Pittsburgh Episcopalians Discuss Alternative Solution to Avoid Split

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Before the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh discusses changes toward a formal split from the denomination at an annual meeting later this year, some members of the diocese have planned a gathering to talk about "an alternative solution."

Parishes, clergy and laypeople who do not agree with disaffiliating with The Episcopal Church are holding a Sept. 13 event called "A Hopeful Future for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh: An Alternative Solution," with the intent of promoting unity and staying in the U.S. denomination. Organizers do not believe a withdrawal from the national church is a "helpful response to the current controversies within the Episcopal Church."

"This diocesan-wide gathering will explore why we believe that staying in The Episcopal Church is the right thing to do," according to the event description. "In addition we will lay out what an ongoing Episcopal presence in Southwestern Pennsylvania will look like should the vote for realignment pass."

The gathering comes a month before the diocese's annual convention on Oct. 4. At the convention, leaders are expected to consider resolutions regarding disaffiliation and realignment with the more conservative Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina. One of the resolutions would give parishes two years or more to make their by-laws reflect a realignment with the Southern Cone and also allow parishes "a season of discernment about whether to accept re-alignment or to petition to break their union with Convention."

Last November, the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted overwhelmingly to leave the national church, which the diocese says has departed from traditional Anglicanism and scriptural teachings. It was the first of two vote approvals needed for the diocese to remove itself from The Episcopal Church.

While the diocese generally meets in November for its annual convention, this year the date of the meeting was moved up a month. Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh had stated that the "expressed threat of deposition" of himself is the "sufficient cause" for the date change.

The deposition of Duncan is expected to be considered when the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church meet this month. Earlier this year, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori had sought permission from the senior bishops of the national church to inhibit Duncan but she did not receive their consent. The senior bishops, however, certified that Duncan had "abandoned the Communion of this Church."

Duncan argued that he has been loyal to the doctrine of The Episcopal Church – the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. He and the majority of the Pittsburgh diocese are breaking away from the national church to stay faithful to Scripture and to traditional Anglicanism within the worldwide Anglican Communion, they contend.

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

Online4Him »

Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:27 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

(...by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the FREE GIFT came upon all men unto justification of life.) Romans 5:18

Would an honest, loving God offer you eternal life as a FREE GIFT - then make you suffer to EARN IT - then lie about it in His Word?

(For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God:) Ephesians 2:8

If the Bible is to be believed, then there is no need for further purification for those who die in Christ. They have already been justified BY JESUS ââ‚¬â€œ

(Much more then, being NOW justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through HIM.) Romans 5:9

(Being justified FREELY by HIS GRACE through the redemption that is IN Christ Jesus:) Romans 3:24
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:31 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Praying people out of a non-existent place into heaven has no effect. Each will be judged according to what he has done.

Rev 20:11-13
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:56 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

sj, so you spoke to Jude personally and he told you that was a direct quote from the book of Enoch as opposed to a direct quote of Enoch or a direct revelation from God by the Holy Spirit?
igh »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:09 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Ok, if the Dope and his fellow vermin down at the Ratican say you can pray for souls in pergatory then does that include Cain, or all the souls God drowned as Noah was safely in the Ark? What about those in Canaan who God told the children of Israel to destroy? All the land of Egypt had just been destroyed along with Pharoahs army. Can we pray for those too?

I need some paramaters here!

What about those God killed off in the wilderness for fourty years because they lacked Faith and would not go into Canaan?

What about those who put my Lord to death, convicted by a rigged Trial?

Well, and what about Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and all those despots? And what about the Taliban and those who rammed two Jets filled with people into the towers?
Do we Pray for them? Are they in pergatory?
I need some feedback, and know what, who, and how. Ty.

Here is one last thought:

Revelation 22:14 " Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. "
St. John's »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

believer, Jude 14 explicitly quotes Enoch, and the quote can be found in the written sources of Enoch. Moreover there are possibly 128 indirect allusions to the work. It was clearly influential in the thinking and language of Jesus and the Gospel writers in particular. That doesn't make it Scripture, but raises all sorts of questions for me as to looseness of the Jewish collection of Scriptures at the time. So I am not surprised at numerous allusions to books of the Jewish Apocrypha in the New Testament and Early Church Fathers. The question of which Jewish writings would be included in the Christian Bible appears to begins with Melito in the second century and continues on for several hundred years, e.g. Origen and Jerome. In the end, there was no exact Christian agreement was to what was to be included and what was not.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:42 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

sj, did he quote from the book of Enoch or the person of Enoch, plus the book is not considered a part of the Apocrypha, but a part of Jewish works called pseudepigrapha. Plus, Paul cites truths from pagan poets without implying that these books are inspired. Quoting a person does not mean Jude is saying that the book of Enoch is an inspired work since the passages cites the person of Enoch as saying and not a writing from the book of Enoch. And finally they're are some who believe he received these words as a direct revelation from God.
St. John's »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

believer, Athanasius included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy in its list of Hebrew Scriptures. Origen and Cyril included the same. Vaticanus includes Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and Jeremy. Sinaiticus included 1-4 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Sirach. Alexandrinus included Baruch, Jeremy, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Ps. 151, Wisdom and Sirach. What is clear is that which Jewish writings Christians accepted was disputed, many are quoted authoritatively and alluded in the New Testament and patristic fathers, e.g. Sir. 5.11 in Jas. 1.9, 2 Macc. 6-7 in Heb. 11.35-6, Wisd. 2.13, 18 in Mt. 27.43, and on and one. As to whether these are 'clear' or not is a matter of opinion, but it is clear that Jude quoted the Book of Enoch.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:35 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

sj, although some early church fathers had a high esteem for the Apocrypha other were vehemently opposed it, Ahtanasius, Cyril of Jersusalem, Origen, and Jerome were a few. Even the early Syrian church did not accept the Apocrypha as the 2nd century Syrian Bible did not contain it. Citing same as last post.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:29 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

sj, there may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there is no clear New Testament quotations from them, not once is there a definite quotation from any apocryphal book accepted by the Catholic Church. Cited from Geisler's Systematic Theology.
St. John's »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Gentlemen, the books of the so-called Apocrypha are alluded to and quoted in the New Testament and among the Early Church Fathers in the same way as the books of the Old Testament, cf. Schurer, e.g. Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. The idea that they are not is often repeated, but is simply incorrect. Many want this to be true, but it isn't. Secondly, the idea that there was an Alexandrian Jewish Canon based upon the Septuagint as distinct from the Jerusalem Canon based upon the Hebrew texts has also been generally abandoned, cf. Sundberg. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament attest that the Jewish Canon was still developing in the first century, that the Law and the Prophets were established, but that the later called Writings was not. Later evidence, and I am sure you will begin to bombard me with it, attests that the number, order, and inclusion of which Jewish writings continued to be argued for centuries. Thus the Early Church had a different set of accepted Jewish writings than were later agreed upon by the Masoretic Jews. The first Christian list to agree with them was the Synod of Dort, though looking back, Rufinus' predated them and agrees with them, but is ONLY one of fifteen undisputed fourth century Christian lists. The Christian sources do not agree among themselves as to which books belong in the Old Testament, but the first two books of the Maccabees were widely accepted, and the doctrine of praying for the dead, which is where this discussion, began, is firmly founded upon those Scriptures.
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:52 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

There were various lists of what different church fathers thought belonged to the Old Testament and they did not agree. In Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25, Eusebius quoted Origen as stating which books were canonical and these mostly lined up with Hebrew text (http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html). The only books of the Old Testament that he did not write a commentary on were Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah, along with Esther and Daniel (http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/fathers/lienhardorigen.cfm). He even said that the book of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Eusebius also stated that Melito of Sardis went to Palestine to determine the books of the Old Testament and said that Melito included all the protocanonical books, minus Ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon).

Clement of Alexandria cited a number of apocrypha books, as well as pseudepigraphal books. Cyril of Jerusalem mid-fourth century, gave the books of the Hebrew Bible (http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html).

:During the Church age, certain books were designated canonical while others were called ecclesiastical, but all were grouped together without distinction. The ecclesiastical books were useful for reading and edification but were not authoritative for the establishing of doctrine. This position was held by both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem, who used the Septuagint, but were careful to exclude the Apocryphal books from the status of canonical Scripture" (http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html)
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:49 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Hebrew was still the language in Jerusalem at the time of Jerome (ca. 347 - September 30, 420), who translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew rather than the Greek text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome). Jerome gave the canon of the old testament as we have it in his introduction to the book of Samuel and Kings, published about 391AD (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html).

Jerome emphasized the differences between the Hebraica veritas and the apocrypha (see previous link, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon). It was not until after the destruction of the Temple that the Jewish community in the Diaspora began to reject the Septuagint and move to use the Hebrew text that had always been used in the Temple in Jerusalem (http://www.catholicqanda.org/FAQ_Library/Bible/Apocrypha.htm).

Josephus, who wrote in "Against Apion" 1.8 (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html#EndNote_Apion_1.8a) between 94-100AD, said there were "twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses; the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html#EndNote_Apion_1.8b).

Again, Josephus and Jerome did not include the apocrypha.
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD) read the Septuagint, but used the Hebrew Bible to correct the Septuagint (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=O&search=Hexapla#374). While the Greek Septuagint was read by Jews in the Diaspora (because those who did not live in Israel knew Greek better than Hebrew), the text used in Israel itself, in the Temple in Jerusalem, was in Hebrew. In fact, The Talmud (and the Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text). This fact also was attested to in the letter of Aristeas, purported to be written about 250 BC (http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm).
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Two different sources have differing views on what Melito of Sardis (170AD) considered canonical.

"[Melito] enumerates the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehemiah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise omitted" (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/melito-wace.html).

and

"The books that [Melito of Sardis ( 170 A.D.)] lists follow very closely to the Old Testament in contemporary Protestant Bibles. Today, we would call the four books of Kings 1 Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings and II Kings. The Book of Wisdom is undoubtedly in this case, the Book of Proverbs, and Esdras was commonly the heading for Nehemiah and Ezra. (not to be confused with the Apocryphal book Esdras). Lamentations was considered a part of Jeremiah. The only book missing from Melito's list is Esther, which was held suspect by many Jews since it did not contain the Divine Name (YHWH). Esther, incidentally, also happens to be missing from the rolls of Qumran, amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Esther and Song of Solomon were two of the disputed books at the Council of Jamnia. More importantly, it should be noted that the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Esdras, I and II Maccabees, and Sirach) was still not accepted as Scripture" (http://www.earlychurch.net/Thecanon.htm).

Either Esther was included in Esdras, or Melitos did not include it in the list quoted by Eusebius. Certainly Esdras contained what we call Ezra and Nehemiah.

But the apocrypha were definitely NOT included.
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:34 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Some historical problems with the apocrypha:
"The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians. Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years"" (http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm).
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:32 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Erasmus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm).

It is also interesting to note that Augustine and the second Council of Carthage did not mention the book of Baruch as canonical (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon4.html), even though it existed at his time. However, the council of Trent (1545-1563AD) DID include it in its list of canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books).
Online4Him »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:12 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

(if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church...let him be anathema (accursed!)

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you ââ‚¬â€œ Deuteronomy 4:2.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar ââ‚¬â€œ Proverbs 30:6.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book ââ‚¬â€œ Revelation 22:18, 19.
Online4Him »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:07 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

sj,

First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., S. Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.

(then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision) Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2 )

Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the law, the prophets, and the writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

(Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled,) (Luke 24:44).

So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid in their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings" it would not include the apocryphal for the above mentioned reasons.

Did the Church fathers recognize the apocrypha is being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the first century never mentioned the apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, (Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.) So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the apocryphal. They didnt.
St. John's »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

wbmoore, yes, Rufinus is the ONLY one of the fifteen undisputed lists (Laodicean Canons is disputed) which agrees with the list produced by the Synod of Dort in 1618. So we decide that Rufinus alone among the group is correct BECAUSE he agrees with the much later Synod?
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:38 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Rufinus of Aquileia, a friend of Jerome, wrote "Exposition of the Creed" about 400AD, after the synods of Hippo and Carthage. In it, he named the canon as we have it today in the protestant Bible.

"37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith." (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html ,
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_III/Rufinus/Commentary_on_the_Apostles%27_Creed/Section_37)
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:37 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"[E]ven the Christian era copies of the Greek Septuagint differ in their selection of included books. The three oldest complete copies we have of the Greek OT include different additional books. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) omits 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is canonical according to the Roman Catholic Church, and includes 1 Esdras, which they reject. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) leaves out Baruch. which is supposed to be canonical, but includes 4 Maccabees, which they reject. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) includes three non-canonical Apocryphal books, 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees. All of this points to the fact that although these books were included in these early Bibles, this alone does not guarantee their status as canon." (http://www.probe.org/content/view/25/77/)

In fact, "even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which he did not include the Apocrypha" (http://www.probe.org/content/view/25/77/).

Besides the fact that many biblical scholars and church historians throughout history have not believed the apocryphal works were canon, there is also the issue that various regional synods or councils have held different books to be part of the canon, and there have been at least one forgery in an attempt to provide support for the septuagint apocrypha.

The Council of Laodicea (343-381AD) canonized only one book of the apocrypha. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm)

There are no records of the Council of Rome (382AD) that exist. It had been thought that there was a decree of Damasus that listed the canonical books, but in fact, this was proven to be a forgery, a "pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century, written between 519 and 553. In reviewing Dobschutz' 1912 publication, F. C. Burkitt concluded 'The really decisive point is that in I.3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1. As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.' " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome, http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm)
wbmoore »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:28 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"This amazing Holy Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years now!"

What's amazing is that even through so many centuries of inaccurate teaching and murdering of people who would translate the Bible so people would be able to read it in their own language, some few catholics have, and some DO, understand what it means to be saved and to trust in Christ only for their salvation. God has kept a remnant of believers through the ages, despite the sins of the catholic church and its teachings that go against what God teaches in His word.
believer »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:20 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

sj, the councils of Hippo and Carthage were influenced by Augustine who was inconsistent in his view since he rejected books not written by prophets, yet he accepted a book that appears to deny being prophetic, 1 Maccabees. He also recognized that the Jews did not accept these books as part of their canon. And most importantly his contemporary Jerome, a greater biblical authority than he rejected the Apocrypha. In fact Augustine later acknowledged the superiority of Jerome's Hebrew text over the Septuagint's Greek text which should have led him to accept the superiority of Jerome's Hebrew canon as well, which did not have the Apocrypha. This information was found in Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, Vol. 1.
St. John's »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:30 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Oneline4Him, the Council of Trent did NOT 'add' the Apocrypha to the Canon. They were ALREADY there, as affirmed by both the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Traditions. The Protestants dropped the so-called Apocrypha at the Synod of Dort in 1618, relying heavily upon Jerome's criticism of them and building upon their separation from the rest of the books by the Lutherans and Anglicans in the sixteenth century. If the Holy Spirit gave us the Canon, and this was clear, why do the 15 undisputed lists of the books of the Bible in the fourth century, when we first have lists, all disagree with each other?
Tallguy1000 »

Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:14 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church...let him be anathema (accursed!)."

Guess what, the Holy Catholic Church has the authority to do this. It will direct as needed and in a way guided through the Holy Spirit. What you bind on earth will be considered bound (ratified) in heaven, what you loose.... I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you. Your little corner church of the hubba bubba does not have this authority from Jesus.

This amazing Holy Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years now! Jesus promised that hell would not prevail against it, and fellas you won't prevail against it either. No matter how much you assist Hell, the Holy Catholic Church will still be around. Think about this, how are you going to reply when you have to give your account to Jesus at the final judgement. No matter how you twist scripture, this is still His Body, His Church.

Now instead of hammering away (wow, I'd hate to meet you guys in a dark alley somewhere) start looking at the treasure and fruit produced by this Holy Church. Read John Harden, live like Mother Theresa, follow the example of the thousands of saints (superstars) through the two Millennium, immitate Padre Pio, pray rosaries with the solid Christian Catholics who are praying in front of your local abortion clinic today.

Now toss your keyboard away, go give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty. Suck your proud chests in, humble yourselves a little, and serve Christ through the least of your brothers. Think about it, are you really serving Christ by typing away in your comfortable chairs. God watches everything that you do. Bend your knee to Christ. Serve Him, go take the Gospel to a Muslim.

Leave Catholics alone. This gets really tiring, that no matter the topic, you guys have nothing better to do then to attack the Catholic Church. But then Christ did say that If the persecute me they will persecute you. Keep persecuting your fellow Christians who happen to be Catholic, keep it up. I'm sure Christ is impressed!

The topic of this thread is Pittsburgh Episcopalians, not the Council of Trent.
Online4Him »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:23 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated;

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical NOT BECAUSE SHE subsequently approved them by HER AUTHORITY after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and WERE AS SUCH committed to the church. (First Vatican Council - First Vatican Council, session 3, chapter 2).

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical (only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon). In other words, it didn't CREATE the canon. Rather, it CONFIRMED the identity of the canon which ALREADY EXISTED.

So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible but they have indeed altered it. In 1548, at the Council of Trent, it added the Apocrypha to the Bible. The apocryphal books contain passages which are used to justify many Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead and purgatory.
St. John's »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

believer, the books of the Macabees were accepted by the three African Synods at Carthage and Hippo in 393, 397 and 419. They were found in the Septuagint, endorsed by St. Augustine, are found in Codex Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus, were translated into the Vulgate, and have been considered part of the Christian Bible by both the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.. Thus the doctrine of praying for the dead was believed to be Scripturally founded.
believer »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:07 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

sj, what you failed to mention was that it was declared canonical by the Council of Trent in 1546 even though leading Roman Catholic scholars contemporary with Luther denied their right to this status. Also, Origen and Jerome excluded them from the list of canonical writings and Jerome omitted them from his famous Vulgate. Only Augustine gave 2 Maccabees canonical ranking and he waffled at that. This information can be found in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.
wbmoore »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Before we die, Christ is our high priest and intercedes for us.
Hebrews 7:24-26
24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need-one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

And as we have seen, after we die, believers go to be with God, while unbelievers go to a place of torment - not purgatory.

http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/more-on-why-the-apocrypha-should-not-be-considered-canonical/
wbmoore »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:58 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

God will cut off anyone who goes to an idol.

Ezekiel 14:6-8
6 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices! 7 " 'When any Israelite or any alien living in Israel separates himself from me and sets up idols in his heart and puts a wicked stumbling block before his face and then goes to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer him myself. 8 I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

Indeed, idol worshippers will not get into heaven.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So it is clear that no Jew would speak up for people who had been idol worshippers.

To use 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 as a justification for praying for the dead, that they might move from one place to another after death goes against what the Bible teaches.

This passage has been used to try to show that people go to an indeterminate place (purgatory) when they die and can be prayed into heaven. The ideas of purgatory and that prayers to God can change the position of the dead go against what Jesus said, where you are in one place or the other and there is no crossing over.

Luke 23:43
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Jesus, speaking the story of Abraham and Lazarus:
Luke 16:22-23,26
22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. ... 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.

Paul tells us that to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord (for believers) and that when we appear before the judgment seat, each will receive what is due him, good or bad.

2 Cor 5:6-10
6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
wbmoore »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:56 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

The Maccabees are not scripture.

Let's look at that passage you quoted more fully:
2 Maccabees 12:40-46,
But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

First, the people for which the offering was supposedly made were obviously idol worshippers. Scripture is quite clear how God feels about idol worship and what happens to idol worshippers.

Exodus 20:4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments

Deuteronomy 27:15
"Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol-a thing detestable to the LORD, the work of the craftsman's hands-and sets it up in secret." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!

1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.

Even those who speak up for idol worshippers are blind, ignorant, and shameful.
Isaiah 44:9
All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.

Jeremiah 8:19
Listen to the cry of my people from a land far away: "Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King no longer there?" "Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their worthless foreign idols?"
St. John's »

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:40 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

igh, stop your ranting and raving, you're not helping your side. The established Western Catholic practice of praying for the dead derives from Scripture, specifically 2 Maccabees: "[A]nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." 12:43-45. Now the Protestants dropped the books of the Maccabees at the Synod of Dort in 1618, but prior to that time they were highly regarded, except perhaps by Jerome, who didn't like any Jewish book that wasn't written in Hebrew.
igh »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:38 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

There is no pergatory! There is no "mid-way place" between earth and Heaven to Pray for those who have died out of, and into Heaven.

Go here: http://www.purgatory.ca/pray-purg.php here's another: http://www.holysouls.com/main.htm

and another: http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org/purgtry2.htm then run a search.

Prayer for the Holy Souls in Purgatory

"Lord Jesus, have mercy on the souls detained in Purgatory. It was for their salvation that you took on our human nature and suffered a most painful death. Have mercy on their burning desire to see you, have mercy on their tears of repentance. Through the merits of your Passion, remit the sentence they incurred by their sins.
Dear loving Jesus, may your Blood descend on those dear souls! May it shorten their time of atonement and may they soon be called to eternal happiness in your Presence! Amen."

Did you read that carefully, it says: "remit the sentence they incurred by their sins." Jesus paid for all the world's sins when he died on the Cross. The catholic church does not believe Jesus paid for all sins, even if they say they do, in practice they do not. Going to mass pays for sins, paying a priest to pray for you, or someone who died, to pay for sins. Worship of artifacts to pay for sins etc...

They have many "saints" even a proposed saint for the internet! LOL
http://www.catholic.org/saints/

These are idol worshippers, do not be fooled. And most likely the babylonian religion.

Jeremiah 51:47 "Therefore, behold, the days come, that I will do judgment upon the graven images of Babylon: and her whole land shall be confounded, and all her slain shall fall in the midst of her. "

Catholics listen to God speak to you, you have to investigate the God of the Bible, his plan of Salvation, and compare that to what you believe. Time is so short soon satan will indeed rule this world. If you cling to the catholic church you will lose your souls, and no one can pray for your
Salvation then.
igh »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:32 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

O i forgot when the catholic church made the 1st and 2nd commandment of God into the 1st, they had a problem! This left 9 commandments! So they split the 10th commandment into two; and this they made there '10 commandments.' They say do not worship idols and have there scripture to back that up, but in practice its a lie a deception from satan, for they do bow before images of men and women and pray to them, they can neither prove that these dead people are in Heaven, nor can they prove that even if they are they can even hear our prayers. The Scriptures are clear only Jesus is our Advocate, our Reconciliation to God.

They have exalted mary to the 'queen of the universe,' 'the mother of the church' 'queen of Heaven' 'mother of God.' This is pagan idol worship in disguise. Do not be fooled by there slippery words, meant to trap and destroy you.

here is an example prayer:

"Hail, Holy Queen
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin mary! Amen."

Here is a link to more: http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=122

From what i have heard is that the catholic church is actually the babylonian religion in disguise.

Here is a few links, google this: "babylonian religion catholic church" and you will find some resources.

http://www.armageddonbooks.com/catholic.html
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0187.asp
http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/unionwithrome/Union_With_Rome_1.html
http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/
http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/babylonmysteryreligion.html

The catholic church is clever to disguise itself, but as you can see it lifts up mary(actually a demon most likely) even above Christs Throne! They say they do not, but in practice they do. What they say and do are two very different things, meant to trap one in its rebellion toward God. Just like a mouse may find a trap appealing because of the "bait" its still a deadly trap and will destroy that mouse if he goes into it.
Tallguy1000 »

Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:04 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Praise God igh, this is excellent! You are reading the Vatican's website, how cool! Keep it up! Now quit trying to pick apart our wonderful mother Mary, but go back into that website and read some of the encyclicals. Read: on Human Dignity, Truth in Splendor, On Christian Hope, On the Dignity of Women, and the one that was written in the 60s which predicted all this sexual immorality that our society experiences now....humane vitae.

Keep up the good work igh! You'll soon be Catholic. Keep researching us, but check us out in our fullness, check out our/your entire Church, you will find a wealth, Christ in His fullness.

Yes, Mary is part of God's Plan for Salvation. I'm glad you are reading these pages. Show Her some respect. What was the 3rd last thing Jesus said before He died? Son this is you mother.....
igh »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:21 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

oops forgot the link to this quote:

"Besides the vows of poverty, obedience and chastity, the Institute's members profess a fourth vow or Marian vow which distinguishes them in carrying out the Mission of the Immaculate Mediatrix, consisting in the study and propagation of the mystery of Mary, the Immaculate and Coredemptrix. This 'charism and spirituality' of the Franciscans of the Immaculate is also shared by an Institute of sisters (active and contemplative), by a Third Order, some lay persons and Poor Clare nuns."

http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/sm_maggiore/en/capitolo/capitolo.htm
igh »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:13 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

The catholic church changed the Ten Commandments so they could get away with Praying to dead people to intercede for them.

Here is the link to the Vatican's own website:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

scroll down past half way.

Now compare there version to God's. Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5, the Vatican distinctly puts command 1 and 2 together. Not completely eliminating the Second commandment but making it ok to 'venerate images' as it says later on. So keep reading.

Now here is what they think of mary.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM

here's an excerpt:
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

Here is a prayer by john paul 2 to mary's statue:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20031208_prayer-immaculate_en.html

John Paul 2 said "mary was co-redemptrix"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/coredemedadv.HTM
http://biblelight.net/medtrix.htm

there is a great undertaking to make this dogma and official in the catholic church. Run a search on the petitions.

here on the vatican's own website they call mary 'co-redemptrix' and more.

heres an except:
"Besides the vows of poverty, obedience and chastity, the Institute's members profess a fourth vow or Marian vow which distinguishes them in carrying out the Mission of the Immaculate Mediatrix, consisting in the study and propagation of the mystery of Mary, the Immaculate and Coredemptrix. This 'charism and spirituality' of the Franciscans of the Immaculate is also shared by an Institute of sisters (active and contemplative), by a Third Order, some lay persons and Poor Clare nuns."

Yes they do pray to mary. This is distinctly not acceptable, no one intercedes but Christ, no one is the 'reconciler' but Christ. There is no 'co-redemptrix' , that is from satan. mary doesnt mediate she does not do anything for me!

one more thing ratzinger, and his bros, issued last year a document that said protestants are not Saved. We have to be part of the catholic church. Many popes have said this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/11/catholicism.religion
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703923.htm

run your own search.
Tallguy1000 »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

I want to resubmit this without all the funny fonts...

igh, you're making yourself look foolish again.

First off, anything from Ian Paisley is automatically going to be full of hate toward the Holy Catholic Church. His reasons for this hatred were political, not spiritual. Paisleys stuff is biased and not worth reading.

I did run a google on Jesuit oath. Igh are you that naive? How old are you? This myth has been going on for several hundred years now, and conspiracy theory's are nothing new. Hey igh, did you hear that it was the American Government who brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11?

Popes dancing on corpses? Igh, there have been rumors and myths about popes all through the centuries. People make stuff up, that's just the way it is. The funny thing is, you igh seem unable to distinguish fact from fiction. You need to head down to your local bookstore today and pick up a copy of Patrick Madrid's "Pope Fiction". You can read all about Pope Joan...

The myth of cloister nuns being there for the sexual desires of priests has been around for ever too. Just know igh, there is a cloister nun praying for your salvation at this moment. That's her real mission, not the sexual needs of anyone.

And igh, everyone knows a "friend of a friend" who was "tortured" "almost to the brink of death" by an iron fisted nun. And I'll bet your grandpa walked 10 miles to school everyday, uphill both ways, in sleet and snow too! I don't know igh, I grew up around priests and nuns, I've never known them to be anything but kind toward me. Do you actually know any nuns? Do they look mean? Like child abusers? Probably not, they're usually pretty normal, and it's a Catholics' duty to treat all human beings with dignity and respect.

In Christ...
msnchris70 »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

I wonder what Igh does for a living? If he believes this garbage that is not based on facts but mere conjecture, then I'm wondering if the gets his news from the Tabloids too? I'm sure the Enquirer reports on truth, right? Is today's Discovery Channel the new History book of the young?

People who do not do any qualified accademic research before they spout off, reveal many things about their level of thought.

Take a breath and read some books. Do some research of history from an objective resource. Meet with people to discuss your thoughts, and hopefully they will guide you into the Truth.

Don't believe the hype you've been led to believe is truth.
Tallguy1000 »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:25 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

Hey igh, since you enjoy a good story....

A woman living in Chicago was invited to her high school ten-year reunion in San Diego. The woman had once been the high school beauty queen, but the ten years that followed had not been kind to her. So, in a bid to spruce up her image, she decided to have an intense course of tanning treatments. She visited a tanning salon several times a day for the next week and by the end of it was glowing like the beauty she once was. Filled with the confidence the tan had given her, the woman boarded her flight to San Diego. Half an hour into the flight, however, the woman suddenly became aware of people sniffing around her and changing their seats away from her. Concerned, she asked the air hostess if there was a problem. Politely as she could, the air hostess informed her that the other passengers had complained of a burnt smell in her row. As soon as the flight arrived in San Diego, the woman checked into a hospital and the doctor confirmed her worst fears - she had cooked her insides.

Now stay on topic, the topic is "Pittsburgh Episcopalians Discuss Alternative Solution to Avoid Split"

Have a great day!
Tallguy1000 »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:23 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

igh, you're making yourself look foolish again.

First off, anything from Ian Paisley is automatically going to be full of hate toward the Holy Catholic Church. His reasons for this hatred were political, not spiritual. Paisleys stuff is biased and not worth reading.

I did run a google on Jesuit oath. Igh are you that naive? How old are you? This myth has been going on for several hundred years now, and conspiracy theoryââ‚¬â„¢s are nothing new. Hey igh, did you hear that it was the American Government who brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11?

Popes dancing on corpses? Igh, there have been rumors and myths about popes all through the centuries. People make stuff up, thatââ‚¬â„¢s just the way it is. The funny thing is, you igh seem unable to distinguish fact from fiction. You need to head down to your local bookstore today and pick up a copy of Patrick Madridââ‚¬â„¢s ââ‚¬Å“Pope Fictionââ‚¬Â. Read all about Pope Joanââ‚¬¦

The myth of cloister nuns being there for the sexual desires of priests has been around for ever too. Just know igh, there is a cloister nun praying for your salvation at this moment. Thatââ‚¬â„¢s her real mission, not the sexual needs of anyone.

And igh, everyone knows a ââ‚¬Å“friend of a friendââ‚¬Â who was ââ‚¬Å“torturedââ‚¬Â ââ‚¬Å“almost to the brink of deathââ‚¬Â by an iron fisted nun. I donââ‚¬â„¢t know igh, I grew up around priests and nuns, Iââ‚¬â„¢ve never known them to be anything but kind toward me. Do you actually know any nuns? Do they look mean? Like child abusers? Probably not, itââ‚¬â„¢s a Catholicsââ‚¬â„¢ duty to treat all human beings with dignity and respect.

In Christ...
igh »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:34 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/charlot1.htm

Here is the testimony of sister charlotte, i have the audio of her testimony too.

run a search on cloistered convents. mexico shut there down. I think they still have one as an museum or something.
igh »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:06 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

And here is another little reminder of your 'church.' Remember your black pope? or jesuit order? A little excerpt of there oath.

(The Superior speaks:)

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means. You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death. You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labours with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved". Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

---------------------------------------

You can read the whole evil thing here:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

OR just run a search on jesuit oath.
igh »

Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:57 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

OK, here is an answer for st.john and tallguy.

1: God chooses whom he will, and teaches them and sends them where he will. Gifts are given by the Holy Spirit. Here is some verses from 1 Corinthians 12, would benefit you to read all of 12 and even 13.

1Corinthians 12:3 I want you to know that no one who is led by God's Spirit can say "A curse on Jesus!" and no one can confess "Jesus is Lord," without being guided by the Holy Spirit.
1Co 12:4 There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit gives them.
1Co 12:5 There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served.
1Co 12:6 There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God gives ability to all for their particular service.
1Co 12:7 The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all.

Done ranting now tallguy? st. john? God chooses , and as far as the many denominations are concerned you know very well that rome was corrupted and called 'babylon' even by peter himself because of its corruption. The Orthodox church left because rome declared war on it, and on many peoples who didnt fit there 'mold.' But that's spiritual warfare, satan lies and deceives and turns many to rebellion toward God and uses them to persecute the Just. Exactly like he did to my Lord Jesus. Jesus is not your Lord, you have chosen to follow the example of Balaam and Cain. Wonder what happened to the Hugenots? O ya, as the popes danced on there corpes, with glee in there hearts, as many were burned at the stake, and sold into slavery. There children taken by the 'church' to be re-educated.

O wait here's something you can explain to me and everyone. There seems to be a large number of illegitament children from the so-called celebate priests of the rcc. Even the popes fathered many, a couple i believe even grew up to be popes themselves. But who wants all the inconvenience of children, just ship em off to convents for life, out of site out of mind!
I have talked to catholics they tell me of the harshness even torture they endured at the hands of nuns and priests. As a little girl my neighbors mom had to kneel on uncooked rice as a form of 'punishment' for the slightest perceived error. Being whacked on the hands with a stick too.
Ever hear of sister charlotte? Her testimony will make your hairs stand up. This is your 'church' tallguy.
St. John's »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

igh, and by the way, who determined the Scriptures, which books would be included and which won't be in the Christian Bible? Wasn't that the Church in Council, suggesting that sola scriptura required first the Church, since the Bible didn't fall from heaven and since there was great dispute in the early church as to what was Scripture and what was not!
Tallguy1000 »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:11 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

igh, you and 34,000 other denominations supposedly "have the Holy Spirit" to guide them. I don't think your protestant experiment is working very well is it? You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. God's Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic, telling you one interpretation and the next fella another. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture, not 34,000! Yes you do need a shepherd who has been given authority, you do need a Church with authority. If you don't mind, I'll choose my shepherd (my pastor) to be Pope Benedict, the one choosen and given authority by Christ. That shouldn't matter to you one bit. You can choose who you want to pastor you, I couldn't care less, I have better things to worry about and so should you. Don't think Benedict knows what he's talking about, just google and read some of his sermons, Encyclicals , and letters. Check him out before you condemn him

Besides, you can't properly interpret scripture, you don't have the intelligence. That is not an insult but rather reality. Do you know the context of the culture at the time, the phrasing they used, the language used, etc? Likely not. We can't just interpret these scriptures as we see fit from our North American year 2008 point of view.

igh, you're also making yourself look pretty backward. That theory of the w.. of Babylon went out of style quite a few years ago, kinda like the 8-Track. It's worn out.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you (and I mean it) .... peace be with you. <><...
igh »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:34 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Excuse me tallguy i would be amiss if i didn't post this:

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."
igh »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:26 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Chew on this one tallguy, you say Simon Peter was first pope, ok, then how do you account for this:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

Did you catch that? All you need is Faith Baby! Yes it takes Faith to Fear God and Work as he does, to learn his Ways and Wisdom, to see as he does to Love as he does. I don't need rome to interpret anything, that is what the Holy Spirit is for. So tell ratzinger and company that Job is taken!!!
boomershank »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

st john- a harmonius early church is a myth-Acts2:1 When the day of pentecost was fully come they were all (the church) with one accord in one place. Acts 2:46- depicts the church in one accord having fellowship and listening to Apostolic teachings. And the Lord was adding to the church those that were being saved. God has always had a true church of believers that follow His teachings and is obedient to His word. This is the invisible church that he is coming for in what I believe is the rapture. This is the Bride of Christ. Amen
msnchris70 »

Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:58 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Star2,

If you really want my story, then you may email me. It would be unfair to my life changing experience to try to sum it up in a short paragraph. It would also be unfair to Christ to sum up His saving grace in a few short paragraphs.

msnchris70@hotmail.com

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story