Vatican hypocrisy

[12th Doctor]

First off, he things that the Catholic Church has were not purchased yesterday, last week, or a decade ago, they are the culmination of 20 centuries of work and donations and they come to us as part of an inheritance, so drawing a direct comparison between the Vatican and caprisious holliday sepnding on things that people don't need is not at all apt.

Second, the Pope, unlike most of Christians, has not forgotten that Christmas is about Jesus, family and charity, which was the brunt of his message.

Materialism is the collection goods that are not needed for there own sake.  Consumerism is the culture that drives that practice.  The Vatican indulges in neither.

[12th Doctor]

Wait, is someone here acctually suggesting auctioning of all these holy relics that represent the cultural heritage of the Christian Church?  Well, in that case, I think we should go through all the art museums in the world and just start selling things to pay for social programs.


These things are not just "gold crosses" and large buildings.  They carry with them a meaning that is stronger than the sum of their parts.  The cross the pope wears has been worn by Popes for centuries.  You want to sell it just because you think that is doesn't jive with a message of charity?  I think you are looking for a reason to compalin.

[12th Doctor]

Ummm... Catholic priests make $15,000/year.


And you didn't say it was ironic, you said it was hypocritical.


And what, exactly, was "taken"?  Can you name any one artifact that the Chruch stole?  There might be some, but I am unfamiliar with any, off hand, and I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable in this area.


As for the meaning behind the relics... God understands that people need something with which to have a connection to, because people naturally have emotional connections to various things, that are independent of their intrinsic worth.  This is seperate from materialism, where the thing is valued because of it's intrinsic worth, or immediate usability.  Is it nessesary?  No.  Does it help?  Yes.  You wouldn't sell a picture of your grandmother for any reason, would you?  I hope you wouldn't.  Well, the same applies here.


#1 Your standards are not realistic.

#2 Your interest in applying these standards directly to the Catholic Church is somewhat reveling.

#3 Your knowledge on the subject is limited, as displayed by the fact that you think preists make a lot of money.

#4 You are attempting to create an analogous situation where it doesn't exist.

#5 I never want to hear you talk about charity, because you own things that you don't need.

[12th Doctor]

And, as J-Mann said, yes the Catholic Church is worth billions, but only if you take into account all the relics, art works, charities, orphanages, batter woman houses, retirment homes and other buildings it owns.  In terms of acctual liquid money, they don't have nearly as much as you think.  Esspecially when you take into account the fact that over half of all Catholics are in the Third World, and more and more Westerns are becoming Godless, like some people that we know, who start threads attacking the Church.

Also, the Church can't sell anything that is holy or has been blessed, and it has been that way since the middle ages.  Those things can only be given away.  That was done to keep people from selling off relics to the highest bidder.

[12th Doctor]

Also, the Church can't sell anything that is holy or has been blessed, and it has been that way since the middle ages.  Those things can only be given away.  That was done to keep people from selling off relics to the highest bidder.

That was a bit of a stupid precedent.  I guess if the Church ever reaches a stage of financial difficulty, all that material wealth is just useless, right?

It's not about the wealth.  Why can't you get that through your head?  If it were about the wealth, then the Pope would be living far more lavishly than he does, and so would every other memebr of the Church.  Just because he wears the cross and lives in the building doesn't mean that he puts any value in them because they are gold and big respectively, and nor does anyone else.  The cross he wears was fashioned out of someones love to try to capture a small glimps of the glory that is God.  You keep harping on this "you don't need it" crap, and I agree with you.  It is not needed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose beyond the gathering of material wealth.  God doesn't need all this stuff to bring glory to him, but humans try, none-the-less, and I find no place in the Bible that frowns upon the effort.  Now, if the Pope were like Gollum, sitting in a corner, stroking the "Precious" golden cross, then I would understand your reasoning, but he doesn't, so you attempt to lable the Church as materialistic is unfounded.

As for the artifacts in the Vatican, those that were siezed in the Crusades were not stolen.  Well, they were stolen, but thet were stolen by the Muslims, we were just taking them back.  And the ones from the New World never went to the Church, they went to the Spanish, who then squandered them.

Why is that a stupid precident?  It was created to end abuses by clergy in selling relics that were of important historical or holy value.  In fact, it prevents the abuse of selling any sactified object.  If we hadn't done that, then you would be hear bitching now about how the greedy Church is making thing "holy" and then selling them for cash.

[12th Doctor]

In fact, the Pope doesn't even live in a "palace" or at least, not by normal standards.  95% of the Vatican is used for the purposes of the faithful, or to store relics (most of which are visable to the public) and the like.  The Pope only lives in one, small, 15 room section of it, one of those rooms being his office.

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Ah, nothing better to bring someone closer to God than listen to some guy babble on for an hour in a language no one listening can understand.

The first misconception is that "Latin" mass means that it is all done in Latin.  Latin is a format.  It does not pertain to the language itself.

Generally speaking, in a Latin mass, only the parts that are not directly related to the liturgy are done in Latin.  The readings and surmon are all done in the native language of the participants.

I am not opposed to Latin format, as I think it has far more scriptual base and meaning than does Vatican II format.

I also oppose some of those other changes brought about by Vatican II, while I support some others.

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

Absolutly correct.  In fact, out of all the organized Churches in the West, the Catholic Church currently has the highest number of converts into it.  However, it is losing members in the West at the same rate all the other organized Churches are, thus, a net loss of membership.

All these people are either becoming Godless, or they are going to Evangelical churches which survive off or glitter, sparkle and making parishoners feel happy.  If they want to leave for these so-called churches and pat themselves on the back for being the worst possible Christians they can be, then we can't really stop them, and I really don't want them in my Church anyway.

Just so we are clear on terms, organized churches include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcapal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

Absolutly correct.  In fact, out of all the organized Churches in the West, the Catholic Church currently has the highest number of converts into it.  However, it is losing members in the West at the same rate all the other organized Churches are, thus, a net loss of membership.

All these people are either becoming Godless, or they are going to Evangelical churches which survive off or glitter, sparkle and making parishoners feel happy.  If they want to leave for these so-called churches and pat themselves on the back for being the worst possible Christians they can be, then we can't really stop them, and I really don't want them in my Church anyway.

Just so we are clear on terms, organized churches include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcapal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.

You had to go and destroy your own argument, which you were winning, with that bigotry.

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable  Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be. I know that is one reason why I profoundly dislike congregations  of any sort -- not because I could never accept the theology, but because I can find better use of my time than endure moralising jackasses.

Even more than that, not to refight the Thirty Years' War, like you seem to be doing so far, who is to say that the Christian experience offered by the evangelical churches in fact is closer in spirit to that of the primitive Church of the 1st and second century? Because, really, there is much in Catholic theology that is simply fantastic:

(1) The Adoration of Mary
(2) Intercession of the saints
(3) Prayers for the dead

... and, perhaps, if I am going to be honest with myself, the singularly hateful teaching of the Catholic Church ...

(4) The heartfelt and intellectual acceptance of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection on the Cross is not good enough for a sinner's salvation --  in addition, you must maintain traditions of the Church as well to remain in a state of Grace.

Of course, I can also see your points that those upper class whites who leave the Church do so to indulge themselves with a sinfully clear conscience. And that Catholic teaching on, say, poverty or Eternal Damnation, is fundamentally sound, while, in comparison, those of the megachurches' teachings are usually pretty crude and materialistic (from personal experience in LA -- one sermon was entitled, "How to increase your life's blessings"). But your, dare I say it?, intolerance in calling them the worst possible Christians they can be, is simply vile. I cannot stand for it.

I was exercising use of hyperbole there.  I didn't really mean it.  I was just trying to goad someone. 

Oh, and also, it looks like I have driven you out of your hole.  I'm sorry that you hate the Catholic Church, and I really am not in the mood to tell you why you are wrong at the moment.

[12th Doctor]

However... since you have made the charges, I suppose that I have no choice but to answer them.  (Sigh) I was really hoping I wouldn't have to engage in something like this today... and I am sure, for the rest of the night.

[12th Doctor]

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be.

Couldn't avoid making a strike against the Catholic Church because of the misdealings of a handful of preists, could you?  I'm not going to bring this argument to the area of child molestation, because I really don't think it is nessesary to go there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what do you do then?  If you worship at home, and in private, then I have no problem with that.  If you go to one of these churches where the "minister" (generally a guy who hasn't even been through theological training) is making $150,000 a year and preaching how we should pat ourselves on the back for being wealthy and hating gays and non-Christians, then I feel sorry for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, by calling several Protestant churches legitament, I am refighting the 30 Years War?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you not adore your mother?  Why, therefore, should we not adore and respect the mother of Jesus, who is God?  So long as she is not worshiped, which the Catholic Church specifically condemed as a heracy, then what is wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ tells us to pray for one another.  Paul reiterates this message again, and again, and again, and again (Romans 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 3:25) when he specifically asks for other people to pray for him (intercede) on his behalf, to God.  Paul also tells others that he, and his followers always pray from them (2 Thess 1:11).  He also tells Timothy to offer prays and petitions for all men (1 Tim 2:1-7).

Since living people can always pray for one another, why not those who are with God?  To say that there is much of a difference between those on Earth and in Heaven shows a very narrow understanding of the Kingdom of God.  First off, no one ever really dies:

Mark 12:26-27

26
As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, 'I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob'?
27
He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled."

As is further evidenced by the fact that we see Jesus conversing with Elijah and Moses in Mark 9:4.  Farther more, if they are conversing, they must be discussing something.  If they are discussing something, then Jesus must be listening to what they are saying. 

Even further evidence that God listens to his people's prayers comes to us in Revaltions 6:9-11 when the martyrs cry out to God for vindication.

I can go on, but I will stop here, for now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has to do with a belief in purgatory, which, I could most certainly get into, but only if you wish to venture down this road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Example?  How exctly is it that the Catholic Church is so "hateful"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, those things are adequate for salvation, however, we try to keep to the comandments of Christ as closely as possible, which includes communion, baptism, and other sacraments.  I think you are imagining that the Church is saying things that it is not saying.

And, I am assuming that you are taking a stab at the Church for not being intellectual.  I find this ironic, since the Catholic Church has done more to advance the understanding of Christian theology than all the other Christian groups combined.  People spend years in the seminary and in Catholic divinity schools to adapt an intellectual understanding of the faith, and the Catholic Church actively promotes this in the leity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad we can agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, people who do not have a developed understanding and committment to fighting poverty and who think that they are blessed by having a lot of money are good Christians?

[12th Doctor]

And, a point I forgot:

While you are absolutely right that some fundamentalist churches might be closer to what the Catholic Church was like in the first few centuries, it is not 129 AD anymore.  Things change, and the faith community changed.  Who is to say that that was not what God intended?  Also, do you really want things in Christianity to be like they were in first few centuries, before herecies like believing Mary was a God and saying that our physical bodies are illusions and, therefore, Christ really didn't suffer for us, were stamped out?  If that is what you want, then fine.  I would rather people have some semblence of truth, though.

[12th Doctor]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

Well, I thank you for your prays, but I assure you, I will never tollerate intollerance or feux-Christian teachings, taught by preachers making 200k a year.

[12th Doctor]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

Well, I thank you for your prays, but I assure you, I will never tollerate intollerance or feux-Christian teachings, taught by preachers making 200k a year.

Not referring to you at all, but I'll pray for you anyway. Intollerant = Anti-Catholic / Anti-Christians. You have more patience than I do to respond to some of these people's postings.

Ha... sorry.  Thank you.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... I come out sounding stronger than I would like.  I am not saying that all of these churches or preachers are bad... but it has certainly been my expirence that a majority of them are.

[12th Doctor]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

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

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

Did you mean the Pope is not a thief?

[12th Doctor]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

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

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

Did you mean the Pope is not a thief?

"Fence" is a colloquial term for someone who traffics in stolen goods, but not someone who actually steals them.  He arranges for the disposal of stolen goods.

The Pope is not a fence, I would strongly suspect his not pulling too many bank jobs or mugging people either.

Oh, okay.  Well

The More You Know I guess.

[12th Doctor]

Ok, now you're seriously putting words in my mouth.

(1) When I said "Church Ladies" and "Church Boys", I meant exactly those haughty and clannish sorts of both genders who go out of their way to reject the presents of converts, or even the curious, from their oh-so-pure congregational "family." I should know about them -- I never felt less welcome than I did among Catholics during part of the service that heretics were allowed to celebrate.

This is not the way that it should be, and anyone who was unwelcoming to you is not being a Catholic.  I'm sorry that this was your expirience, I truely am, since this reflects poorly on us and does not represent what we are taught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry about the misinterpritation of what you are trying to say, but I would hope that you would understand that this whole situation is so prevalent in people's attitudes towards the Church, that I jusmped to the conclusion that, your seemed emphasis on "Boys" was a not-so-vieled attack.  I appologize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad that you don't, since I certainly made clear that I was not sure of this, I am pleased to find out that that is not the case.  However, I would say that Christ intends His Church to be a community one, so, while I applaud your efforts to worship in private, I would recommend that you get involved in a faith community, but only one that you feel furthers your personal Christian expirience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough.  I figured that since you put "Intellegent" in Italics, and the subject appeared to be the Catholic Church, that you were saying the Church was non-intellectual.  Again, I misunderstood you.

As for the rest of this... Geez... where do I begin?  I guess the begining is as good a place as any.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really don't feel like breaking this down into an argument over the New Covenant, and the New Ark, and the New Adam and the New Eve because I don't think it would do any good anyway.  I'll simply say that your understanding of Catholic theology is rather laxed.

First off, God picked Mary from the time she was concieved to be the Mother of God.  He did not just pick her because she was some random devout person, who happned to fit the profile.  This is not to say that Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus was.  Catholics believe that Mary was filled with the saving grace of God from the time she was concieved, and thus is free of original sin, because of it.  We know this, because when the angel comes to Mary in Luke 1:28 he calls Mary "full of Grace".  In Greek, this term is summed up in one word kecharitomene, there for indicating that this is a property that Mary pocesses.  Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of charitoo and since it is used in this tense, it seems to indicate that Mary is not only now filled will grace, but always has been and always will be.  If she has always been filled with grace, then she was born without original sin, by the power of God.

As for the Assumption (not "Assention", because Mary was taking to Heaven by God, who assumed her.  She did not do it of her own power), if you say that Mary "lived and died like everyone else", then why could she not have been assumed into Heaven the same way that Elijah and Enoch (and perhaps others) were?  She is the Mother of Christ.  Acctually, this doctrine has never been fully defined, as even Pius XII was silent on whether she died or not, simply stating that at the end of her Earthly life, she was assumed into Heaven.

This idea is supported by the Bible.  Once Jesus dies on the cross, we are told in Matthew 27:52-53 that:

"[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Christian teaching has always been that these OT figures ("saints" does not only apply to those with the official recongnition) were assumed into Heaven aftet this event.

Why is Mary any less special?

Finally, you are correct that no one can find salvation through Mary.  I wouldn't dare argue that and neither does the Church.  Salvation comes but from the grace of God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, as I said before, only God has the grace to save us.  There is no dispute about that.  But clearly, Jesus, Paul and everyone else tells us to pray for one another, because God listens to those prayers.

And, also, I would read John 20:23

 22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

(5)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you said the Catholic Church was doing hateful things, so I simply assumed that you believed it was hateful.  And now we are doing "evil" things, no less.  So, then the Catholic Church is evil?  I'm glad I got that out of you finally.

We preform the sacraments, because this is what Christ has commanded us to do.  I could give a break down of each, if you like.  We form in a community, because Christ told us to be a part of a community of believers.

As for your quip about confession, look at the passage from John.  I have many more where that came from, if you so wish.

[12th Doctor]

The only real practice of the Roman Catholic Church that really offends, which goes far beyond just typical theological disputes about the nature of Mary, the text of the Mass, purgatory, etc., is not merely the notion, but the true practice, that Jesus's resurrection wasn't good enough to save us, and that grace, as dispensed by the Church, is a necessary complement.

I tried my longest not to start quoting Scripture, but when you have this:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

it cannot possibly produce this:

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

all of which was deduced by Thomas Aquinas, himself citing the Tradition of the church, outside of scripture.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Once again, you miss understand the Catholic possition (BTW, you never bothered to address any of my points).  The Catholic possition is that we are saved by the grace of God manifested in our faith and our works.  While it is true that we believe the sacraments give grace, it is a grace that is given only by God, through the act, not by a priest or by ourselves.  And there is plenty of scriptual significance to the sacraments.  Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular.  You could just as easily have gone back to the 3rd century and sited someone from that time, because all the sacraments that we know of had been established by then.

If you ever choose to engage me in debate, instead of throwing out random points, I would be more than happy to provide more information, but since you don;t even appear to be paying attention to a word I am saying now, it would seem pretty usless to indulge in this.

James 2:14-26

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

[12th Doctor]

Heck, if you want something from Paul to rebuke your Paul based argument, how about this?

Romans 2:5-8

5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

[12th Doctor]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously didn't read this too clearly.  Allow me to quote it for you:

This is often forgotten by Catholics themselves, and therefore it is not surprising that those who are not Catholic often have a completely wrong conception of Catholic devotion to the Mother of God. They imagine, and sometimes we can understand their reasons for doing so, that Catholics treat the Blessed Virgin as an almost divine being in her own right, as if she had some glory, some power, some majesty of her own that placed her on a level with Christ Himself. They regard the Assumption of Mary into heaven as a kind of apotheosis placed in the Redemption would seem to be equal to that of her Son.  But this is all completely contrary to the true mind of the Catholic Church. It forgets that Mary's chief glory is in her nothingness, in the fact of being the "Handmaid of the Lord," as one who in becoming the Mother of God acted simply in loving submission to His command, in the pure obedience of faith. She is blessed not because of some mythical pseudo-divine prerogative, but in all her human and womanly limitations as one who has believed.  It is the faith and the fidelity of this humble handmaid, "full of grace" that enables her to be the perfect instrument of God, and nothing else but His instrument. The work that was done in her purely the work of God.  The glory of Mary is purely and simply the glory of God in her.

Clearly, the possition of this article is that there is no glory in Mary, other than what is given her by God.  Mary is not a god and is not to be treated or prayed to as though she is a god.  I think you might be seriously misunderstanding the role of "intercession" which is not, I repeat not the work of Mary acting on the world, but rather the prayers of Mary to the Almighty, All Doing, All Knowing God.  Mary has no power of herself, and this has always been the Catholic possition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the things that Luther said were absolutely correct, and the Church corrected it's institutional errors based on those legitimat criticisms of Luther.  The reason I brought this up is because you seemed to be suggesting that faith alone is enough to bring grace, which is not the case.

[12th Doctor]

Heck, if you want something from Paul to rebuke your Paul based argument, how about this?

Romans 2:5-8

5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

Of course, there is a massive difference in conception between our understanding of the word, "work." To me, it means the outwardly reflection of the change brought by acceptance of Jesus as our saviour. But from what I read so far, in Catholicism, "work" means fulfilling conditions necessary to achieve salvation.

For example, one must be baptised in the Catholic church to even hope of not avoiding Hellfire.

Faith without works = "I can go to Cancun and whore around on Saturday night, but I still go to fellowship with my brothers on Sunday afternoon"

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

First off, the Catholic Church agknowledges that almost all Christian baptisms are legitimat, regardless of who performs them.  In our Church, a preist performs this act, because we think that a person should be baptised before the entire faith community.  We can do this now, because we aren't being hunted down by the Romans.

I am reminded of an episode of All in the Family when the Bunkers' daughter and Meathead didn't want to baptise their child, because they didn't go to Church.  Archie was out walking the baby, and he snuck into a church and baptised the baby himeself.  The Church would consider this a true baptism.

There are many things that we do in the Church that don't need to be done that way.  We simply prefer that they be done that way.

Second, as for the idea of "works" ever since Vatican II, there has been a clear understanding of the difference between sacraments, as we have them, and works as refered to in the Bible.  The Lutherans and the Catholics acctually called a conference together in the mid-1990's and we now totally agree on what this meaning.

[12th Doctor]

I was really interested in the meaning of that Greek word, charitoo, which in this tense Mary is forever filled.

Looking at the Strong's concordance, while that word does in fact mean "grace", it's in the sense of "highly favored," ... precisely because she was a pure blood member of the royal line of David .. not as full of some sort of "saving grace."

And it's not good to speculate that she was assumed into Heaven, the writer of Acts would have certainly mentioned the fact if she had been.

This word, until recent times, has always been interprited "grace", thus the fact that the Hail Mary, in every language, even Greek and Aramaic(sp) goes "Hail Mary, full of grace," when multiple translations and manipulations are possible.  In fact, the literal translation of the Hail Mary in French is quite different from that of the English, but the "full of Grace" remains.

As for your claim that Mary is not special in any way other than circumstance:

Rev 11&12

19
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

1
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.  
3
Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
4
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
6
The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.
7
7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,
8
but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
9
The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.
10
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.
11
They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.
12
Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."
13
When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
14
But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.
15
The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.
16
But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.
17
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.  
18
It took its position  on the sand of the sea.
---------------------------

Notice that there seems to be a direct connection between the woman and the ark.  Jesus is the New Covenant.  The Old Covenant was the 10 Commandments, correct?  Thus, Mary, the woman, is the ark of the New Covenant, as she is the one who bore Jesus.  Clearly, to the writters, this woman is very special.

In fact, every image of Mary that you see in a Catholic Church where see wears the crown of 12 stars (to represent the tribes and Apostles) and stepping on the serpant is taken directly from Revelation.

[12th Doctor]

Then who do you dedicate your Rosary to, and why?

1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the rosary, shall receive signal graces.

2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the rosary.

3. The rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the heart of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify them- selves by this means.

5. The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish.

6. Whoever shall recite the rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.

8. Those who are faithful to recite the rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the rosary.

10. The faithful children of the rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in heaven.

11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary.

12. All those who propagate the holy rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

14. All who recite the rosary are my son, and brothers of my only son Jesus Christ

16. Devotion of my rosary is a great sign of predestination.

The "promises of Mary" that I've highlighted in bold are so far removed from Christian belief they ought to be condemned right on the spot, seeing as how they all but admit that His resurrection was somehow "incomplete" and that we have to do more just to keep up.

Sigh... this is only because of the belief we have in the strong intercessory role that Mary has.  Nothing more.  Joseph is also believed to have have this role, as is Peter and many others who were the holiests of the holy, so to speak.

As for the Rosary, there are prays to God in the rosary.  Perhaps you have never heard a Hail Mary.  It goes something like this.

"Hail Mary, full of grace.  The Lord is with thee.
Blessed are thou amounst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death.

[12th Doctor]

I should probably consolidate some of these posts, but that would be awkward. Rather than pointlessly dragging out another page on this debate, I'll just link to two apologetic sites that list every argument you could ever make in favor of one's own religion and against the other person's.

Highlights:

1. Catholics list Protestants as being members of the Great Heresies

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

and instructs its members on how to tutor them, as one tutors an ignorant Catholic, or as Soulty has been tutoring me. Though I can take cold comfort in that lay Catholics are instructed to talk to us, as opposed to just stomp us flat, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

2. For their part, the Evangelicals, as represented by Dr. John Ankerberg, debate points of Catholic theology so arcane I'm surprised people even remember them all:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-rc.htm

What is hilarious, though, is that Dr Ankerberg classes the Catholics with the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses as an unbiblical heresy.

3. The layout of the two websites are so similar in content that I wonder if some clever agnostic hadn't invented them both, just to double the profit.

Ha... wow... you are off in space, somewhere.  Yes, I do us Catholic Answers, which is the site you are refering to.  Yes, they do instruct in Catholic apologetics.  And yes, they are absolutely for real.  I have been to see Dr. Scott Hahn, and many of the other people who are associated with this group.

I'm sorry that it has been so "Torturous" for you to here our veiw on this.  I feel so sorry for you, since it looks like you have brought a knife to a gun fight.

However, you seem to not grasp the meaning of the word "heresy".  Just because someone pratices a heresy does not mean they are "damned".  It only means that they believe something falsely.  Since the Protestant church preaches against Catholicism, it is only natural that, since we believe to be the true Church, what they practice is seen by us as being false.  Vatican II settled once and for all, the question of whether Protestant heresy is "damnable".  The answer is "no".