells us that the Bible itself is breathed
	from the Holy Spirit (see 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21), the Holy
	Word of God.  To scoffers, this is circular logic, which renders it
	moot.  If that is indeed the case, then we have nothing upon which
	to build our faith.

	Peace,
		Tony
	

    RE:182

    My NAB says; 
    "Do not make false gods for yourselves. You shall not erect
     an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone
     figure FOR WORSHIP in your land." Leviticus 26.

    Again the context of the text is about worship. Bowing to a statues in 
    worship of it, is what is forbidden. Catholics do not worship statues, 
    even statues of Christ are not worshiped.

     Jim

Another ironic thing that I find: the same folks who emphasize so strongly that
the Old Testament laws have passed away, and that the Ten Commandments have
been abolished and replaced by Christ, and that we no longer live according to
the Law but according to grace, are the first people to bring up the Law of
Moses when it comes to "graven images."  The same people who insist that we no
longer need to obey the Sabbath point out the Law of Moses in the condemnation
of "graven images."

I'd point out that the reason God forbad graven images in the Old Testament is,
as God explains, that God is not in form of anything in heaven or on earth,
and that there is no earthly form that can represent God.  However -- this all
changed with Christ, "who is the image of the invisible God."  Christ WAS the
image of God: Christ WAS the icon of God, the form of God, and God incarnate.
God did in Christ take the form of an earthly image.

Not only that, those who are in Christ become the "image of God": we become
"partakers of the divine nature" and are conformed to the image of Christ.
This of course is not perfected until we are taken into glory: but those saints
who are now in glory now perfectly reflect the image of God, and so one could
argue that because of the incarnation, and because the saints in heaven are
perfected in the image of God, we can and should honor these images of God in
heaven.

I would also echo Richard's sentiments that the prohibition you quote is
against bowing down to foreign gods -- which of course we should not do. But
since we do not regard statues of saints or saints themselves as gods, this
is not covered by the prohibition, and, as I mentioned, this concept of God
not taking the form of anything on earth now no longer applies since God took
human form at the incarnation.

Eric

RE:             <<< Note 276.186 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                                 -< saints 4 >-

>>Cf. +.1 -- maybe God relays the message to them for us!

	Then why not just talk to Him?

>>Cf. Rev 5:8.

	These are prayers *of* the saints, not *to* them.

>>Who said anything about repeating the sacrifice?  I spoke at length about this
>>earlier; cf. .104, .105, .107, 97.91 .96, .97, .100.

	I will try to read these over the weekend.

>>Sure sounds like you're protesting the Catholic faith to me!

	Is the Catholic faith based upon praying to saints and erecting
	images thereof?  Isn't that what we are discussing?  I repeat, my
	faith is not *based* upon protesting anything.  There are things
	against which I protest based upon my faith.  Let us not confuse
	cause with effect.

>>So does that mean you worship your parents, too, since you (ostensibly) love
>>them and obey them?  Probably not, so what _is_ worship?

	Allow me to clarify.  To worship God is to love and obey Him gladly
	above all others, including parents, children, loved ones, tv
	shows, sports icons and events, music, sports, entertainment ....
	None of these must interfere with your obedience to or love of God.

>        Once again, how will they hear us without God's intervention?  And
>        if God has to intervene for this anyway, why not just pray directly
>        to Him or get someone who can hear you to join you?  

>>"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  I'd rather have
>>St. Paul or St. Francis praying for me than Joe Blow.

	Agreed.  But Paul and Francis are with the Lord and cannot hear
	you.

>>Besides, many of the
>>saints worked miracles here on earth, and continue to work miracles for us
>>in heaven.

	Where is the scriptural evidence for this?

In fact, today, before the Catholic Church will canonize any saint,
>>at least two miracles must be attributed to that person through their inter-
>>cession. Sounds better than the results I get from people I know on earth!

	Where is canonization in scripture?  

Hi Eric,

A lot of writing going in here, which I'm having a job to keep up with!  
And cannot attempt to address in the time I have available, but there are 
a couple of points which struck me in 276.183 .

Concerning traditions, there are two things being referred to by this, ie 
activities and beliefs.  You claim that reference to the 'traditions of men' 
imply that there are valid 'traditions of God'.  If so, these are what is 
listed in scripture as the feasts etc to be observed, in the Old Testament, 
then in the New Testament we have Baptism and Communion as the only 
God-ordained 'traditions'.

As far as beliefs go, :
� Jesus's teachings on the afterlife, judgment, heaven and Hell, "to the
� measure that you forgive, you will be forgiven," the Resurrection, and so
� forth were all part of extra- biblical Jewish tradition. 

ie, He gave the general knowledge with the divine confirmation, like the 
snippet from Enoch in Jude 14-15.  This isn't a license to accept any 
other extra-Biblical teaching.

� Actually we as Catholics _do_ have Scriptural support for praying to the dead,
� but it's in a book that is in our bible but is not in yours, 1 Maccabees, I
� think.

Jesus' instruction on prayer always tells us to pray to God, Who can answer 
our prayers. eg the LORD's prayer ('Our Father...'), the instruction of 
John 14:14, 16:23, and His own example in John 17...  Prayer acknowledges 
the superiority of the one prayed to.  While we may request each other to 
prayer for us, we do not pray *to* each other.  Luke 16:26 suggests to me 
that there is no communication between the living and the dead.  The other 
verse which springs to mind is Isaiah 8:19 :
 "When people tell you to consult meduims and spiritists, who whisper and 
  mutter, should not a people enquire of their God? Why consult the dead on 
  behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony!...

 - this conflict between the apocrypha and our Bible is one reason why we do 
not accept the apocrypha as holy writ.

� Catholics do not pray to images!  Nor do we bow to them!  The prayer and honor
� is directed to the saint whom the image represents.  It would be rather absurd

Eric, did you *mean* to say this?  Surely you do not really mean to pray
*to* another person (whether dead or alive), nor especially honour them
with worship?!

						God bless
								Andrew

RE:             <<< Note 276.190 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                                  -< statues >-

>>Another ironic thing that I find: the same folks who emphasize so strongly that
>>the Old Testament laws have passed away, and that the Ten Commandments have
>>been abolished and replaced by Christ,

	I do not believe any such thing.  Christ came to fulfill the law,
	not to destroy it.  All the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Him.
	We are all still holden to the moral law.
	
>>and that we no longer live according to
>>the Law but according to grace, are the first people to bring up the Law of
>>Moses when it comes to "graven images."

	We are saved by grace, not by obedience to the law.  Can you not
	see this distinction?  We are not saved by obedience to the law,
	but to do obedience to the law.  If you could be saved by obeying
	the law, then, when you got to heaven, you'd have to ask God to
	move over 'cuz there'd be two of you.

>>The same people who insist that we no
>>longer need to obey the Sabbath point out the Law of Moses in the condemnation
>>of "graven images."

        If you were still celbrating the sabbath, you would be doing it on
	Saturday.  Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man, man was
	not made for the sabbath.  

	Bowing before graven images is condemned by God.  There is no two
	ways about it.  

>>I'd point out that the reason God forbad graven images in the Old Testament is,
>>as God explains, that God is not in form of anything in heaven or on earth,
>>and that there is no earthly form that can represent God.  However -- this all
>>changed with Christ, "who is the image of the invisible God."  Christ WAS the
>>image of God: Christ WAS the icon of God, the form of God, and God incarnate.
>>God did in Christ take the form of an earthly image.

        Does Christ then fulfill application of the moral law?  Christ is
        the sacrificial Lamb, which is fulfillment of the ceremonial Law. 
        How does his manifestation in a human body nullify the first
        commandment?  Where does it say in scripture that Christ is the
	graven image to fulfill Exodus 20:4-5, as it says that he is the
	sacrificial Lamb fulfilling the ceremonial Law?  This reasoning is
	incongruous when inserted in context.

>>Not only that, those who are in Christ become the "image of God": we become
>>"partakers of the divine nature" and are conformed to the image of Christ.
>>This of course is not perfected until we are taken into glory: but those saints
>>who are now in glory now perfectly reflect the image of God, and so one could
>>argue that because of the incarnation, and because the saints in heaven are
>>perfected in the image of God, we can and should honor these images of God in
>>heaven.

	One could argue all he wants about this, but prohibition against
	idols still stands, as do those against adultery, homosexuality,
	abortion, marriage/divorce/remarriage, etc

>>I would also echo Richard's sentiments that the prohibition you quote is
>>against bowing down to foreign gods -- which of course we should not do. But
>>since we do not regard statues of saints or saints themselves as gods, this
>>is not covered by the prohibition, and, as I mentioned, this concept of God
>>not taking the form of anything on earth now no longer applies since God took
>>human form at the incarnation.

	What does it look like to the unsaved and even your brothers and
	sisters in Christ?  Why take the chance?  Why is this so important
	that you would allow it to muddle your testimony?

	Peace,
		Tony

    A question for devout Catholics,
    
    	Have you ever been to the Vatican?  Have you ever seen the MANY
    stores around the Vatican selling the brick-a-brack of the Catholic
    Church. Do (did!) you know who subsidizes those shops? Especially
    the "Stores of the Lord" shop found on the left hand (right hand if
    leaving the gates) side of the Citadel main folksway?
    
    Does it seem or feel inappropriate to be selling this sort of stuff? I
    mean does it feel "right" to be buying and selling "precious" articles
    of faith?
    
        Not to get too silly about this, but there is one store that
        professes it has crosses (about 1 inch square) made from the
        Gopher (?) wood of Noah's Ark. This same sold Vatican tickets...
        ;^)
    
        I was conducting a little business for the Citadel once upon a
        time and got the non-publicized tour of the country. I learned
        things that would make any God fearing Catholic bend ear.
    
         Trivia question: Does any one know why the Vatican was built
         First in Italy and secondly on the hill at which it stands?
         Any good Catholic that has paid attention in class should know
         the text book answers to these questions. Now how about ...
    
       PDM_not_being_entirely_serious_:^)
    

>>             <<< Note 276.185 by KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                                 -< saints 3 >-

>	Jesus was here on business, not to make a family.  Indeed there is

>>So are many of our priests, and there have even been Popes and bishops in the
>>past that were married.

	So where is the prohibition against marriage of pastors in the
	Bible?  Is this not a tradition of men started around 1000 AD?

>	1 Tim 3:2
>		A bishop then, must be blameless.  The husband of one wife,...

>>My NIV says 'husband of BUT one wife,' that is, one wife is a limit -- not a
>>minimum.

        I agree completely.  How does the verse I entered make you think
        that a pastor is entitled to more than one wife?  I was taught that
        a divorced/remarried man or a man who marries a divorced woman
        cannot be a pastor according to scripture.  Don't we agree on this
        point?

>	1 Tim 3:4

>>Does this mean that pastors must have children, too?

	I believe that's what it says.  Children are a heritage from the
	Lord (pslam 127, I think).

>	1 Tim 3:5
>                For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
>                he take care of the church of God?

>>Does this mean that he _had_ to have a family as a requirement for ministry,
>>or just that if he did have a family, he should rule it well?

        Sounds to me like a pastoral candidate demonstrates his worthiness
        in part with how he relates to his family.
	

>        This was written by Paul under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. Paul
>        was an evangelist, an itinerant preacher, not a pastor or bishop.
>        As for those other verses you mentioned, wasn't Paul speaking of
>        ministries other than pastoring that might be better served by
>        celibates?  Didn't he follow up with saying that it was better to
>	 marry than to burn with lust and get into trouble?  

>>You cannot prove this.  He also says elsewhere that those who are celibate
>>are concerned about the work of God and not the concerns of the world; this
>>would indicate that he wanted those in important ministries, probably 
>>pastorates, to be celibate.

	Please devote more study to this matter.  The Bible cannot
	contradict itself withour rendering our whole faith moot.  If you
	read the talk Paul had about celibacy in context (? Corinthians ?),
	you will swee that he continues by saying, even so, that it is
	better to marry than to burn with lust and get into trouble.

>>You cannot prove this.

	Is the Bible is insufficient as proof?  Are the traditions of men
	handed down (and probably distorted) by word of mouth better proof
	than the Bible?

>>"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
>>. . . I wish that all men were as I am" (i.e. unmarried) (1 Cor 7:1,7)

>>"An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please
>>the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world --
>>how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided. . . I am saying
>>this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right
>>way in undivided devotion to the Lord." (1 Cor 7:32-33,35)

        Is Paul really saying that he wishes no one would marry?   He is
        using the literary device of hyperbole, because he goes on to say
        that he's saying it for our own good, not to restrict us from
        marrying, but so we might not to allow our marriages to distract us
        from God's purpose in our lives.  

>>"So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry
>>her does even better.  A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But
>>if her husband dies, she is free to mary anyone she wishes, but he must belong
>>to the Lord.  In my judgment, she is happier if she says as she is--and I think
>>that I too have the Spirit of God." (vv.38-40)

        The first part of this again is hyperbole.  Else, Paul is saying
        that he wishes we would not marry, and if so there would be no
        children reared in Christian homes.  The second part is directed to
        widows to remain so, not as a prohibition, but as advice.

>>Interestingly enough, I've heard a number of accounts of how difficult the
>>pastorate is on the pastor's marriage and how high the rate of marital 
>>difficulties is for pastors.  And I've seen first hand in a Protestant

        Don't you think that such trouble provides an opportunity for the
        flock to pull together?  What is God really trying to do?  Do you
        know?  Celibates have problems, too, in at least the same
        proportion, if not greater, than marrieds.  Married pastors with
        families are scriptural.  

>>Whether or not pastors should be celibate, it remain true that evangelical
>>Protestants not only do not cultivate the Scripturally-supported notion of
>>being consecrated to virginity for the sake of the Lord, but even hold it in
>>serious disdain. I find it interesting to note that even in Scripture, we
>>find the notion of a group of consecrated unmarried widows: the germ of today's
>>Catholic convent.

        How many in the Catholic convent are widowed?  I do not find
        celibacy unscriptural, except as a bishop of a church, as the
        scripture clearly says through the hand of Paul, who you claim is
        the champion of celibacy in the pastorate.  This is a
	contradiction.

        
        Hi, Eric.
        
        I was unable to address your replies while I was at work, so I did
        a little study this weekend.  I do not have the time to address all
        the things you mentioned.  However, I'd be happy to get together
        with you, one-on-one, with nothing but the Bible, a concordance, a
        Hebrew and Greek lexicon, and the Holy Spirit of God.   I am not a
        Bible scholar, neither do I believe I can find all the answers. 
        But on the first order of faith and practice, the answers are clear
        enough for even me to understand.  I don't know where you live, but
        send me mail offline if you are interested.  I am learning, albeit
	slowly, that it is better to win a brother than an argument.

        If I have offended you in any way, I ask your forgiveness.  I am
        concerned as a brother that you would seek God's word, together
        with prayer to God that the Holy Spirit would reveal to you the
        truth in these matters as well as any other traditions.  Remember
        to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21), and to "study to shew thyself
        approved" (2 Tim 2:15).
        
        When asked if he defended the Bible, Spurgeon said something like,
        "Yes, as I would a lion.  I open the cage and let it out!"
        The Bible must be the only rule of faith and practice, because it
        is the word of God.  Here, I'll let the Bible speak for itself.
        
        2 Timothy 3 
        16  All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is]
        profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
        instruction in righteousness:
        17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
        all good works.
                  
        1 Peter 1
        20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
        any private interpretation.
        21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
        holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
        
        We are to measure all things against the Bible, remembering that
        parables, figures, and types do not make doctrine.  Each parable
        allegorically illustrates one truth.  It does not present new
        doctrines.  A figure is used to represent characteristics or
        reveal a pattern. The figure should not be considered identical to
        that which it represents.  Doctrine teaches us what we do, God's
        commands put into practice. 
        
        For example, it is a very different thing to say that Moses is a
        type of Jesus from saying that he is Jesus.  Is the parable of the
        sower talking about the saved or unsaved?  Jesus doesn't tell us.
        This parable illustrates one truth, to be aware of the things that
        distract people from serving God.  Jesus uses parables to clarify
        a doctrine, not to make new doctrine.
        
        In many places in the Bible, this is a very fine distinction, but
        if it is not observed, then the Bible will seem to be full of
        contradictions and inconsistencies, rendering moot our faith in
        the Jesus of the Bible.  I would venture that our differences, and
        most denominational differences, rest primarily in the degree to
        which we make this distinction and in which we accept the
        authority of the Bible.
        
        Remember that the God's word does not contradict itself.  God is
        not the author of confusion.  If you surmise a conflict in God's
        Word for which you cannot find a resolution, use a concordance with
        the Greek and Hebrew lexicon to assist you and wait on the Holy
        Spirit to guide you.  Use the cross-references in your bible to
        clarify the meaning of a text by seeing it in its immediate and
        global scopes. The Bible is it's own best commentary. 

        Respectfully,
             Tony
	     

        
        Here are some verses concerning salvation that contain neither
        baptism nor any figure thereof.  The forms of the verb "to
        believe" in these verses means to believe with the heart, soul,
        and mind.  Such belief will manifest itself in the life of the
        believer as good works.  Let us not confuse the cause with the
        effect.  Belief unto salvation causes good works, good works do
        not cause belief unto salvation.  Please read on.
        
          Psalms 3:8 
          Salvation [belongeth] unto the LORD: thy blessing [is] upon thy
          people. Selah.

          Psalms 13:5 
          But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy
          salvation.

          Isaiah 12:2 
          Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid:
          for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song;  he also is
          become my salvation.

          John 3
          16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
          Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
          everlasting life.
          17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
          world; but that the world through him might be saved.
          18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
          believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
          in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
                
          Acts 16:31
          Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and
          thy house.

          Romans 6:23 
          For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is]
          eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
        
          Romans 10:10
          For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;  and with
          the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

          Romans 10:13
          For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
          saved.

          2 Corinthians 7:10
          For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be
          repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

          Galatians 2:16 
          Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but
          by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus
          Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
          not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall
          no flesh be justified.

          Galatians 3:2 
          This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the
          works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

          Ephesians 2
          8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
          yourselves:  [it is] the gift of God:
          9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.

          Ephesians 1:13
          In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of
          truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye
          believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

        
        As an exercise, try to make salvation dependent on baptism by
        inserting the word "baptism" (or anything else) in place of or in
        addition to the dependency existing in each of the verses in the
        preceding note.  
        
        For example, in Romans 6:23:
             For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
             life through baptism.
        Or:
             For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
             life through Jesus Christ our Lord and baptism.
        
        See, if you add anything to or subtract anything from Jesus, you
        do not have the salvation of God as described in the Bible.  
        
        In Galatians 2:16, we are told that "by the works of the law shall
        no flesh be justified."  But in Romans 7:7, this same apostle
        Paul asks, "What shall we say then, is the law sin? God forbid."
        Paul is showing that if we are saved, we should obey the law, but
        that obedience to the law will not save us.  He is showing us not
        to confuse cause with effect.  

	If baptism is an act of obedience to God's law, then, according to
        God's word, it is meaningless unless we are first saved.  

        Now, let's have a look at a couple of the verses that were entered
        in a previous reply that seem to indicate the predication of salvation
        upon baptism.  Does the the Word of God contradict itself?

          1 Peter 3
           20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering
          of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
          wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.   
           21  The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now
          save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
          the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the
          resurrection of Jesus Christ:

        Verse 21 clarifies that baptism is a figure, and to make it
        clearer, Peter adds that baptism does not wash away the filth of
        the flesh, but is the demonstration of a good conscience toward God
        by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Again, it is Jesus that
        saves, not baptism.  Baptism is one's outward demonstration of
        accepting Jesus into one's heart as the Lord of one's life.  To say
        that salvation is predicated on baptism or good works is to confuse
        cause with effect.
       
        In baptism we are immersed and raised-up to identify with the
        death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  Noah and his family
        were not immersed in the flood, they were buoyed by it, as we who
        receive Christ as Lord are buoyed away from destruction and unto
        salvation by faith in His death, burial, and resurrection.  In this
        way is the flood a figure of our salvation.  The obedience Noah
        showed to God was a result of Noah's faith, not conversely.  

        As for Naaman, does anyone immerse baptismal candiates seven times
        %^) ?  Naaman said that there were cleaner rivers in his homeland,
        why did he have to wash in the Jordan?  Because God said so,
        through His prophet Elisha.  To be cleansed, Naaman had to immerse
        himself seven times in a muddy river as a demonstration of faith in
        God's word through His prophet.  It is not baptism that saves us,
        it is our faith.  As a figure of baptism, this text shows that it
        was Naaman's faith that cleansed him, not his immersion.  Else, we
        would all have to immerse ourselves seven times in the Jordan River
        to be saved.  After all, no other river would suffice, according to
        this text.  See the difference between a figure and a doctrine?

        Mark 16
          16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
          that believeth not shall be damned.
        
        Mark clarifies by saying "he that believeth not" is condemned,
        not "he that is not baptized".  See John 3:16-3:18.

        See, anyone can be baptized, but God knows what is in their hearts,
        what they truly believe.  Indeed, anyone can say, "I believe." Does
        that save them?  Not without a change in heart, a change in
        direction (repentence) from the ways of the world to the ways of
        God.  
         
        Respectfully, and in peace,
             Tony
        

	I apologize to those that took offense to the verse containing
	"forbidding to marry".  I was only trying to show that Paul was not
	a misogamist.

        The following verses make it clear that Paul did not preach against
        marriage. Furthermore, it is clear that he preached that the bishop
        (overseer, pastor) of a church must be married with children and
        have his family in good order.  Neither the bishop nor his wife can
        be divorced/remarried (one wife).  Deacons also have this
        requirement.

	Incidentally, when looking over the requirements for pastors and
	deacons, remember that it is hypocritical to expect these qualities
	in them without seeking to fulfill them in ourselves.  
        
        1 Cor 7             
        1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good
        for a man not to touch a woman.
        2  Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his
        own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

        Titus 1:6 
        If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful
        children not accused of riot or unruly.
        
        1 Timothy 3
        2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
        vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
        teach;
	3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
	patient, not a brawler, not coveteous,
	4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
	subjection with all gravity.
	5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
	take care of the church of God?)

        1 Timothy 3:12
        Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
        and their own houses well.
           
        Jesus did say, and Paul in the Holy Spirit corroborated, that some
        are called to be celibate.   Missionaries, itinerant preachers,
        evangelists, widowed, all may be celibate if they are called to be
        so by God.  This is between them and the Holy Spirit of God, it is
        not up to us to make any doctrine commanding such.

	Furthermore, it is clear from Scripture that those called to the
	pastorate are not called to be celibate.

	Respectfully,
		Tony
        

        It was said a few notes back that the resurrection was an oral
        tradition, that there was no scripture before Christ prophesying
        it.  Belief in the Resurrection was not an oral tradition.  These
        are just a few of the verses in the Old Testament that prophesied
        resurrection.   Read on.

          Job 19:25 

           25  For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he
          shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
           26  And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body],
          yet in my flesh shall I see God:
           27  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall
          behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed
          within me.

          Psalms 49:15 

           15. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the
          grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

          Isaiah 25:8 

           8  He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD
          will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of
          his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for
          the LORD hath spoken [it].

          Isaiah 26:19 

           19  Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body
          shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for
          thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast
          out the dead.

          Ezekiel 37:12 

           12  Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the
          Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and
          cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into
          the land of Israel.
           13  And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have
          opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of
          your graves,
           14  And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and
          I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that
          I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the
          LORD.

          Daniel 12:2 

           2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
          shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame
          [and] everlasting contempt.

          Hosea 13:14 

           14  I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will
          redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O
          grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid
          from mine eyes.

    re: last few
    
    If a pastor/shepherd/elder *must* be married and *must* have children,
    then Yeshua Himself was not eligible to be a shepherd of men.
    
    A pastor/shepherd/elder *MUST* meet certain conditions *if* married and
    *if* he has children.
    
    I think it's a twisting of Scriptures to say that a
    pastor/shepherd/elder either *must* or *must not* be married and have
    children.
    
    A former pastor of mine showed me a study he had done on this in the
    Greek of these passages to which you've referred...it was quite an
    enlightening experience for me!
    
    Steve

    re: -1
    
    I agree Steve.  The word that is implied is "IF".
       IF a pastor is married he *must* be the husband of but one wife...
    
    PDM

RE: .201

	Why then does 1 Timohty 3:2 say the bishop must be the husband of
	one wife, etc?  Doesn't the usage of the word "must" present an
	imperative?

	Tony
	

I just don't understand why people today think that we've misunderstood
the scriptures all these thousands of years.

2 Thess 2:15 seems clear to me: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold
fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of
mouth or by letter."

Why, suddenly and quite recently did groups of Christians decide that
asking for the intercessions of the saints was wrong?  Could it be for
the same reasons that today groups of people are deciding that biblical
morality is wrong?  God doesn't change, does he?

As an example of an ancient prayer to the saints, I provide the closing
blessing used in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which has been separated
from the rest of the Church since 451 AD in a dispute over the specific
wording of one element of the Council of Chalcedon (and the dispute is
over wording alone, and not over the meaning of the words).

This part of the Church has been separated from the rest for over 1500
years, and yet it holds to the tradition which most Christians believe
as taught by the Apostles in accordance with 2 Thess 2:15.

                            THE FINAL BLESSING
                                   from
                     The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil

May God have compassion upon us, bless us, manifest His face upon us and
have mercy upon us.  Lord, save Your people, bless Your inheritance, pasture
them and raise them up forever.  Exalt the horn of the Christians through
the power of the life-giving Cross, through the supplications and prayers
which our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary, makes
for us, and those of the three great holy luminaries Michael, Gabriel, and
Raphael; the four Incorporeal Beasts, the twenty four priests, all the
heavenly ranks; Saint John the Baptist, the hundred and forty four thousand,
our lords the fathers the apostles, the three holy youths, Saint Stephen;
the beholder-of-God St. Mark the evangelist, the holy apostle and martyr;
Saint George, Saint Theodore, Philopater Mercurius, Saint Abba Mina, and
the whole choir of the martyrs; our righteous father, the great Abba Antony,
the righteous Abba Paul, the three holy Abba Macarii, our father Abba John,
our father Abba Pishoi, our father Abba Paul of Tammoh, our Roman fathers
Maximus and Domitius, our father Abba Moses, the forty-nine martyrs and
the whole choir of the cross-bearers; the just, the righteous, all the wise
virgins, the angel of this blessed day; and the blessing of the holy
Theotokos first and last.

May their holy blessing, their grace, their might, their favour, their
love and their help be with us all forever.  Amen.

O Christ our God, King of peace, grant us Your peace, establish for us
Your peace, and forgive us our sins.  For Yours is the power, the glory,
the blessing and the might, forever.  Amen.

        One last thing.  Jesus is the founder of the church (the church
        planter of church planters), not the pastor of a local assembly. He
	was itinerant.  He did not "oversee" a local church.  He
        did refer to Himself as "the Good Shepherd", but He is the only one
        that can be good.  I don't know offhand where the verse is, but
        Jesus said to Bartimaeus something like, "Why dost thou call me
        good?  There is none good but God."   Since Jesus is God, He alone
        qualifies as "good."  The rest of us are sinners whose
        "righteousness is as filthy rags."

        Church planters (evangelists) may be celibate, but I believe that
        the Lord wants pastors of local assemblies to have a personal stake
        in them, as they would with their own families, and to set the
        example, be the lead, for the other families in the church.  Paul
        says that if he can't manage his family well, then how is he to
        manage a church.  Why would he say this if he didn't care whether
        pastors are family men?
	
	Peace,
		Tony
	

RE:             <<< Note 276.204 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
                  -< Tradition is Biblical; see 2 Thess 2:15 >-

	Meaning no disrespect, but why pray to a dead person when you can
	pray to The Living God?  Not all traditions are good.  Praying to
	the dead is not a good tradition, because it is not scriptural.

	Indeed the "continual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth
	much", but St. Paul and St. Francis are dead.  They are spirits,
	now, not men.  They will not be whole men again until the
	resurrection.

	Again, why is this tradition so important?  How does it bring
	anyone to salvation?  How does it bring glory to God?

	Tony

    Tony,
    
    Not being a Greek (or any other kind of) scholar, I can only tell you
    what those who have studied the texts in their original languages have
    put forth for consideration.
    
    As to Yeshua's being a "local" shepherd or not, his being itinerant
    didn't negate the fact that he personally shepherded at least the 12,
    something which your interpretation of the Scriptures wouldn't allow
    him to do.
    
    I have a couple other sources on this subject whose opinions are in
    print.  I won't be able to enter their writings until later in the week
    if you can wait.
    
    In closing, let me say that I agree that the practice of forbidding
    marriage for a pastor is errant; however, it is equally errant to
    demand it.  I understand the Scriptures to say that if a man is
    called to be a pastor and he has (or will have during the time of his
    shepherding) a wife and family, there are certain things that must be
    evident in his family's life for him to be considered capable of
    entering or remaining in the role of shepherd of G-d's people.
    
    Steve 

� "Why dost thou call me good?  There is none good but God."

I believe you're referring to Jesus' conversation with the rich young ruler 
in Mark 10:17-18, Luke 18:18-19

I agree that I would expect an effective oversight to at least include 
practical family management, though I understand the limitation to indicate 
'no more than one wife', rather than 'no more and no less'.  The injunction 
to marry in order to avoid [some measure] of temptation, as in 
1 Corinthians 7:9 certainly seems to be especially relevant in the position 
of fellowship responsibility over all types and situations of people.

							Andrew

>	Meaning no disrespect, but why pray to a dead person when you can
>	pray to The Living God?

Why not ask the saints who are with God to pray for you -- AND ALSO PRAY
TO GOD AS WELL?

>Praying to the dead is not a good tradition, because it is not scriptural.

Saying that a tradition is not good because it does not appear in the bible
is a direct contradiction of scripture -- which explicitly tells us to hold
traditions passed on by word of mouth.  Where does the bible tell you to go
to church on Sunday instead of Saturday?  But that is a tradition passed on
by the Apostles.

>They are spirits, now, not men.

What scriptural support do you have to say that spirits of men are not men?

>	Again, why is this tradition so important?  How does it bring
>	anyone to salvation?  How does it bring glory to God?

Because it is a tradition which is part of the faith once delivered by the
Apostles.  Because it focuses on BOTH God and on those who have done his
bidding in ages past.  Because it provides many holy role models.

Blessed be God in his angels and in his Saints!

/john

    John,
    
    I've often wondered why a church would base its *doctrine* on
    tradition.  Can you help me understand why a church would do this?  I
    mean wouldn't it be more stable to base it on the Bible instead?
    
    I'm not trying to be sarcastic here... I'm serious about this.
    
    My ex-husband who is catholic, when asked about his salvation,
    responds, "Nobody knows for sure."  He believes he has intercessors
    [saints] on his behalf and that all he can do is hope.
    
    This string is very important to me because the eternity of a loved one
    is tied up in this very debate.
    
    It appears to me [Steve M you can help with this one] that Jewish
    traditions are part of the reason for the rejection of Christ.  The
    *works* established through tradition felt more safe than faith,
    perhaps.   
    
    Does tradition = works?  
    Could tradition = Birthdays, Thanksgiving... etc.???
    Does faith = traditional things put to rest?
    
    I find one scripture talking about tradition and find many more
    scriptures talking about faith.
    
    Nancy
    

    Re: traditions
    
    I believe that all of the "traditions" that we are commanded to
    maintain *must* be founded in the Scriptures.  Otherwise, we are
    opening ourselves up for, at best, the "legitimizing" of unscriptural
    practices, and at worst, deception.  If our practices are not
    scripturally based, we have every reason to (and should) question them.
    
    Holding to "improper" traditions is spoken of (or rather, against)
    every bit as (or more) often as holding to the "proper" traditions.
    
    Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my
        equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the
        traditions of my fathers.
    
    Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
        vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
        the world, and not after Christ.
    
    2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
        traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
        epistle.
    
    2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
        Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
        that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he
        received of us.
    
    1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with
        corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
        conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
    
    
    Once again, I would point out that God gave Moses *zero* liberty to
    alter the design of the tabernacle.  It was commanded to be done
    *exactly* as God said.  I don't believe that, when it came to the New
    Testament church, God now says, "OK -- now do it your way."  Remember,
    the "traditions" that we are admonished to hold were *being*
    communicated (by word and epistle) during the time of the writing of
    the New Testament.  I believe that *today* they *have been*
    communicated *to us* through the epistles.  I, for one, am not about to
    add to the text of the Scriptures.
    
    Mark L.

    John,
       Please point out to me (your weaker brother) where in the Bible it
    asks us to pray to the dead believers (*saints* I gather from your
    monologue), in addition to or in lew of praying to God?
    
    Another point please show me from the Bible why the word *saint* is not
    one who is alive and believes...
    
    My understanding is that prayer *by* the siants effects change. This in
    my mind means things like prayer chains and prayer circles, etc.
    If you wish to include the prayers of the saints from Revelations,
    (the exact chapter and verse escapes me right now), please help me
    to understand your perpsective that *these saints* are the ones that
    are already in heaven and not those still praying and living on Earth.
    
    
    
    PDM_earnestly_asking

RE:      <<< Note 276.207 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!" >>>

	Hi, Steve.

        I'm no scholar, either, but neither am I twisting nor am I
        interpreting the scripture.  Look at 1 Timothy 3:2ff and see what
        it says.  How many ways can this be interpreted?  I just believe
        what it says.  If this is a bad translation of the original, then
        all that needs to be done is to show the text in the original Greek
        (or its phonetic equivalent) and the correct translation thereof.

        Again, Jesus isn't just a man, and He is certainly much more than a
        pastor.  Paul wasn't speaking about what to look for in the Messiah
        when this passage was written, he was speaking about what to look
        for in pastors and deacons.

        God's ways are inscrutable, we can't understand them completely.
        This is His rule (or so it seems from the translation), and we have
        trouble understanding why He would make such a rule.  It escapes my
        logic, too.  Your young children probably don't understand why they
        have a fixed bedtime or why they can't eat pie and ice cream for
        supper.

	Tony

re .210

>    I've often wondered why a church would base its *doctrine* on
>    tradition.  Can you help me understand why a church would do this?  I
>    mean wouldn't it be more stable to base it on the Bible instead?

The word "instead" is inappropriate.  The Bible is certainly the most important
basis for doctrine; it is the foundation of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

According to the bible, specifically, 2 Thess 2:15, doctrine is based on both
tradition delivered by word of mouth and by letter.  According to the bible,
we do what the apostles told us to do, whether they wrote it down or not.

re .212

Our interpretation of the Book of Revelation and our interpretation of Our
Lord's words "today you will be with me in paradise", coupled with the
tradition once delivered by the Apostles, is the faith we follow.

/john

RE:             <<< Note 276.214 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


>>tradition once delivered by the Apostles, is the faith we follow.

        Nowhere in the Bible did the apostles pray to the saints in Heaven,
        neither did Jesus, nor any of the old testament prophets.  What
        kind of tradition is this?  Read Isaiah 8:19 and crefs.

	Just because a lot of people do it does not make it right.  	
	"Follow not after a multitude to do evil."

	Respectfully,
		Tony
	

I guess it's your word against the word of those who claim that they
got this teaching from the Apostles.

/john

>      -< Again: the bible tells to follow their teaching.  2 Thess 2:15 >-
    
    And their teaching is to be found in the Bible.
    
    Mark L.

RE:             <<< Note 276.216 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
      -< Again: the bible tells to follow their teaching.  2 Thess 2:15 >-

>>I guess it's your word against the word of those who claim that they
>>got this teaching from the Apostles.

	My word has nothing to do with it.  Somebody has made a claim that
	the apostles told them to pray to dead saints.  I see no evidence
	of this in the Bible.  The claim would be credible if there were
	scriptural support for it.   Instead, what we see is scriptural
	admonition against it (Isaiah 8:19).

        In Luke 16, when the rich man found himself in Hell, and petitioned
        Abraham to send Lazarus to warn the rich man's brothers of the
        condemnation of hell, Abraham answered, "They have moses and the
        prophets (the scriptures)."   We have the scriptures, too.  Where
        the Bible disagrees with tradition, we must choose the Bible.

	Peace,
		Tony
	

RE:217
        
>    And their teaching is to be found in the Bible.
    
     and by word of mouth as it says in 2 Thess 2:15
    
    Jim

RE:   <<< Note 276.219 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

>    And their teaching is to be found in the Bible.
    
>>     and by word of mouth as it says in 2 Thess 2:15
    
	Even if what you get by word of mouth contradicts the teaching of
	scripture (Isaiah 8:19)?

	Tony

    Does being ignorant having anything to do with being ignored? :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

    So, Jim, when was the last time one of the apostles told you something
    by word of mouth? ;-)
    
    Folks, the epistles that were (or were being) written by the apostles,
    and distributed to the churches (even with CC: instructions --
    Col. 4:16, 1 Thes. 5:27), were *in the process* of being written and
    distributed.  So, during the *process*, verbal instructions were to be
    considered very important -- after all, the internet was still in it's
    infancy.  Verbal communication was the quickest way of getting the
    message around.
    
    Today, the message that was being communicated by that process *has*
    *been* *completed* .  What did it contain?  Open up your New Testament
    and read it.  If it's not found there, I would consider it a tradition
    of men.
    
    Mark L.

re:222
    >    So, Jim, when was the last time one of the apostles told you something
>    by word of mouth? ;-)
 
    Everything that the apostles taught has been handed down through the
    successors in the Catholic Church. 

    The walls of the Catacombs were St. Peter taught and hid from
    persecution have inscriptions of the early Christians praying to
    the martyrs that died before them. Surely, Peter would have told
    them it was wrong to do so, if it was.

    Jim

re .220

I certainly wouldn't do anything that contradicts Isaiah 8:19.

Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Greek Orthodox doctrine clearly condemns
attempting to consult the dead.

But asking for the prayers of those who live in Christ is emphatically
NOT consulting the dead.

/john

    RE:220

    According to your interpretation of Isaiah 8:19 Jesus contradicted 
    Scripture when he spoke with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17 ? 

     Jim

>But asking for the prayers of those who live in Christ is emphatically
>NOT consulting the dead.

    No -- it's talking to someone who is asleep. :-)
    
    Mark L.

Did Jesus say "today you will be with me in paradise" or did he say "today
you will be asleep in paradise"?

/john

>Did Jesus say "today you will be with me in paradise" or did he say "today
>you will be asleep in paradise"?
    
    John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them,
        Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of
        sleep.
     12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
     13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had
        spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
     14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
    
    1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred
        brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this
        present, but some are fallen asleep.
      
    1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant,
        brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not,
        even as others which have no hope.
     14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them
        also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
     15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which
        are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent
        them which are asleep.
    
    Mark L. 

RE:   <<< Note 276.223 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

>>    The walls of the Catacombs were St. Peter taught and hid from
>>    persecution have inscriptions of the early Christians praying to
>>    the martyrs that died before them. Surely, Peter would have told
>>    them it was wrong to do so, if it was.

        Can it be proven unequivocally that these inscriptions are
        contemporaneous with Peter?  Are there any writings of his among
        them?  Did peter ever encourage anyone, in writing, to pray to the
        dead in Christ?  Doesn't Isaiah 8:19 indicate that the dead (in
        Christ or otherwise) can do nothing for the living?  Why didn't
        Saul pray to Samuel to seek his counsel rather than consulting a
        medium?  Isn't Samuel a saint?  Could it be that praying to the
        dead was considered futile, so, in order to consult them, a medium
        had to be employed?

	1 and 2 Peter is the word of God, as he wrote these under the
	inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  But not everything Peter uttered
	outside those two epistles was the word of God.   In fact, God's
	word shows that he, like any man, can make mistakes.  "Get thee
	behind me Satan."  "Ere the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me
	thrice."  "I go a-fishing."  

        Is Peter, is anyone, free from falling into error?  Remember how
        Peter chose the 12th apostle after Judas hung himself?  Peter led a
        prayer and then selected one of two men, Matthias by lots.  Did we
        ever hear of Matthias again?  We all know who Jesus chose for the
        12th apostle, it was Paul.  I could be wrong about this, but didn't
        Paul have a confrontation with Peter over circumcision and other
        legalistic influences in the early church?

	Indeed Peter is one of the great heroes of the Bible, but he was
	not infallible.  Only Jesus is.   That's why we must rely on the
	Bible for guidance, especially in things that are extra-scriptural.

	With all due respect, and in peace,

	Tony
	

RE:   <<< Note 276.225 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

>>    According to your interpretation of Isaiah 8:19 Jesus contradicted 
>>    Scripture when he spoke with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17 ? 

	First of all, I'm not interpreting Isaiah 8:19, I'm just believing
	in what it very plainly says.

        Secondly, Jesus is God.  He can talk to whoever He likes.  He can
        also work miracles on the Sabbath if He wants.  Did Jesus pray to
        Moses and Elijah?  Of course not.  They are His creations.  Also,
        Jesus was trasfigured into a glorious, heavenly manifestation when
        He spoke to Elijah and Moses.  Those who pray to the saints are not
	so transfigured when they do so.

        As for soul sleep, the Bible is clear that to be absent from the
        body is to be present with the Lord.  And the rich man in hell was
        certainly conscious.  He had sensation, could speak, and could feel
        his toungue, etc.  He was, however, confined to the spirit realm,
        as was Lazarus and Abraham.  I have a friend that lost a leg.  He
        could still "feel" his leg (even "wiggle his toes") and the pain
        associated with it.  The doctors call this "phantom" pain. 
        Interesting ....

	Thank you all for the challenging and enlightening replies.

	Peace,
		Tony

    It was a little "tongue-in-cheek" when I brought up the issue of
    "praying to the sleeping" -- although that is what the New Testament
    designates the departed believer as being.  And, I don't want to be
    considered as being a supporter of the "soul-sleep" doctrine.
    
    Regarding praying to another, consider what Jesus said:
    
    John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I
        say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he
        will give it you.
     24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall
        receive, that your joy may be full.
     25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
        cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I
        shall shew you plainly of the Father.
     26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that
        I will pray the Father for you:
     27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and
        have believed that I came out from God.
    
    Jesus said that even *His* prayers in our behalf would not be
    necessary, because by Him we can speak directly to the Father.
    
    Mark L.

RE:           <<< Note 276.231 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>

>>    Jesus said that even *His* prayers in our behalf would not be
>>    necessary, because by Him we can speak directly to the Father.
    
	Glory!!  

	Tony
	

   !<<< Note 276.223 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

! re:222
!    >    So, Jim, when was the last time one of the apostles told you something
!>    by word of mouth? ;-)
 
!    Everything that the apostles taught has been handed down through the
!    successors in the Catholic Church. 
    	VIA the Bible.

!    The walls of the Catacombs were St. Peter taught and hid from
!    persecution have inscriptions of the early Christians praying to
!    the martyrs that died before them. Surely, Peter would have told
!    them it was wrong to do so, if it was.
    
    	So Jim, when did you visit these catacombs? I am certain you
    	visited them by the imperative in your words. I have been to
    	some of the catacombs on the Southwest of the Dead Sea, I have
        not seen any pictures people praying *to* saints on these walls.
        I have seen pictures of people in agony and tears prostrating 
        for what apeared to me to be the mercy for senseless loss of life.
    
        PDM_who_has_had_the_privilege_to_have_an_all_expense_paid_trip_to
       _places_many_people_never_want_to_go_via_US_Services

 

    On soul-sleep
    
       I would offer...
         What is the best way to describe death, but eternal life to
         people that are not well educated.  Look at the original Greek.
         Look at the idioms of the time. Look at Paul's writings. This
         man KNEW how to use the vernacular to get his message across.
         I read "asleep" as those who are now with the Father, not
    	 physically sleeping. 
    
         Please,
    	    PDM

Part 1 of 2 (and believe it or not, it's *brief*, relatively speaking ;-)

re: Note 276.213       

>        I'm no scholar, either, but neither am I twisting nor am I
>        interpreting the scripture.  

Hi Tony,

Sorry, the word "twisting" *is* somewhat loaded and evokes an emotional 
response.  Please forgive me for the poor choice of words.

Interpreting?  Well, sure you are; as am I.  One can't read Scripture 
without interpreting it.  I study with a man who says (rightly so) that 
every translation is itself a commentary ;-).

>        Look at 1 Timothy 3:2ff and see what  it says.  How many ways can 
>	 this be interpreted?  

Many.

For starters, it says that such a person must be above reproach.  Well - 
what does that mean?  How am I possibly going to be able to understand such 
a statement?

One way to interpret the passage in its entirety is to view such an opening 
as a summary "foundation", the context upon which the writer will build.

For instance:

A pastor/shepherd/elder must be above reproach (and lest you have any 
question about my meaning, let me give you some examples):

	- for starters, a husband of one wife
	- temperate, self controlled, respectable, hospitable
	- able to teach
	- not a drunkard
	- etc.

Now, how many ways can this first example of being above reproach be 
interpreted?

Here are some:

A "husband of but one wife" means:

	a) the man *must* be married (i.e., the husband of *at least* one
	   wife; 2 or more wives, as well as 0 wives is an immediate
	   disqualification)

	b) the man *must* have only one current wife (i.e., the husband
	   of *no more than* one wife; no bigamists or polygamists;
	   0 or 1 wives is acceptable, 2 or more is not).

	b) the man *must* have only had one wife ever in his lifetime
		- divorced men are disqualified
		- widowed men are disqualified
			- widowed men who became shepherds while
			  married, are no longer shepherds upon the
			  death of their wife

Now you have to ask yourself, in the context of this passage, which of 
these three marital status options illustrates being above reproach?

To answer *that* question:


You'll have to go to the next reply!

(I love a cliff hanger....)

Part 2 of 2

Which marital status option (in the previous reply) makes a man above 
reproach?  To answer that question:

In a), you need to ask whether there is a "reproach", or something that
brings shame or discredit in being single.  If there is, then the person
who wrote this passage is in conflict with himself in another letter where
he wishes that men could remain as he was (single).  Also, again - Yeshua
would have brought shame to himself.  Even if your argument is that Yeshua
wasn't this kind of "elder", at a minimum, you need to ask whether his (or
Sha'ul/Paul's) being single was shameful.  Option a) doesn't seem to fit in
the context of the passage as a whole.

In b), one can clearly see the reproach brought upon the adulterer, the 
polygamist, etc.  A married man living outside of the injunction for "the 
two to become one flesh" has brought reproach upon himself (and if an elder, 
upon his congregation).  Option b) seems to fit the context well. 

In c), there is a legitimate question about the status of a divorced man.  
What were the circumstances of the divorce?  Without getting into that very 
long discussion, let's say that we can all think of examples where such a 
person *may* have brought reproach upon himself and examples where he would 
not have.  Now, how about a widower?  Surely there is no reproach on a 
husband who has become a widower.  No community would shame a man for 
losing his wife.  Option c) doesn't fit like a glove, but has partial merit 
in this context.

In summary, the context of the passage would suggest that item b), and in 
some sense, item c) should be given some consideration in forming your 
interpretation of the simple words:

	"...must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,..."

>	If this is a bad translation of the original, then
>        all that needs to be done is to show the text in the original Greek
>        (or its phonetic equivalent) and the correct translation thereof.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the English translation is 
perfectly adequate (for a pair of non-scholars like ourselves, let's just 
say it's fine ;-).  We still have *at least* three (perhaps many more) ways 
of interpreting "...the husband of but one wife...".  

Therefore, I think that based on the *context* of this passage (that an elder 
be above reproach), to mandate either celibacy or marriage is an error.  To 
mandate behavior that is above reproach for an elder, be he married or 
single, is unquestionably important.

(And FWIW, I'm not discounting the value of an elder's having the experience 
of being a husband and father.)

>        Again, Jesus isn't just a man, and He is certainly much more than a
>        pastor.  Paul wasn't speaking about what to look for in the Messiah
>        when this passage was written, he was speaking about what to look
>        for in pastors and deacons.

See part 1 of this reply.  

Moreover, on Yeshua's being "more than a pastor", we agree.  However, in a 
very real context, he certainly was a shepherd of men (and *is* the Good 
Shepherd) on a very practical, day-to-day level.  Certainly he was not 
disqualified from that role because he was not married.

>        God's ways are inscrutable, we can't understand them completely.
>        This is His rule (or so it seems from the translation), 

...or, if you don't mind, so it seems from your interpretation of the
translation.  Based on the way I see the context of the passage, I don't
see Him prohibiting single men from being elders any more than I see Him
prohibiting married men from being elders. 

>	and we have
>        trouble understanding why He would make such a rule.  

I'm not one for demanding to know why G-d says to do or not do something 
before deciding to be obedient to His commands.  I don't have the right to 
be troubled whether I understand His reason for wanting things to be a 
certain way.   So please let me assure you I don't have trouble with His 
rules...I just want to be sure they're His rules and not ours...

When He says, "you shall not steal"; on one level that's pretty simple, pretty 
much black and white, and there's not a lot of room for interpretation.  
[Though on another level, one could ask himself whether owning too much is 
stealing from someone who owns too little, but that's another topic....]

When He says (through Sha'ul), "...an elder must be above reproach, the 
husband of but one wife..." I need to understand what that phrase means in 
context since there are clearly a few options that can be considered (as I 
hope I've already illustrated).

If you want to pursue this further, please allow me some time to dig through 
some well researched, scholarly opinion on the matter and get back to you.

Steve

	Thanks, Steve, for your intelligent and considered reply.  I am
	interested in more information on this.  You may MAIL> it to me off
	line, if you wish.

        I thought that I had addressed the celibacy of Jesus and Paul,
        Jesus is Messiah, Paul was a missionary, such that they were not
        bishops of local churches.  Jesus did say some were called to be
        eunuchs.  The key is in the calling.  But I still think 1 Tim 3:2ff
        advises us to seek pastors that are married with children.  Perhaps
        "advises" is a better word than "commands."

        I like to be real careful with the word "interpret", knowing that
        handling the Word of God is an awesome responsibility.   Do you
        believe that there can be only one correct interpretation, the one
        that exactly reveals what the Holy Spirit is saying for any given
        text?  As you aptly pointed out, some are real simple, but even in
        your illustration about stealing, you articulated a meaning deeper
        still than the simplest one.  I believe that a Christian who has
        excess and knowingly allows his brothers and sisters to go without
        is stealing from God.  But only God knows what is excess for each
        of us.  Can one man's excess  be another's paucity and conversely?

        I sincerely want to know precisely what the scripture means.

	Peace to you and yours,
		Tony
	

		Firmly I believe and truly
		  God is Three, and God is One;
		And I next acknowledge duly
		  Manhood taken by the Son.

		And I trust and hope most fully
		  In that Manhood crucified;
		And each thought and deed unruly
		  Do to death, as He has died.

		Simply to His grace and wholly
		  Light and life and strength belong,
		And I love supremely, solely,
		  Him the Holy, Him the Strong.

		And I hold in veneration
		  For the love of Him alone,
		Holy Church as His creation,
		  And her teachings as His own.

		Adoration aye be given
		  With and through the Angelic host,
		To the God of earth and heaven,
		  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  Amen.

					-- John Henry Newman (1801-1890)

RE: 238.

	Hi, Steve.

        I'd like to add one thing.  2 Peter 1:20 says that "Knowing that no
        prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation."  In the
        next verse he goes on to explain that the holy men of old wrote it
        down exactly as the Holy Spirit told them to.  Doesn't this mean
        that there is only one correct interpretation?   We should be
        careful about relativistic philosophies, like the one I posited
        about "stealing" in .239, no?   My apologies for that one.  Taking
        what does not belong to you without the approval of the owner is
        stealing.  Greediness is a different sin, amply covered in
	scripture.

	Thanks,
		Tony
	

    The replies to this notes which discussed what happens on death have been 
    moved to a new note, 305, created for that discussion.

						Andrew Yuille
						co-moderator

	
 	Re. 210 and others; 
    
    	Tradition precedes the NT, Tradition is ALL that the Lord spoke and
    	commanded that was handed down to the Apostles. It is Tradition
    	that clarifies Scripture as Scripture was used especially St.Paul's
    	letters, to clarify Tradition.
    
    	Re 215 "Nowhere in the Bible did the Apostles pray to
	the saints in heaven, and neither did Jesus....."

	Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say go out and teach what is in the
	Bible and nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that it alone is the
	sole source of God's revelation. 
	And also the Bible does not claim to be the ultimate arbiter in 
	deciding the truth (All scripture that is inspired can be used to
	refute error - which was applied to the OT, but that doesn't say
	anything about being the sole source of revelation or the final
	arbiter).
	The Apostles taught what the Lord taught them as he asked them to do,
 	not what is written in the words of a book, in this case the Bible, for
 	not every word of Jesus was written in the Bible. The Bible (read NT 
	for now) was written as instruction to the established Church who
	already practised their faith as taught by the Apostles - they did not
	need a book to understand the faith, they required admonition from 
	certain influences and required to be encouraged in perseverance from
	time to time. St.Paul never gave Timothy a book and say go and preach 
	what is in this book. You were not given a book and told go, read and
	understand - this would be inconceivable. You were taught, as the
	Apostles were, by someone with understanding, whether it is your local
	pastor, a travelling preacher or whoever - and of course what they
	taught and you learned, you found in the Bible - because this was/is
	their sole source of revelation (of course as the Holy Spirit guides
	them to understand it).
        
	I will also add that as St.Paul says (Eph.3:7) it is the Church who 
	dispenses the Word of God - who has been given this authority from her 
	head, Christ, endowed with the Holy Spirit to ensure no errors. These 
	promises were given to the Apostles - no-one else, none of the other 
	disciples who followed Christ were present at the Last Supper 
	discourse, when these promises were made.
	I still perceive errors in some of your understanding of infallibility,
	as if it pertains to the personality this is not so.
	
	And so the Church dispenses the Word through her Tradition and
	Scripture from the beginning to the end when the Lord will come for
	His Bride.

	peace,
              	
		Tom

    
    RE: 276.243
    
    Should we then do things that the Bible clearly warns against, i.e.
    petitioning the dead to assist the living?
    
    Does tradition then supersede the Bible?  
    
    Whose tradition is it to seek help from the dead?    
    
    There is not one passage of scripture in which a true prophet or apostle
    prays to anyone but God.  There is at least one passage of scripture
    inveighing against seeking the assistance of the dead. 
    
    Why did Saul go to a medium to seek assistance from Samuel, who had
    died?  Why didn't he ask God to ask Samuel to ask God to divine for him
    the outcome of the battle to come?  What was Saul's punishment?  Is
    seeking the assistance of the dead for divination any different than
    for any other purpose?  You may argue "yes", but the evidence of
    scripture says "no".   
    
    Though the bible may not be the only source of revelation from God, we
    are commanded to "prove all things" and "test the spirits".  What can 
    we prove or test them against, but the Bible?   If a practice does not
    measure up to the direction of scripture, we should abandon it.
    
    Peace,
    	Tony
    
    
    
    
    
     

>    Should we then do things that the Bible clearly warns against, i.e.
>    petitioning the dead to assist the living?

Not everyone agrees with your interpretation that the prohibition on occult
practices applies to requests that others in the Communion of Saints pray
for us.

/john

RE:             <<< Note 276.245 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
          -< Should we not ask our fellow Christians to pray for us >-

        By all means we should ask our fellow Christians to pray for us.
        You can call them on the phone, meet them at their home, or at
        church, write letters to them with your prayer requests.
	Dead Christians are with the Lord. They cannot hear you.

	Let me repeat:

	We must prove all things, hold fast that which is good, n'est ce
	pas?

	We must test the spirits, whether they be of God, no?

	How do we tell that something is of God?
	The Bible tells us so.

        The Bible is the perfect, complete, inerrant Word of God.

	If you reject this premise, please see note 2.8 in this conference.

        If you accept this premise, then why would you practice things for
        which there are specific Biblical proscriptions, like making contact
        with the dead?  Isn't praying to the dead an attempt to make
        contact with them?  Is a medium necessary to violate God's law
        concerning attempts to contact the dead, or are you capable of
        violating this law all by yourself?

	It seems to me, brother, that you are seeking second-order
	interpretations of these proscriptions to circumvent the plain
	first-order meaning thereof.

	Please read 1 Samuel 28:3-ff.  The only reason Saul sought after
	the assistance of the dead was that he had lost fellowship with
	God.  Why do you suppose Saul sought the aid of a medium in
	contacting Samuel?  Could it be that Saul new that praying to
	Samuel would be fruitless?  Why didn't he pray for Samuel to
	intercede for him?  Why was the medium alarmed when the real
	Samuel appeared, rather than her usual familiar spirit?

	Who does God say to pray to?  Who does Moses say to pray to?  Who
	do any of the true prophets say to pray to?  Who does Jesus say to
	pray to?  Who do all the New Testament authors say to pray to?
	Does any of these ever say to pray to the dead?

	The overwhelming bearing of Scripture is to abstain from attempts
	to contact the dead for any reason.

        The overwhelming bearing of Scripture is that prayer must be
        directed only to God.

	Praying for you, brother,
		Tony

>Dead Christians are with the Lord. They cannot hear you.

Prove that they cannot hear you.  Where does the Bible specifically
say that Christians in the Church Expectant cannot hear you or that
these members of the Body of Christ are not praying?  Does the Bible
say that they are _all_ asleep, or is it only some that are asleep?
If they are asleep, where does the Bible say that they are not praying
in their sleep?  Have you never prayed in a dream?  Have you never had
a dream influenced by an outside condition, such as a noise, or by the
love of a friend?

The Bible (and the Church) prohibits conjuring up spirits, false gods,
the dead in order to have them instruct you.

Nothing in the bible prohibits you from saying "Holy N., pray for me
to the Lord Our God."

Yes, we must primarily pray directly to God, but asking a member of the
Communion of Saints to join in our prayer is not prohibited by anything
in the Word of God, and is a practice handed down from the earliest days
of the Church.

/john

    
    
    Re. 244+
    
    		Because it is not written in black and white in the Bible
    does not PROVE that it is false - this applies to anything. It also
    does not prove that it is true either.
    
    	Which is why as St.Paul says - it is the Church who dispenses the
    Word of God.
    
    The Bible is not of itself an arbiter, simply because it does not, and
    wasn't written to spell out to the n'th degree, without any ambiguity
    or confusion the exact Word of God, it is a guide - as it says of
    itself and may be used to refute error.
    
    Which is why Our Lord gave the Apostles the Holy Spirit to guide them
    into ALL truth. He didn't give them the Bible to guide them into all
    truth, nor did he ask them to write down what he had given them. He
    gave them something far superior to the written word - the Holy Spirit.
    
    Because you use the Bible as the arbiter - you are not really saying
    that. What you are saying is, 'it is my interpretation of what the
    Bible says' is the arbiter. As a result, I can go to a number of people
    and get a different answer to my question -so who is right ? You will
    then tell me - "whatever the Bible says on the subject" , and so we go
    round the loop. Sorry, my salvation is much too important to me to
    leave it up to your interpretation (or even mine, for that matter).
    
    	Peace,
    
    		Tom
    
	BTW Tradition OLD and NEW T. does precede the Bible it must, if you
    	think about it.

Hi Tom,

.248�	BTW Tradition OLD and NEW T. does precede the Bible it must, if you
.248�    	think about it.

Only if you do not believe with 2 Peter 1:21, that scripture is given by 
inspiration of God.

.248�    round the loop. Sorry, my salvation is much too important to me to
.248�    leave it up to your interpretation (or even mine, for that matter).

Tom, if you reject the adequacy of the Word of God, with the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit's guidance (as per John 14::28) as your basis of salvation, 
whatever are you substituting?

The fact that there are different interpretations of certain aspects of the
gospel doesn't justify looking elsewhere, but rather points to excluding
extraneous 'noise', to focus on truth. 

								Andrew

    Let's just leave it at this:
    
    Catholics (and the related churches) believe directing prayer to or
    requesting the prayers of departed believers, because they have a
    tradition of doing so, and are so taught in their churches.
    
    Most other Christians feel that this is a vain effort that is
    unsubstantiated by the Bible and possibly contrary to the Bible.
    
    Catholics defend their position because it is one of their
    "traditions".  Non-Catholics reject the practice as being unscriptural.
    
    Any questions?  Good.  Maybe we can let it rest.
    
    Mark L.

	Let's try this again.

                1. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God (2 Peter 1:20-21,
                   2 Tim 3:16)
                2. The Bible demonstrates that attempts to contact the
                   dead, sainted or not, are bad (1 Sam 28.3-ff, Isaiah 8:19).
		3. Prayer to the dead is an attempt to contact the dead.
		4. Ergo, prayer to the dead is contra-Biblical, and
		5. prayer to the dead is thereby proscribed by God.

        You may argue that your prayer to the dead saints is not the same
        as employing a medium to contact them.  However, in praying to the
        dead you are actually practicing mediumship in seeking spirits,
        sainted or not.  The only distinction is that, in praying to the
        dead, you do not engage a third party, but seek the dead on your
        own.

	I will continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will work in your
	hearts so that you may come to see this simple truth.

		Tony

re .251

Your conclusions are simply NOT true.

/john

    Jesus himself said to be cautious about traditions regardless from whom
    they come.  Here he was talking the relgious zealots of the day.  I
    find it interesting.
    
    
    Matthew 15:1  Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of
    Jerusalem, saying,
      2  Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for
         they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
      3  But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the
    commandment of God by your tradition?
      4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He
    that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
      5  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is
    a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
      6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus
    have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
                                                                                    
    

Where does the Bible say to go to Church on Sunday rather than on
Friday evening or Saturday?

>Where does the Bible say to go to Church on Sunday rather than on
>Friday evening or Saturday?
    
    Actually, the New Testament never indicates that we *ever* "go to"
    church -- the only thing called a "church" is a gathering of "living
    stones" which comes together.  The place of this gathering is never
    considered to be anything special.
    
    Acts 20:7 is the only reference (as far as I know) that directly speaks
    to the day of the gathering of *the church* (i.e., other times, the
    disciples went to the synagogue/temple to teach at the gatherings of
    the Jews, but this is never spoken of as being the gathering of
    believers).  Acts 20:7 indicates that they gathered on the first day of
    the week to break bread, which is generally considered to be a
    reference to the Lord's Supper.  Actually, I do believe that gathering
    on the first day of the week was one of the "traditions" established by
    the apostles, and revealed to us in the Scriptures.
    
    However, I am also aware that this could easily turn into another
    rathole....
    
    Mark L.
    

    I got to .250, and thought,"whew... no more of this maybe..."
    
    I was disappointed when I saw I had five more to go...
    
    the traffic in this note 276 seems to have a high percentage of
    defensive, nasty, divisive replies, that I am tired of reading.
    Some have been quite well reasoned and thought through, but others seem
    more like blind flailing of the typing fingers, because the core of
    their beliefs are being affronted, and that is the natural reaction of
    people when something dear to them is being attack (or they even think
    that it is being threatened - I do it too).  (this goes for both sides of the
    debate)
    
    I was going to suggest that I think a more productive discussion might
    could center around authority, as the Catholic side seems to not hold
    the Bible as the _Sole_ Ultimate Authority as do the Protestants, but
    also include teachings from the early life of the church.
      
    Bearing that in mind, neither side is going to get the other to conceed
    defeat but rather is going to drive a wedge between us and bring shame
    to the Kingdom because they are working from two utterly different
    points of view.
    It's like trying to prove the existence of God from the Bible when the
    person believes that it is a myth.
    
    so can we try to cut back on the devisiveness (even tho I can't spell
    it :-)
    
    I would think that both sides have more in common than we have
    different....
    
    peace
    (please?)
    p

    .256
    
    I think that is exactly what .250 was suggesting as well.
    
    I agree to disagree.
    
    Nancy

>    I think that is exactly what .250 was suggesting as well.
    
    So do I. :-)

	The premise of my replies in this note was to highlight the fundamental
	differences we both come from when we discuss these issues.

	I believe that the Church has the authority to dispense the Word, with
	the promise of the guidance into all truth, which I can back up
	with Scripture.

	- you believe in the right of individual interpretation (as guided by
	  the Holy Spirit), I don't think this is Scripturally sound but
	  you do....

	I believe that the Church relies on Holy Tradition AND Scripture,
	being the Word once delivered to the saints - for which I have
	Scriptural support.

	- you believe in the self-sufficiency of the Bible (for which I don't
	believe you have the support of Scripture, but then you do...)
        And that the Bible alone is sole source of revelation (but, the Bible
	does not say this of itself).

	Therefore we start off from completely differing platforms and arrive
	at totally opposing conclusions. It will happen like this with anything
	that you consider "non-Scriptural". Our Tradition does not consist in
	man made rules and regulations, it comes from what Christ taught the 
	Apostles, it comes from the Church's intepretation of the doctrine
	of Christ and the commandments of God. The Deposit of Faith has been
	entrusted to her by Christ. I don't rely on my own interpretation,
	even when guided by the Holy Spirit, I rely on the Church's
	interpetation as guided by the Holy Spirit, because I beleive in the
	promises of Christ, that He would lead it into ALL truth. When I
	read Scripture it is with the understanding of the teaching of the
	Church, the Holy Spirit guides me into a deeper understanding or a new 
	and illuminating insight, but if that insight disagrees fundamentally
	with the doctrine and teaching of the Church - then I know that I am
	wrong.
	You do the same thing do you not, for those that belong to a church,
	you are guided by the teaching of that church, and when you come up
	against an interpretation seemingly at odds with that teaching, do you
	not sit down with your pastor and talk it through.
	We do the same, but we have an advantage of 2000 years of understanding
	and illumination by the Holy Spirit.

	Therefore every discussion point that we enter into will eventually
	lead to these two differing start points, upon which we base our
	understanding and over which we will not budge. 
	The Church has the authority from Christ to dispense the Word and is
	guided in the Truth by the Holy Spirit. This is where I start, and from
	that you can understand how we may differ in so many points.

    	Which is I suppose why I don't normally enter these discussions in
    	this notesfile.
    
           Peace,

	
		Tom

    Hi Tom,
    
    You know I can tell you are a very sincere and honest man by your
    entries.  And I'm gonna take a gander [please correct me if I'm
    wrong], that as I, you believe that the most important thing is to
    focus on the eternal destiny of one's soul.
    
    Now, we could go round and round forever on tradition versus scripture,
    but what I believe Jesus was saying in Matthew 5, is that when
    TRADITION takes the place of the CRUCIFIXION [taking the focus off
    Christ], then it is sin.
    
    If one believes that by praying to Mary that their sins can be
    forgiven, then this is clearly contrary to the CRUCIFIXION, which
    declares in Hebrews [?], there is but one mediator between God and Man,
    and that is Christ Jesus.  
    
    There is a very big difference between hearts being bound together to
    pray for a specific thing, and hearts being bound together praying for
    forgiveness of one's sin.  The latter makes the Crucifixion into a lie. 
    The former builds faith.
    
    Tom, wouldn't you agree that while we can agree to disagree on
    tradition, that perhaps we could also agree that when tradition
    replaces the CRUCIFIXION, it is sin, as Jesus spoke himself in Matthew
    5?
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    
    

>    If one believes that by praying to Mary that their sins can be
>    forgiven, then this is clearly contrary to the CRUCIFIXION, which
>    declares in Hebrews [?], there is but one mediator between God and Man,
>    and that is Christ Jesus.  

Red Herring Alert.

I don't know anyone who does this.  Do you?  Certainly the Catholic Church
does not teach this; please do not imply that they do.

/john

    .261
    
    John.. thanks for clarifying that the Catholic church does not teach
    this.  Nor was it my inference, good spotcheck.
    
    Now to answer your question, do I know of anyone who does this?  The
    anwer is yes.  My ex-husband who was born and raised in Mexico, was an
    altar boy and very staunch in his beliefs.
    
    Nancy
    

BTW, Nancy, do you believe that any prayer can forgive anyone's sins?

/john

    -1
    
    John, sorry I don't understand your question.
    
    Nancy

Should you pray that God forgive someone else's sins?

/john

    -1
    
    I wish I had an icon of a fishing pole with line baited and hanging
    down... [insert mental image of such]  :-) :-)
    
    I believe I know where you are headed with this question John, and as I
    recall in the last version of Christian we went down the path of
    Priests being able to absolve sin [as the apostles so declared].
    
    My answer then and my answer now is yes and no.  I beilieve [as I pray
    for Rafael], that he will confess his sins before God and ask for
    forgiveness with faith, believing in Christ as Savior.
    
    I do not ask God to forgive Rafael of his sins.
    
    Nancy

	Nancy, why wouldn't you? In the Bible, didn't Jesus ask God to forgive
them for they know not what they are doing? Wouldn't it make sense to ask God
to forgive your ex's sins as he doesn't know what he is doing? 



Glen

    
    
    Let's clear up this for a start - we do not pray to Mary to forgive our
    sins - she cannot, and we do not.
    
    What we do, which is Scripturally sound, is to pray to the Lord on
    behalf of a person that the Lord might grant that person the grace of	
    conversion. That the Holy Spirit might convict that person of their
    sinfulness, and, responding to that grace, that stimulus, they turn
    away from their sins and ask God for forgiveness.
    
    It is perfectly legitimate to pray for people for sinners, and also
    enlist the help of the Communion of Saints to intercede on behalf of
    that person, or indeed on our own behalf, that the Lord might grant
    them the grace of repentance. But it is entirely up to that person to
    correspond with that impulse, they can reject it and persist in their
    sins, it is up to them at the end of the day.
    
    Peace,
    
    	Tom
     
    

	Where in the Bible did Jesus instruct his apostles to pray to any
	one but God?

        Didn't Jesus inveigh against "vain and repetitious babblings as the
        heathen do"?  How is penance implemented?  If you say something
	often enough, doesn't it lose its meaning?  Doesn't it approach the
	"mantra"? 

        Why are statues in Catholic churches accompanied with candles and
	coin boxes?  Is this not a form of offering?  To whom is the
	offering made?

	Please read Exodus 20:4-6 and tell us how the meaning there can be
	"interpreted" as anything other than what it very plainly says.

	Indeed Jesus said "..Father forgive them ..", he is God and has the
	power to do so, as he demonstrated before the Pharisees when He
	said something like, "Which is easier to say?  Get up and walk, or
	your sins are forgiven?  Therefore, to show you that the Son of Man
	has the power to forgive sins .." and he healed the lame man.

	Where did Jesus say that anyone else has the power to forgive sins?
	Apparently this has been discussed before, but I would like the
	references that I may study them.

	Saints do not perform miracles, God does as an answer to prayer,
	according to His will.  Though Paul was able to invoke God's
	healing power for others, he was not able to invoke God to heal the
	"thorn in his flesh."  God's reply after Paul's third petition was
	"My grace is sufficient for thee."  Paul's reaction was, whatever
	state he found himself in, "therewith to be content."

	Peace ...
		Tony

>        Didn't Jesus inveigh against "vain and repetitious babblings as the
>        heathen do"?  How is penance implemented?  If you say something
>	often enough, doesn't it lose its meaning?  Doesn't it approach the
>	"mantra"? 

Well, typical penances I have received have been to read one or two different
psalms, or the Te Deum, or to meditate on Our Lord's Passion.  What is "vain
and repetitious" about that?

>        Why are statues in Catholic churches accompanied with candles and
>	coin boxes?  Is this not a form of offering?  To whom is the
>	offering made?

God.

/john

RE:             <<< Note 276.270 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
      -< What you despise is not the Catholic Faith, but TV Catholicism >-

        Please forgive me if I sound like I despise anything.  I was once a
        Catholic and have many family members who still are.

        I remember being given a number of "Hail Mary"s and "Our Father"s
        or the Rosary as penance.  I remember these things completely
        losing their meaning after a couple of iterations.

        My mother's first-cousin and her husband came from Italy to visit
        this last June. They are born-again Christians.  My mother grew up
        with them in her home town, so she was really surprised by their
        new faith.  Their testimony was very intense.  My aunt (mother's
        first cousin is aunt to me) said that all her life she was told who
        Jesus is, and understood intellectually.  However, it was the
        "cambia del cuore" (change in the heart) that made the difference.
        In the book of James, it says that the devils know who Christ is
        and tremble, but that doesn't save them.  

        My aunt described her search for someone to baptize her and her
        husband.  My mother said, "But you were already baptized!"  My aunt
        replied, "Yes, but I didn't know it."  It was a sometimes tense
        sometimes hilarious interchange.  

        Have you ever seen the celebration of an Italian Catholic feast?  I
        have.  Many times. It is nothing like the Catholicism that you
        espouse here, John, but, as far as I know, the Church makes no
        effort to correct these practices.  You can get an idea of what I
        mean from things like the Feast of Saint Anthony in Boston's North
        End.

        My brother-in-law was a missionary to Mexico (he's now in
        Columbia).  He showed us photos of practices down there.  They make
        the Italian feasts look tame.  The celebrations of holy days and
        feasts of saints there are replete with pagan symbols and
        ceremonial dances.  Again, the church makes no attempt to change
        this.  Jesus is almost always depicted as a helpless infant or a
        bloody corpse.  By contrast, Mary is always resplendently
        represented.  A missionary from the Phillipines showed us pretty
        much the same stuff.  It seems that whatever the native culture had
        for pagan practices becomes incorporated into the local church.

        I mean no disrespect, but the Catholic Church needs to vigorously
	disavow and discourage the assimilation of local pagan practices
	into the local church.

	Respectfully,
		Tony

	I spend almost all my time out of the office these days, but I'm
in this week, and just motored through these replies. I started reading this
conference a few years ago, and have read some of the stuff from earlier 
conferences from before that. Compared to most of that, this note is 
wonderful! I see a great deal more restraint, respect, and love in this note 
than what has been written in the past, and I'd like to thank people being 
civil, I greatly admire it. We ain't perfect, but this is a WHOLE lot better 
than than a few years ago....shucks, we even got hard-nosed evangelicals like 
Tony refering to us Catholics as "brother" !!!!!  - my goodness, I feel 
like I've just been released from Purgatory! (oops).


>================================================================================
>Note 276.249       Veritatis Splendor -- The Splendor of Truth        249 of 271
>ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me"                   20 lines  12-NOV-1993 08:54
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>The fact that there are different interpretations of certain aspects of the
>gospel doesn't justify looking elsewhere, but rather points to excluding
>extraneous 'noise', to focus on truth. 

 Aw, c'mon, Andrew! You're one of my heroes, maybe that's why I like to pick
on you. There are many people in this file who claim the Bible as God's
complete and only word, but vehemently disagree about many BASIC doctrines 
of the faith. Shucks, there are those in this conference, who take the Bible 
as their all, who deny the deity of Christ and the trinity. And after 
HUNDREDS (thousands?) of replies, an impartial scholar would declare many 
of these arguments, between people who claim the Bible as their all, as 
a stand-off. This isn't any "extraneous noise."


>================================================================================
>Note 276.270       Veritatis Splendor -- The Splendor of Truth        270 of 271
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      16 lines  16-NOV-1993 10:11
>      -< What you despise is not the Catholic Faith, but TV Catholicism >-


The only TV Catholicism I really despise is Notre Dame football.


>Well, typical penances I have received have been to read one or two different
>psalms, or the Te Deum, or to meditate on Our Lord's Passion.  What is "vain
>and repetitious" about that?

	People probably have problems with this because one of the things
mentioned is called the Te Deum, which people immediately equate with boring 
or repetitious, i.e., "tedium". Perhaps more research needs to be done on 
this.


	Anyways, I am Catholic and also a member of an ecumenical community.
Where I come from, Catholics and Protestants don't scream at each other. 
Yes, we have our disagreements, but we also realize that there is, oh, about 
an eternity's worth of teaching that is similar enough that we all can 
relate to. As for myself, I had a number of years ago asked Jesus to lead 
me to a different denomination if it was correct for me. Over the last 2 
years or so, I have become much more devoutly Catholic. BTW this notes file 
did not have a great deal to do with my increasing committment to Catholicism, 
but it did have some effect. Anyway, some of you are probably disappointed 
at hearing this, and want to see me properly saved. I guess you should all 
get together and decide how to go about convincing me. Of course, if you 
disagree, you can split into a few different groups. And then, if you're still 
not completely on the same page, you can eliminate the extraneous noise by 
splitting again, and again, and again, and again, until you all can attack me 
individually, and then I don't have a chance! (nyuck nyuck nyuck).

	What does this about have to do with the topic? Nothing. But I'm
in the office, and I had to write something!


	I love you all with the love Jesus put in my heart,

	Bob

>   Anyway, some of you are probably disappointed 
>at hearing this, and want to see me properly saved. I guess you should all 
>get together and decide how to go about convincing me.
    
    Nah, Bob.  I recognize it's of no use.  I know there's no hope for you
    until you change your attitude toward the Bulls. :-) :-)
    
    Good to hear from you again.  What you said makes me think:  if we want
    to focus on the multitude of differences, our vision will grow narrow. 
    If we focus on Christ, our vision will be ever increasing.
    
    Mark L.

Hi Bob,

Sorry I wasn't clear enough in .249.  I wasn't trying to discount the value 
of the essential truth, but rather to say that often we are arguing about 
secondary matters.  I'm not saying that any and every opinion is equally
valid (not PC!), but that we need to recognise where the boundary is, and 
stand clearly together on the basics of the faith.  Outside that, we do not
have the same authority to impose a 'party line', and should be aware of 
each other - loving each other - as together under the LORD, even when 
we're hammering out differences.

The problem comes, of course, when there's a difference in areas seen as  
critical.  That is why the conference guidelines take the 'lowest common 
denominator' of the Bible, as our basis, and nothing else is seen as 
authoritative common ground of our faith.

And, Bob, I haven't come anywhere near the examples you suggested yet, 
which are outside the guidelines.  They come in, if you like, in 'visitor' 
mode, saying, in effect, "I don't agree with the conference guidelines 
personally, but I am willing to operate within them for the purpose of 
participation here".  OK, so sometimes we do end up re-examining things
which are basic.  Those aren't the differences I meant by 'extraneous 
noise'.

						God bless
							Andrew

And thanks for the encouragement.  I have to be kept in line too, of
course... ;-) 

Excerpts from the latest newsletter of Our Lady's Crusaders for Life:

Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), the recent encyclical from Pope
John Paul II is a splendid ray of light for the world and especially for us
Americans.  In the midst of moral chaos, the pope has raised the uncompromis-
ing flag of traditional Catholic morality.  No longer must we suffer the
pseudo-morality of the modernists who seek to excuse all sin.

Everyone is encouraged to read this encyclical.  Although addressed to
bishops, it is a reflection "on the whole of the Church's moral teaching"
(VS, No. 4), and is worthwhile for all.

OVERVIEW

_The_central_theme_ of the letter is St. Matthew 19:16, "Then someone came
to him and said, `Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?' and
Jesus replied, `If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'" 
Though spoken nearly 2000 years ago, the Pope assures us that these words
have the same force today.  Salvation requires moral behavior.

_The_focus_ of the letter is given by the title of Section II: "The Church
and the Discernment of Certain Tendencies in Present-Day Moral Theology."
The pope brings his philosophical skill to bear on current problems, and
meets the modernist on his same ground.  Topics discussed include the
relationship between freedom and truth, freedom of conscience, intrinsically
evil behavior, and how to judge the morality of an act.

_The_summation_ of the teaching is the example of Christ:
   
   Each day the Church looks to Christ with unfailing love, fully aware
   that the true and final answer to the problem of morality lies in him
   alone.  In a particular way, it is *in*the*Crucified*Christ* that *the*
   *Church*finds*the*answer* to the question troubling so many people
   today; (No. 85, *italics* in original)
   
   It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in
   the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer
   (cf. John 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength to keep
   God's holy law... (No. 103)

IMPORTANT TEACHINGS

1) Catholic moral behavior is necessary for salvation.

This is the clear message of the pope, for he bases the whole letter on St.
Matthew 19:16, "What good must I do to have eternal life?"  The pope more
than hints that to be Catholic, one must have morality, saying, "an opinion
is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond
between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal
unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere
of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behavior could be
tolerated..." (No. 4).

As well as necessary, morality is salutary: "it is precisely *on*the*path*of*
*the*moral*life*that*the*way*of*salvation*is*open*to*all*" (No. 3).  The pope
continues, quoting Vatican II, "For whatever goodness and truth is found in
[those who do not know about Christ and his Church] is considered by the
Church as a preparation for the Gospel" (No. 3).  Thus we see that true
morality will lead to true faith, and hence to salvation.

2) "There can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth." (No. 96)

As Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free"
(John 8:32).  Furthermore, the pope says,

   ...freedom of conscience is never freedom "from" the truth but always
   and only freedom "in" the truth.  (No. 64)

Thus, the pope lays to waste the false notion that individual conscience can
overrule the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.  Salvation
requires truth, as the pope observes, "man is no longer convinced that only
in truth can he find salvation.  The saving power of the truth is contested,
and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself
what is good and what is evil. This relativism becomes, in the field of
theology, a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the
moral law." (No. 84).

3) Intrinsically evil behavior is inexcusable.

"When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there
are no privileges or exceptions for anyone" (No. 96).  Intrinsically evil
behavior includes murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, contraception,
adultery, sexual perversion, theft, and more (see Nos. 80 & 81).  The pope
speaks powerfully to those who say that intentions or consequences can
excuse such acts:

   Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act
   intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act "subjectively"
   good or defensible as a choice.
   
So much for pro-choice!  (By "object," the pope means "the proximate end of
a deliberate decision," (No. 78).  The proximate end of "pro-choice" is
abortion, the murdering of a child.)

4) Dissent is not a legitimate expression of freedom.

The Pope takes aim at a favorite American-Catholic pastime:

   *Dissent*, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics
   carried on in the media, *is*opposed*to*ecclesial*communion*... (No. 113)
   ...*the*right*of*the*faithful* to receive Catholic doctrine in its
   purity and integrity must always be respected.

CONCLUSION

   ... the sacrifice of Christ would be emptied of its power by those who
   claim to love [sinful man] by justifying his sin.  No absolution offered
   by beguiling doctrines...can make man truly happy: only the Cross and the
   glory of the Risen Christ can grant peace to his conscience and salvation
   to his life.  (No. 120)

John,
  Do you make a distinction between salvation and the state of being saved?
One such distinction is a point in time versus a state of being.  Being
born alive is a point in time; living is a state of being.  One can be born,
and die without nuturing.  Growth and living isn't what makes us born, though.

Mark

    
    One cannot be saved in the Catholic church theology in the sense that
    Protestants view salvation.  One is saved in the Roman church only if one 
    continues to receive the sacraments per the churches instructions.
    
    jeff

    !         <<< Note 276.275 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
    !             -< Moral Behavior is Necessary for Salvation >-
    
    
! IMPORTANT TEACHINGS

! 1) Catholic moral behavior is necessary for salvation.
    I think I do not understand this, because as it is written, I disagree
    with it. I would be more inclined to say to have salvation, one would
    express it as trying to live as Christ, and therefore, *changing*
    behavior to be more *moral*. Being moral does not save you, nor does
    it provide salvation. Being saved however does produce life and a life
    change, one of which is seen as behavior.
           PDM_?_confused

    
    No, you're not confused.  They believe that morality precedes
    salvation.  I assume that they also believe that it follows.
    
    jeff

>    No, you're not confused.  They believe that morality precedes
>    salvation.  I assume that they also believe that it follows.

Actually, I think that they teach (as the bible does) that _repentance_
preceeds personal acceptance of Christ in baptism.  They also teach that
repentance preceeds the weekly profession of faith required by the Church.

I think we have discussed in other topics in this conference whether it is
possible for someone who has been saved to fall back into sin.  I think
this is a semantic issue dealing with _when_ someone is actually saved.
Certainly the Bible tells us that we were _all_ saved by Christ's passion;
what we do to make that one sufficient sacrifice effective for each of us
individually is something that has never been agreed upon within this
conference, whether it be among Protestants or between Protestants and
Catholics.

/john

    
>Actually, I think that they teach (as the bible does) that _repentance_
>preceeds personal acceptance of Christ in baptism.  They also teach that
>repentance preceeds the weekly profession of faith required by the Church.

    But the Bible does not teach "personal acceptance of Christ in
    baptism".  It teach personal acceptance of Christ's atonement for our
    sins.  Baptism is not a part of the saving process.
    
>I think we have discussed in other topics in this conference whether it is
>possible for someone who has been saved to fall back into sin.  I think
>this is a semantic issue dealing with _when_ someone is actually saved.
>Certainly the Bible tells us that we were _all_ saved by Christ's passion;
    
    No, it's not just semantic.  There are significant theological
    differences on this issue.  The Calvinists, for example, do not believe
    the carnal Christian exists nor do they believe that we are *all* saved
    by Christ's passion, only those that are elected.
    
>what we do to make that one sufficient sacrifice effective for each of us
>individually is something that has never been agreed upon within this
>conference, whether it be among Protestants or between Protestants and
>Catholics.

    Agreed.  And this is quite frightening to me.  How can Christians be in
    such disagreement?  And furthermore, who says that *we* can do anything
    to make Christ's atonement effective?  Is it not Christ and Christ
    alone who saves?
    
    jeff

    

>How can Christians be in such disagreement?

Do you know about the fable of the blind men and the elephant?

    
    Yes I do.  I think it serves as a good illustration when discussing
    nonessentials.  I think it is a poor illustration otherwise.
    
    jeff

>    Yes I do.  I think it serves as a good illustration when discussing
>    nonessentials.  I think it is a poor illustration otherwise.

Your opinion is noted, Jeff.

Let's consider for a moment, numerous blind men and two animals.
One animal is an elephant around which are gathered some blind men.
The other animal is a rhinocerous around which are gathered other blind men.

Apply the fable except both sets of blind men think they are examining
an elephant. You may have a few blind men who agree on their obeservations.

When we are faced with determining whether we're studying the same animal, 
let alone studying one animal's parts to understand the whole, it becomes
a whole lot more complicated to know who is describing the actual elephant.

In shorter words, what *are* the essentials, Jeff?  Which people in 
religious persuasions that are other than yours identifying the 
actual elephant to the best of their ability and skill, and which
people in religious persuasions are off checking out a rhinocerous 
thinking they have an elephant?

Sometimes, we can be so sure than the elephant is like a long snake (trunk)
that the person who describes the elephant as being like a great tree trunk
(leg) must be way off base.  Then there are some *essentials* (I agree) that
help us know that it is an elephant we have and not a rhino.  

I brought up the fable to hopefully help distinguish either what you
consider to be the essentials to Christianity, or what the essentials
actually may be.

Mark

    
    The essential question is: "How can a man gain eternal life?"
      
    Can he save himself?  Is there a procedure to follow? 
    Can one be baptised (by water) into eternal life?  Can a man grant a
    man eternal life?
    
    jeff