The following discussion took place when a Catholic attempted to set me straight about my critiques of Catholicism—many of which I detail in my book In Consideration of Catholic Doctrines, Traditions and Dogmas.
My new Catholic friend began with:
I read your article about this Marian sanctuary and the pastor Fr. Anthony
Bus being demonic, felt inspired to briefly weigh in.
I came to Christ 4 years ago, yet also perceiving the Catholic Marian devotion as demonic. Paintings depict her with strong occultist overtones, and in general, it reeked of idolatry. However, I’ve since done a 180, becoming devoutly Latin-Mass Catholic, and have done the Marian consecration (and a separate one to St. Joseph!) myself.
I was leery at first because (gulp) it does sound bad! But only superficially. In reality, I consecrated myself to Jesus *through* Mary.
Jesus is Lord; my King, my Redeemer, my God. Yet Jesus came through Mary, did He not? He could have arrived like Adam, without parents, yet He chose to submit Himself to a mom and dad as part of a family. The former actually supplying His Flesh and Blood! Meditate on those points, and ask the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Furthermore, picture the Nativity. God arrived as an adorable, helpless Baby, one reason being, so we more easily love Him and approach Him with no fear! But do you just go pick up a baby? No, you always always always go “through” the mother.
Then there’s the apparitions, esp. LaSallette, Knock, FATIMA (!!!), and Akita. She’s been predicting our current dire state of affairs for centuries.
(Look up Our Lady of Good Help from Quito, Ecuador 400 years ago, prophesying the sexual revolution to the precise decade!) The great apostasy, Satan’s infiltration into the Church, communism’s global takeover, and most important of all, the COMING CHASTISEMENTS that will see most of humanity killed!
Fatima, Fatima, Fatima, and Akita especially. You must know the messages from Heaven. Didn’t the prophet Amos say that God does nothing without revealing it to His prophets? Think that’s not true today? Mary is the Queen of Prophets!
If you can open your mind to it, it’s easy to accept Jesus’s second coming will be like His first: THROUGH MARY. She’s been appearing all over the world, helping us prepare. Lastly, we need the Eucharist; do you think it’s an accident God put his warning to those who reject this command at John 6:66?
When I replied, he, in turn, replied by copying and pasting my reply and parsing it with his commentary added thus, I will post his reply since it contains mine within it so that you can see both.
I will underline his comments to my reply for the sake of distinctions.
He began with:
Thank you for your thoughtful email. My responses are below in red. I threw a lot at you, more than even most Catholics can handle or care to believe to be honest, so I’d be glad to clarify anything too….unclear.
Here is the reply:
Good day,
I pray I find you and yours well.
Thank you so very much for your fascinating story.
May I note that “consecrated myself to Jesus *through* Mary” is exactly the sort of thing that one would never get from the Bible, which is why it required centuries of development via the claims of apparitions, visions, etc.?
You’re right there, there’s little to no support for this notion in the Bible. Yet does St. Paul not tell us to hold fast to Sacred Scripture and Tradition? The latter in fact came first, for if Jesus wanted us to be People of the Book (like Muslims), He would’ve written a book. Instead, he founded a Church, on Peter, and Peter alone, the sole bearer of the keys to heavenly Jerusalem, which harkens to the Davidic kingdom per Isaiah 22:19-21 “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Our Lord in Matthew clearly references this, and the onlooking apostles certainly would’ve thought to themselves “Whoa baby…Jesus just made Simon His #2 man!” Here’s a quote where even Martin Luther acknowledges as much: “Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.’” This is Jesus talking, “‘Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office (…) They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.’” –> Luther, however, insisted no succession was handed down after Peter’s death, but I’ll let you square that one with the quote from Isaiah and the sensibility of terminating such an important authoritative office within a single lifetime. My point in all this, since I know this doesn’t touch on Mary at all, is to prove the divine authority of the Catholic Church. Once established, Her teachings such as on the role of Mary can then be seen to be inerrant considering Her mission and mandate came from Christ Himself (Who can neither deceive nor be deceived).
That “Jesus came through Mary” and so we should come “to Jesus *through* Mary” is a category error: Jesus came into the world though Mary but you are telling the world to come to Jesus, for salvation, through Mary—again, something about which no one knew nothing nor could have even imagined until centuries past from the time of Jesus, His Apostles, the disciples, the early church leaders, etc., etc., etc.
We’re basically a bunch of Johns: either the Baptist, whereby Mary brings Jesus to us (as when the former was in Elizabeth’s womb), or the Evangelist, whereby Mary brings us to Jesus. She’s ever at the foot of the Cross interceding for us. Surely you don’t think Jesus was only giving Mary as Mother to John? For a wise man once said, he who will not have Mary as his Mother will not have Jesus as his Brother!
(also, who do you think is at Jesus’s right and left in heaven? You know it’s not Peter, James or John… hint: who was at His right and left when He was born?)
When you “Meditate on those points, and ask the Holy Spirit’s guidance” you must do as the Bible tells us and judge that guidance by the Bible. Thus, the Holy Spirit is not the one who guided you to take such actions.
That “She’s been predicting our current dire state of affairs for centuries”—and, by the way, you refer to “she” as Mary even though you have no idea if that is the true Mary appearing—is irrelevant if “she” is guiding people away from the one true God and pointing to herself as the one via which we are to get saved in the manner of to Jesus through Mary since the biblical model is to God the Father through Jesus directly—see Deuteronomy chap 18 for how to test a supposed prophet and also Hebrews 4:16.
Her last word uttered in the Bible is, “Do whatever He tells you”. One of her first was, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy Word.” Sounds like she knows both who she is and Who God Is. She’s like the moon: always facing us, yet always pointing to the Son. Not emitting her own Light, but perfectly reflecting God’s, guiding us lost ships home to port. Interceding. I’d at least read the message of Fatima if you haven’t.
(BTW, I had it wrong in my earlier email…her Quito, Ecuador title, by which in 1610 she predicted the total moral collapse and loss of innocence amongst children after the 1960s, is Our Lady of Good Success. Remember that even angels don’t know the future, per Isaiah 41:23: “Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods”, thus this cannot have been from Satan but from God Alone)
I can open my mind plenty but do so along with opening the Bible—and the two should match.
I assure you they do! She’s the New Ark, the God-bearer, the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Thus do the words of King Solomon in 1 Kings 2:20 aptly apply to Mary from her Divine Son: “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” I also of course go to Jesus directly with petitions, but believe me, many many times have I only gotten help when I asked for Mary’s intercession. (and I’ll leave out Joseph and the other saints to stay on target ;o))
Are you claiming that since “Jesus’s second coming will be like His first: THROUGH MARY” that she will appear in the flesh pregnant and will give birth?
No, but she will prepare the world in the sense of how she already is doing so. Hence in just the last 150 years she’s appeared at Fatima in Portugal (1917), Kibeho in Rwanda (1980s, warning of their then-upcoming genocide, detailing in advance how it happened), Zeitoun in Egypt (seen by over 1 million people (!!) in the 1970s), Knock in Ireland (late 1800s), Lasalette in France (mid 1800s, crying; very sad when a mother lets her children see her sobbing), Champion in Wisconsin (late 1800s), Akita in Japan (1970s –> this is essentially the 3rd secret of Fatima, which the Vatican suppressed, if you understand what that means…here in the 70s, Our Lady said the sins of humanity have reached their peak and God’s chastisement will come soon, entailing “fire falling from the sky” that will most likely kill the majority of humanity alongside other cataclysms. The stigmatist seer from Akita, Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, who’s still alive, came out of hiding after 40 years, just months prior to the Corona shutdown/current globalist takeover to say “the time is near” and to “pray a repentant rosary”.)
When it comes to the Eucharist: at what point do you begin when you seek to understand it? Centuries after the time of Jesus and starting from John 6:55? Perhaps try v. 63 “The words I have spoken to you are spirit.” Better yet, begin at the beginning with the Passover meal, without that you have no historical, cultural, nor symbolic context and are just picking up the ball midway through the game and are off and running with it without understanding the rules by which to play.
I’ll pray for you brother! Our Lord, the Word Incarnate was very clear, and myriad documents from the 1st century onward attest to the literal reception of His words. When God says “Let there be light”, there’s light. When God says “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, there’s His Body and Blood. He’s present in His priests, who say the words of consecration, and thus He’s present on every Catholic altar everyday. Hence the Catholic Church has been a saint-making factory churning out Mother Teresa’s and unparalleled miracle workers for 2000 years. There’s no Buddhist St. John Vianney; no Muslim St. Pio of Pietrelcina; and no Protestant St. Joan of Arc. The reason is the Eucharist. I can assure you I never would’ve overcome a 20 year porn & masturbation addiction without It! God Bless!
Shalom!
Continuing on, I noted:
Friend, Paul does not ever say “Sacred Scripture and Tradition” and when you look for what he actually said, pay attention to what he actually said and do not pretend he said something he did not say.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” Plain as day to me. Now, I don’t know what Bible you use, which again brings up the main issue, authority. I believe protestants followed the perfidious Jews and their “new” Old Testament of 90AD, from their Council of Jamnia, that jettisoned books like 1 & 2 Maccabees (which ironically preserved Hannukah for our de-grafted elder brethren), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and others, to differentiate themselves from this “new Christian sect”. Small problem: Jesus’s own set of Scriptures contained these books! In any case, Jesus founded the Church, and the Church wrote and codified the Bible and remains the sole God-ordained instrument for interpretation. Thus did Our Lord make universal what the Jews clung (and still cling) onto as tribal, thus did Christianity catholicize Judaism.
But even though there is tradition you cannot just use that word/concept as a manner in which to claim whatever you want, of course, you cannot claim that what no one seems to have claimed until centuries or millennia after the time of Jesus must have come from the original traditions.
Try this: please quote me even one single word of oral tradition spoken my any apostle—anything not found in the Bible.
Okay… St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, became Bishop of Antioch in about 98AD. He said “[heretics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” He spent years alongside the writer of the most sophisticated and mystical books of the Bible, and was also thought to have done the same with St. Peter. Might he know better what the apostles said in real life? Right from the first century you have the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. As every apostolic church also has (Greek and Russian “Orthodox”, Coptic, etc). Do you think it makes sense that for 1500 years, as Christianity spread to nearly every continent via the Catholic Church, the 16th century revolutionaries who looted monasteries, decapitated saints, raped nuns, and joined Jews in creating the trans-Atlantic slave trade and modern usurious banking, paving the way for the Maonic revolutions and the modern era that is marked by a global Luciferian conspiracy literally dominating the world…. do you seriously think this is when we finally figured it all out?? Or did Jesus pick the right guys at the outset, who passed on the correct teachings, and 1.5 thousand years laters it got corrupted by schismatics and brazen hell-bound heretics?
Jesus founded His church on the petra nor on Petros.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, a cruder language than Koine Greek; Cephas means “Rock” and nothing else, as in English…not “pebble” nor “stone” nor “boulder”.
And if “the onlooking apostles certainly would’ve thought to themselves ‘Whoa baby…Jesus just made Simon His #2 man!’” then what did they think when Jesus followed up with replying this to a statement made by Peter, “Get behind Me, satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Matthew 16: 23).
Peter was “a fellow elder” (1st Peter 5:1).
I find great humor in this sequence of dialogue, personally, for how unpredictable Our Lord is. But do you interpret it to mean Peter is not the head of the disciples? Again, who’s the authority on correct interpretation?
So you are saying that “the divine authority of the Catholic Church” comes from the New Testament but how do you know that the New Testament is giving the (Roman) Catholic Church divine authority?
No, the New Testament came from the Catholic Church. The latter having been teaching and establishing churches for about half a century before John even wrote Revelations. And the Council of Nicea is the only reason your Bible doesn’t have uninspired books like the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, and other Gnostic deceptions. Who determines what’s inspired?
“Johns: either the Baptist, whereby Mary brings Jesus to us (as when the former was in Elizabeth’s womb), or the Evangelist, whereby Mary brings us to Jesus” are incoherent statements.
Mary carried Jesus in her womb to John the Baptist, who leapt in Elizabeth’s womb, recalling King David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:14). At the end of Jesus’s life Mary “carried” John the Evangelist to Jesus at the Cross. I’m not really making a point here, was more just fruit from a meditation I had on how “we’re all just a bunch of Johns”, noting the symmetry: Mary either bringing Jesus to us or us to Jesus…
Why would Jesus being “giving Mary” to us?
Why did He make you or me? Because He’s awesome. She also undid Eve’s curse by her “yes” to God, so it makes sense to me that, as Eve’s the physical mother of the dead, Mary’s the spiritual mother of the living.
At Jesus’ left in heaven is God the Father since Jesus is at His right hand but we are not told who, if anyone, is at Jesus’ right. And I have no idea what you mean by that someone “was at His right and left when He was born.”
Mary and Joseph were to the right and left of the Manger, and so are they in Heaven. Just think: They’re the only two people God literally obeyed. Again, I recommend meditating on this point, on Jesus as a 4 year old, or a 10 year old responding to Joseph when the latter says “bring me that handsaw”. And seriously, can there be any doubt that Baby Jesus, the Word Incarnate, gazed upon Mary and uttered as His first word: “Mama”? He certainly would not be offended if you did the same!
Indeed, Mary tells us to do whatever Jesus tells us but Jesus never even hints the same of her: even when He had at least two golden opportunities to do so.
“Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
“My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Yes that’s true, but it doesn’t refute my other points though.
Indeed, she knows both who she is, someone saved by grace, and who God is.
How do you know that Our Lady of Good Success (and all of the others you claim) was the real Mary? Also, you refer to that “even angels don’t know the future” so you seem to be ignoring the Bible’s tests about prophecy.
Same reason I know Jesus is God: I look at the data and conclude this is true. What’s the alternative? Satan? She unveils Satan’s greatest moment of power, telling us exactly how to avoid it, the message ignored by even (especially!!) the Vatican. A house divided amongst itself cannot stand, so it makes far more sense that these warnings come from Heaven than Hell. (I earnestly suggest reading about Our Lady of Fatima: we are living in “those times”, and they’re going to get significantly worse — Our Lady of Akita is the most recent follow-up)
“She’s the New Ark” whatever that means.
As Jesus is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve, and also the Ark of the New Covenant. If the first Ark was of purest gold and finest acacia wood etc, how much more perfect and worthy in Almighty God’s Sight is the vessel that carried His Only-Begotten Son?
“the God-bearer” indeed.
“the Daughter of the Father” as are all saved women.
“Mother of the Son” mother of Jesus.
Are you saying Mary only gave birth to Jesus’s human nature, implying He was not God while in the womb? If so, this is Nestorianism, a heresy condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.
“Spouse of the Holy Spirit” I suppose someone might put it that way.
Would God not put it that way? Hence she’s one with the Holy Spirit, hence all grace flows through her whether or not we’re aware of it. Honestly, I was worried at first about loving Mary too much, but then realized I’ll never love her as much as Jesus does.
You claim “the words of King Solomon in 1 Kings 2:20 aptly apply to Mary from her Divine Son” well, I certainly hope that is not the case: have you ever read that text of did you take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext? Keep reading all the way to three verses later, “King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, ‘May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!’”
Scripture and typology are multivalent, not one-to-one. Hence, the episode involving Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac prefigures God the Father sacrificing Jesus, yet of course in the end Abraham didn’t go through with killing Isaac, so is that to say what came prior therefore doesn’t point to Our Lord’s sacrifice? You’re straining at a gnat here; Solomon, being the son of David, who had like a thousand wives but only one mother, whose throne sat beside his, is a very obvious forerunner to Christ, and so it’s not hard to see these words as referring to the Heavenly Queen Mum’s position of influence with Our Lord.
Since Mary is dead, how is it that you pray to her since, for one, there are two forms of prayer in the Bible—prayer to God and prayer to false gods—and how does she hear you and also anyone else who is praying to her—do you claim she is omnipresent and/or omniscient?
She’s more alive in Heaven than we are on Earth. To deny she’s alive is to deny that Jesus really spoke with Moses and Elijah in Mark 9:4. Re: intercessory prayer, examples abound where God helps people because some holy one prayed on their behalf, see Moses (Exodus 32:7-14), Job (Job 42:8), and many times through the prophets. Mary hears me because she’s “oned” to God, more than any other creature in fact (there are many daughters of God, but only one true mother and spouse). Satan despises Mary because she took his spot as creature numero uno in Heaven: Satan was #1 by nature (now cast to the bottom of hell), Mary’s #1 by grace, elevated above all angels who are by nature vastly superior to her. She crushes Satan’s head and he knows it, that’s why he loves corrupting women in general and instilling disdain for the Virgin Mary in particular. (note: if your Bible says “he will crush your head” in Gen 3:15, again, whose Bible is properly translated? But I submit: Satan knows God is God, and thus, as it were, wouldn’t mind so much being vanquished by the Supreme Lord of Lords who made him out of nothing in the first place; it’s infinitely more humiliating for a lowly human woman to crush a Seraph’s skull than the all-powerful Creator.)
And since Jesus told us to not pray repetitive prayers then when someone tells you to pray the rosary (which is actually a very watered down version of what supposed Mary supposedly original demanded) then your reply should be, “No, I will obey Jesus.”
You got me there; I certainly do say dozens of Hail Mary’s everyday. But recall the admonition was against vain repetitions, which implies there’s such a thing as not vain repetitious prayer. Though I sometimes wonder which category I’m in ;o)
So, in other words, you utterly ignore the millennia of my Jewish traditions about the Passover meal and you begin with “This is my body” and “This is my blood” and turn it into whatever you want: pray tell, what cup did He say that about and what bread?
I think I’ve proven my point by now. God doesn’t want us to quibble. He wants us to become saints. A saint is one who lives a life of heroic virtue, and the Church was instituted to facilitate and even enable it. Mary, the sacraments, the saints, the incense, all of it aims to help us know God more, love God more, and serve God more in this life, so we can be happy with Him in the next. That’s it. For me, I go to Mass everyday, offering the four-fold sacrifice of praise, atonement, thanksgiving, and petition to the Almighty Father through the re-presentation of Christ’s one-time sacrifice on Calvary in the Eucharist, begging God’s mercy for sin, resolving to root out defects and cultivate virtues, consecrating every conversation and every morning, afternoon, evening, and night to God for the salvation of myself and all those I pray for. I cry at the thought that Mary had to walk away from the tomb alone, no husband and now no Jesus, sleeping alone that first night, notwithstanding her hope of the Resurrection. Can this possibly displease God? If I die and Jesus sentences me to Hell for all this, I’ll go with my head held high because, sheesh, I certainly can’t feel bad for having done my absolute best to know, love, and serve God each and every day!
Why would Jesus be “present on every Catholic altar everyday?
Jesus is mystically present through his Priests when they utter His own words during Mass, thus when they say “This is my body”, Jesus is really there. He whom Heaven & Earth can’t hold encloses Himself within me everyday. Jesus meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto thine!
Perhaps we could say that “the Catholic Church has been a saint-making factory churning out Mother Teresa’s and unparalleled miracle workers for 2000 years” but you will surely admit that such is utterly myopic since it has also, with its own official approval and protection, utterly perverted villains for 2000 years—that is a lot more than “20 year porn…addiction” but yes, God blessed you with liberation.
Tragically yes, the Catholic Church is arguably the most corrupt institution ever. Like Christ: human and divine, but unlike Christ, not infallibly human. Pope Paul VI said in the 70s that the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican…the pedophile coverups, the banking ties to Rothschilds, believe me it’s probably worse than we can imagine! And yet…. the gates of hell shall not prevail!
Pax et bonum!!
This time, he followed before, I could reply, with:
Brother in Christ, whoever turns out to be “right”, let us remember St. Augustine’s words: humility makes men into angels, and pride makes angels into demons.
The crux of it all is the issue of authority — who did God intend to interpret the Bible? 2 Peter 3:15-16 tells us how difficult Paul’s letters are to understand, and how many people twist them away from their intended meaning. That’s where heresy (Greek for error) enters in. There was a mathematician named Ivan Panin who decoded Bible numerics, illustrating the divine origin by this unfathomable heptadic structure (Greek letter symbols had proper number values, like Hebrew). But he said certain passages, like a section from Mark, I can’t remember which, caused the structure to break down, thus he says it’s not inspired and tossed it out, and many (Chuck Missler among them) followed Panin, essentially making him the authority on what’s inspired. I was taken in by these two guys for months actually, learning a ton from Missler truth be told, but ultimately, I had to resolve who’s the authority, Ivan Panin? Chuck Missler? Myself? Methodists? Evangelicals? Or the oldest institution in the world, that traces its origin straight back to Jesus? Which makes the most sense? — Further responses in red below. Blessings to you and yours!
Here is my reply:
This is clearly turning into a trading of essays and is already getting unmanageable so I would be willing to forego all that which follows and opt for a discussion of whether accepting Catholic dogma is required for salvation.
Now, you are merely assuming that Paul wrote one thing to them but orally taught something different: that is a mere assertion.
Paul wrote “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you FOR SALVATION through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by OUR GOSPEL, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”
Ergo, he taught them the gospel in writing and word of mouth.
Recall that I wrote “please quote me even one single word of oral tradition spoken my any apostle—anything not found in the Bible” and you just ranted in reply but were unable to provide even one single word.
If you have info proving different cannons pre and post Jamnia I would like to see it as well as “Jesus’s own set of Scriptures.”
That the “the Church wrote and codified the Bible” seems to ignore millennia’s worth of us Jews writing and codifying it.
Peter wrote of himself as “a fellow elder,” if you disagree due to later “tradition” then take it up with him.
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the cannon.
You noted “The crux of it all is the issue of authority” I asked “So you are saying that ‘the divine authority of the Catholic Church’ comes from the New Testament but how do you know that the New Testament is giving the (Roman) Catholic Church divine authority?” and you failed to reply to that.
I am glad you are not really making a point about “we’re all just a bunch of Johns” since what you wrote about is Catholic-word-salad just like your statements about Eve and Mary.
How do you know that “Mary and Joseph were to the right and left of the Manger” and especially that “so are they in Heaven”?
Those supposed apparitions of alleged Mary constantly demand adherence to “Mary” and so that is not from God even is that spirit panders every now and then. I earnestly suggest reading my site wherein I consider many such supposed Mary apparitions. You are again failing to note the Bible’s test for a prophet: a false prophet may say true things that come to pass but that is not enough if their ultimate message is to go after other gods—such as the faux Mary that Catholicism manipulated to be almost exactly like Jesus.
It is not Nestorianism to affirm that Jesus human nature was birthed through Mary but He has forever lived and was divine prior to His Earthly birth—Jesus became a human-male-man at conception, He did not become God at conception since He always is God.
I see what you mean about 1 Kings 2:20, you will take it out context to make people think it states something it does not and then drop it when such is pointed out to you.
You make a category error about “Since Mary is dead” since we know very well that there is Earthly live and eternal life. God forbad communication with the dead, Mary is dead, ergo, communicating with her is necromancy. The intercessory prayer examples you provide are offered by people who are alive on the Earth at the time so you cannot just teach people to violate God’s word by avoiding inconvenient facts.
I have no idea what “Mary hears me because she’s ‘oned’ to God” means but Mary is blessed among women, not above all women and men and Angels, etc.
And yes, I am aware of the Catholic manipulation of Gen 3:15.
By the way, Satan is a Cherub, not a Seraph.
Regarding repetitive prayers: please read Jesus’ words rather than the words of those who want you to violate them, His point is that the repetition is what makes it vain since God hears you, “when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites…when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For THEY THINK THAT THEY WILL BE HEARD FOR THEIR MANY WORDS. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.”
Such is why of the many, many, many, many prayers recorded in the Bible there is not one single repetitive one.
Also, you ignored the point about that you do not even bother praying the real rosary supposedly brought to Earth from heaven by Mary herself, you pray a watered-down version—right?
You utterly ignored my point about how “you utterly ignore the millennia of my Jewish traditions about the Passover meal and you begin with ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’ and turn it into whatever you want” and avoided answering “pray tell, what cup did He say that about and what bread?”
I often experience people attempting to read emotions into my black and white texts and can only assure you that I appreciate our discussion.
He replied:
I was going to address some of your points but you’re right, it’s pretty much just issuing our own/ fly-swatting the other’s beliefs. Our positions are clear by now so it would probably be a waste of each time.
Regarding whether accepting Catholic dogma is required for salvation, short answer, no it’s not. Catholic teaching allows for baptism by desire, which means someone on Madagascar who’s never heard of Jesus wouldn’t just be doomed automatically, as many protestants believe. Thus, “baptism by desire” can include someone earnestly pursuing the Truth of God and upright natural law-abiding living. Thus does 2nd century’s St. Justin Martyr consider Socrates as a proto-Christian, in the sense that he obviously can’t be faulted for not knowing Jesus, yet his pursuit of Truth may have allowed for his being granted the grace of justification by God and grafted into the Mystical Body of Christ. There’s also what we call a perfect act of contrition: someone, often on their deathbed, granted a grace from God to hold true sorrow for their sins filled with pure love for God that would remit original sin. How common these are is anyone’s guess, but I’d say “not terribly”, and the main point is we can’t earn such salvation for ourselves; as a grace, it’s a free gift from God. Yet Catholics believe we actually can merit such a grace for another person. (hence we’re always “offering it up”, which is actually the main thrust of my existence at this present point considering the hell-bound nature of most of my loved ones; see Collosians 1:24, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.”)
That said, for anyone not living on a desert island, who has heard of Jesus and the Catholic Church, and rejected one or both, such a one will be judged for this. Jesus didn’t mince his words when He said if you deny me down here, “I’ll deny you before My Father”. We probably agree on that. And Christ extended it to the Catholic Church (“…those who deny you deny Me…”), which is the Mystical Body of Jesus, and also His Bride, born from the Cross from the outpouring of Blood and Water from His Sacred Side (just as Eve was born from the side of Adam). The Blood and Water symbolize the grace and mercy that flow through the Sacraments into our souls.
The Eucharist is Heaven on Earth, the literal continuation of the Incarnation of Our Lord, thus, ignoring or even spurning the Eucharist is indistinguishable from centurions buffeting and spitting on Our Lord during His Passion, or even someone just walking by indifferently. This is one reason why I believe most protestants, and even most Catholics, will go to hell. Which does accord with the sense of when Our Lord said to enter the narrow gate for few are they who find it, while many enter the gate the leads to destruction. (you want some sobering reading, check this out) I also find most protestants to be quite stiff-necked and prideful, and entirely stone-hearted toward the Glorious and Immaculate Mother of God. The Blessed Virgin Mary is, as you reluctantly conceded, the spouse of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Thus, considering how “two become one flesh”, the Virgin Mary is the created incarnation of the Holy Spirit. To deny this syllogism requires a degree of obstinacy, mental gymnastics, or both, none of which bespeak spiritual childlikeness or purity of heart, which are requisite for seeing God.
Also, I don’t know if you believe “once saved always saved”, but the simple sense of “you must persevere to the end” and “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” certainly sounds like it’s a battle til the bitter end. A concession as well: looks like you’re right about the evil one being a Cherub, per Ezekiel I think. I thought he was the most beautiful and powerful of the highest choir, meaning numero uno creature by nature, but I guess I was wrong.
Lastly, just a plain fact albeit unrelated to salvation: the Catholic Church shepherded the West’s conversion from paganism to Christ; protestantism shepherded the reversion from Christ back to paganism.
I appreciate the discussion as well; it’s rare to not have devolved by this point. Satan creates and thrives on division so apparently we’re thwarting his efforts!
My reply:
I too am tempted to comment upon your every statement but wish to focus on two issues.
The difference between Catholic doctrine and Catholic dogma is that dogma must be believed and you may want to say that it must be believed by the faithful Catholic who is aware of it or whatever qualifying terms you want to use to water down the historical significance of what dogma has meant.
At this point you seem to be implying that there are many ways of salvation: at least a few for those who have never heard but would have believed if they would have known, one for Catholic who are unaware of dogmas, another for Catholics who are aware of it, etc. Is that fair enough?
As for the Eucharist: as long as you keep ignoring whence it came, ignoring the millennia old historical context (and I am mean millennials before the time of Jesus much less the traditions that had developed by His time) you will keep wrongly thinking that no one knew anything about anything until He said this is my body and blood and you are off and running from there–never looking back. The Last Supper was a Passover meal and if you know nothing about that then you know nothing or what He meant, to what He was actually referring, etc.
His next reply was:
I can’t and don’t deny a jot nor a tittle of Catholic dogma. There’s one way to be saved: in Jesus Christ, by being cleansed of original sin through baptism, and persevering in the state of grace til death. This cleansing happens through the sacrament of baptism, with proper form and matter (the words of Our Lord + water), and if the state of grace is lost through mortal sin, the sacrament of penance restores it to the soul.
However, while we are bound by the sacraments, God is not. Thus God can plunge/immerse souls (Greek baptizo) into the life of Christ in ways known only to Himself. I don’t know how God does this, nor do I even think about it, because it’s God prerogative. His ways are infinitely above mine. The alternative is that Socrates and ancient Logos-seeking natural law-abiding aborigines of Australia are just doomed to hell, regardless how they exercised their free will. Does that really make sense to you? My prerogative is to preach the Gospel to every creature and try to draw souls to Christ.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean about the Eucharist. There’s a book on the subject that might go into what you mean called “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”.
That said, the Last Supper wasn’t a Passover meal; it was the fulfillment of the Passover meal. It was what the Passover meal pointed to, just like sacrificial lambs and goats and oxen and Isaac pointed to Jesus, and the Old Law of Moses pointed to and was fulfilled by the New Law of Love. The important thing about the Feast of Passover is it entailed not just sacrificing but also consuming the victim. Do you eat the Lamb of God? If not, you’re not actually taking part in the New Passover, which is the Sacrifice of Calvary. Jesus in John 6 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11 are crystal clear that we are actually meant to consume Christ’s Body and Blood. Deniers do mental gymnastics and actually implicitly accuse the Truth Incarnate of being a deceiving liar, for the plain sense of His Words shakes the belief of many of His disciples to leave him (John 6:66ers), and the rest of us, no matter how difficult the teaching, know Jesus has the words of eternal life and simply believe. This includes the apostles, Christians from the first and second centuries, and me. You bring up historical context: did you know you have more evidence of what I’m saying even in the Lord’s Prayer? Matthew and Luke don’t say “give us this day our daily bread”. They say give us our “epiousios bread”. They literally created a new word here, used nowhere else in ancient Greek literature, which means super-essential or supernatural. (hemera is Koine Greek for “daily”, and is used elsewhere in the New Testament, yet conspicuously not here….)
I hope you at least open your mind to it and investigate further. It’ll benefit your soul far more greatly than researching aliens and the paranormal!
My reply:
You seem to be bypassing the fact that the Vatican teaches that dogma must be believed for salvation.
Jesus identified the bread and a specific cup during the Passover meal which was then called the last or Lord’s supper: that is why you cannot just begin with Jesus’ statements and run with them since that would be to ignore what He was referring to–in as far as we can historically and culturally and grammatically reconstruct it, He did not just grab any ol’ piece of bread nor any cup that was laying around.
I am a Messianic Jews so of course I partake in communion–even if the Vatican came along later and claimed that only they possessed it–as if that matters to you since you claim non-Christians can be saved also with no regard for the Vatican nor Jesus.
I already noted that you conveniently avoided that in John 6:63 Jesus specified, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
In 1 Corinthians 11:25 Paul specified “the cup AFTER supper” which is why the historical, cultural, and grammatical context is key since without it you have no idea why it was the cup “after” supper.
You will not do well to not tell someone who was born in a Catholic majority country, and lives in a Catholic majority city, and married into a Catholic family, and worked in a Catholic church, and has had many discussion with Catholic, and has read Catholic books, and has listened to lectures by Catholics, and had moderated debates with Catholics, and wrote a book about Catholicism to “investigate further.”
Also, you might be unaware that issue of “aliens and the paranormal” are very culturally relevant, now more than ever, and if you want to ignore what is going on around you–including ignoring the supernatural, are you kidding–and just tell the culture, “Who cares about any of that? All of you can be saved without regard to the Vatican and knowing Jesus directly” then well, seems like you would be becoming less relevant by the day. Jesus engaged His culture, the Apostles did also, so did the disciples, so do I.
His next reply reads:
Well now you’re just ejecting from the discourse, to the point of pretending I didn’t already prove certain points previously.
“The Vatican” doesn’t teach anything. The Universal (Greek: katholikos) Church of Jesus Christ does. The Church, a full three centuries before “tHe vAtIcAn” existed with any relevance, taught that what appears to the senses to be bread and wine is actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. I already proved this. You reject the truth because your will precedes your intellect, thus your confirmation bias (which I believe is demonically influenced) blinds you to facts and truth.
Everything you’re saying about Jesus’s “specific cup” is sand in the eyes and prevarication: either I’m right and the Apostles and their disciples did correctly teach His Teaching from the first century unbroken to the present, or you’re right and He chose the wrong people — who immediately fell into error, yet whose legacy miraculously built the greatest civilization this planet will ever see while spreading the Gospel across the seven seas — and it was Protestants who figured it all out 1500 years later, while sacking monasteries, decapitating priests, and conspiring with Jews to bring us such blessings as modern usurious banking and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and later conspiring with anti-Christic Masons (and also Jews) to bring us this glorious Era of the Masonic Republic that’s rapidly approaching Revelations-grade Satanic global dictatorship. Those with eyes to see, see.
(Also, you need a priesthood to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood. That’s why there’s no protestant Eucharistic Miracles [http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html].)
I’ll grant the paranormal is interesting, but it’s not important. What matters is for you to save your own and your family’s souls, you simply need to be Catholic. You’re not an aborigine so you will be judged for what you heard and rejected. Think about this: from your point of view I myself am probably going to heaven (= I’ve surrendered my life entirely to Jesus); from my point of view, you’re probably going to hell. Pascal’s wager can be broadened to show that my position is vastly wiser than yours.
I’ll leave you with this short essay, in honor of yesterday’s Feast of the Assumption of the Glorious and Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother of God, Mary, Queen of Heaven. I’ll pray for the Lord to grant you a heart that listens and a soul that sees the Truth:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2013/11/23/the-one-about-the-science-of-the-immaculate-conception-and-assumption-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/
My reply:
“Vatican” is common parlance and I am surprised you even decided to pick on semantics since you are clearly of the Vatican II denomination of Catholicism.
Indeed, you did prove that “The Church…taught that what appears to the senses to be bread and wine is actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus” but that does not mean it is true and you have simply ignored what Jesus said about it in John 6.
And please do not play mind reader. I already told you why I reject it and you also ignore the issue that you do not know why it is specified that Jesus took the cup “after the meal” which surely means nothing to you but means A LOT to us Jews so when you call it “sand in the eyes and prevarication” that is not only shockingly offensive in that you merely dismiss us Jews who came before you but are clearly adamant about not informing yourself of facts so please lay off of your anti-Protestant polemics since you are charging one and a half millennia ahead in time while I am asking you to go in the other direction and consider that which came before the time of Jesus and gives substance to what He stated.
Yet, as for what “the Apostles and their disciples” taught: recall that your whole entire claim is that the Catholic church took it upon itself to claim that it has the exclusive authority to infallibly interpret the Bible and it knows this because it supposedly infallibly interpreted the Bible as stating that the Catholic church has the exclusive authority to infallibly interpret the Bible.
The next step is your claim that only the Catholic church has the secret oral traditional teachings of the Apostles. I requested even one single word of a teaching of an Apostle outside of the New Testament and you failed to provide it—but that is not just a personal fault of yours, the issue is that you bought into a lie: no such thing exists.
Then you want to tell me about how the Catholic church alone has the eucharist, infallible this, Mary that, etc. but you then throw all of that away as irrelevant when I ask you about the necessity of believing in dogma for salvation—which I am sure you know is a supposed infallible teaching of Catholicism—and you decide that anyone can be saved. Thus, Catholicism is unnecessary. But then you utterly contradict yourself by telling me that “What matters is for you to save your own and your family’s souls, you simply need to be Catholic.”
And after failing time and again you actually want to claim that from your point of view I am probably going to hell which is a perfect example of why I must keep rejecting your point of view.
So where are we:
Your claim to Catholicism’s infallible ability to infallibly interpret the Bible is a fallacy, circular logic.
Your claim that Catholicism has oral teachings of the Apostles is an empty, un-evidenced, facts-free assertion.
You refuse to admit the fact about Catholic dogma.
You imply that it is better to be unaware of Catholicism than to be aware of it and question it and reject it.
You ignore what Jesus said in John 6—because it is inconvenient?
You ignore specific details about references to the cup—because it is inconvenient?
His reply was:
I’ll take the bait on the subject of the Vatican. It’s truly a tragedy, and a travesty, but there’s no “Vatican II denomination”. It was simply Satan’s masterstroke, being, destroying the faith in the mind’s of the faithful while leaving the actual dogma, ergo the faith itself, unscathed. Hence, the Church still teaches contraception to be intrinsically evil, yet the majority of “Catholics” practice contraception, disregarding it, and so on and so forth. (another: the majority of “Catholics” will vote for Biden!!!!) Did “cafeteria Catholics” always exist? I don’t know, but they certainly outnumber the truly faithful, part of which I consider myself to be. (for what it’s worth, I primarily attend the pre-Vat 2 Latin Mass, earning the title “traditionalist” to some, whereas I just call myself a “basic orthodox Catholic practicing the faith how it was done for nearly 2,000 years”; the Novus Ordo Mass is still valid, however, albeit with sacrileges abounding in most parishes)
Your other points all fall (and fall down) under the aforementioned banner, “who has the authority to interpret Scripture?” What difference does it make what pre-Christ Jews did? Does it make “Thou art Peter” any less clear and authoritative, nor the near-universal acceptance of the Pope by early Christians? I know you mentally tap-danced around it, but it’s still clear. He literally renamed the guy Rock, and built His Church upon not them but him.
Furthermore, I produced a record from the first century written by an elder/presbyter/priest or whatever term suits you, who knew Peter and John and hence was familiar with the teaching from Our Lord’s Lips to their ears. This man Ignatius of Antioch authoritatively taught about the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, as well as indicating heretics who denied the Real Presence already existed. It’s fairly reasonable to think that he got this teaching from Peter & John, who got it directly from Our Lord. You can handwave that away as “secret oral traditional teaching”, but what does Occam’s razor say? That Ignatius of Antioch made it up? Or he was mistaken ala “Wait what did John say again as he was penning the Apocalypse… something about the Eucharist and someone’s presence…. Jesus’s presence? or maybe it was ‘presents’…. wait, should Christmas be December 25th or January 6th?…” The simplest answer is Ignatius passed on what he received from Peter & John who passed on what they received from Jesus. The not-simplest answer is it all got figured out 1,500 years later.
Do you pray to know, love, and serve Our Lord more and more each day, and to be nearer to Him, and to surrender yourself entirely to be His? If you do, I may be an answer to your prayers, as God’s instrument telling you how to do just that. Sacraments + mental prayer + simple childlike innocence and obedience (the “pure heart” from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus said is required to see God), this is the recipe for sainthood.
This next reply of mine was the end of this discussion since he no longer replied:
So, are you denying that Vatican II was a legit Catholic council to which you are beholden?
So I actually got it backwards: you are not of the Vatican II denomination (even though your virtual universalism stinks of it), you are actually of a pre-Vatican II denomination (but still apply a styled universalism since “the Novus Ordo Mass is still valid”).
We already dealt with the viciously circular illogic of “who has the authority to interpret Scripture?” the Catholic church does because it infallibly interpreted Scripture as stating that the Catholic church has the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture. But how does the Catholic church know it has the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture? Circle around to that it is because the Catholic church has the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture—which it does from Scripture as it infallibly interpreted to say.
I am glad you asked “What difference does it make what pre-Christ Jews did?” because it shows a shocking level of purposeful disregarding of that which Paul told us was “written for our learning” and detaches you from the historical, cultural, and grammatical context which is crucial for actual interpreters of Scripture to consider. It allows you to do what which I noted: you utterly uncontextually take Jesus’ statements (whilst ignoring the inconvenient one in John 6) and just run with it without knowing that about which He was speaking and when you are made aware of it, without caring. This is why the Catholic church has been infamous for just making up stuff at any given time. These are facts whether “It’s fairly reasonable to think,” nice qualifying terms, anyone “got this teaching from Peter & John” or not. And it is fascinating that I keep attempting to get you to understand the past but you keep plowing towards the future “The not-simplest answer is it all got figured out 1,500 years later” no, no, no: rather, take Jesus at His word about that which He was doing and saying.
What makes your version of “‘Thou art Peter’ any less clear and authoritative” is what I noted about how Peter himself understood it but you decided to ignore Peter because what he told us about it is inconvenient to you.
How do you know that Jesus “literally renamed the guy Rock, and built His Church upon not them but him” when the majority of the early church leaders understood Jesus to have referred to Peter’s statement as being the Rock upon which He built his church?
Finally, yes: I am keeping track of those many issues you keep conveniently ignoring—as I noted the last time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.