Assisi

Let nothing disturb you, Let nothing frighten you, All things pass, God never changes. Patience gains all things, He who has God Finds he lacks nothing, God alone suffices. God has no body now on earth but yours; no hands but yours; no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which the compassion of Christ must look out on the world. Yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good. Yours are the hands with which He is to bless His people.

Actually Fiosh, when I opend my greek concordiance, this is what I get. "brother" adelphos brother(lit. or fig.) denotes a brother or near kinsman (1) male children of the same parents. (2) male descendants of the same parents. (3) male children of the same mother "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?" Other definitions list people of the same nationality, etc. However as with any word, look at the context. Mark 6:3 - Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Is not this the carpenter, First, they identify Jesus by his trade, and really that of his earthly father Joseph. the son of Mary Then they identify his mother. So we are talking about a biological family unit. the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? Now they identify his brothers and are not his sisters here with us? and his sisters. Now if you think these are references to "countrymen", etc. Then this statement would be meaningless, because EVERYONE present at this event was Jesus' countrymen. Imagine if I came up to someone in front of Pennsylvania avenue and said, "Hey, the Americans are here to see you," and they were already talking to a large crowd of Americans.I'd look pretty stupid, as nearly everyone in sight would be an American. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why so blind-----Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother." The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father

Do you not believe in life after , bluebird? Please show me Scripture references to prove there is no life after . Thanks, Fiosh <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course i believe in life after , eternal life is a huge part of salvation! But i dont believe people go directly to heaven immediately. Were all judged on the same day arent we?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you not believe in life after death, bluebird? Please show me Scripture references to prove there is no life after death. Thanks, Fiosh <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JOB 33:21 His flesh wastes away to nothing, and his bones, once hidden, now stick out. JOB 33:22 His soul draws near to the pit, and his life to the messengers of death. JOB 33:23 "Yet if there is an angel on his side as a mediator, one out of a thousand, to tell a man what is right for him, JOB 33:24 to be gracious to him and say, Spare him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for him'-- JOB 33:25 then his flesh is renewed like a child's; it is restored as in the days of his youth . JOB 33:26 He prays to God and finds favor with him, he sees God's face and shouts for joy, he is restored by God to his righteous state. Clearly here we have an example of an Angel acting as a mediator for a man who is about to die from sickness and sin and yet by the Angels mediation the man is restored to his health and his righteous state. By virtue of the Angels persuading intercessory prayer to God to have mercy on the man, the man was spared death. JER 15:1 Then the LORD said to me: "Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! This is in the negative but clearly shows that departed saints go before the very throne of God and make intercessory prayer for those of us on earth. The unique Mediatorship of Christ thus no more prevents our brother and sister Christians in heaven from praying for us than it prevents our brother and sister Christians here on earth from praying for us. It is intercessory prayer in both cases. Talking to those in heaven is not forbidden. In fact, it is encouraged, for in the Psalms we pray to the angels to ask them to join us in worshipping God: JN 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" ( Guess not.) John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace {be} unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne."??????? {cf. Rev 3:1; 4:5; 5:6} The seven angels participate in the giving of "grace" and peace by God . Some Protestant commentators, aware of a certain difficulty here for their position, seek to redefine the "seven Spirits" as the Holy Spirit, but a check with the cross-references above (inc. Tobit) make this implausible. Other commentators accept these spirits as the seven archangels of Jewish angelology, as indeed they appear to be. 3) Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4?? "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four {and} twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints." ? "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer {it} with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. (4) And the smoke of the incense, {which came} with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." The saints (he 24 elders are regarded as dead Christians) and angels lay the prayers of the Christians on earth at the feet of God; that is, they are praying for them and acting as intercessory intermediaries. Thus, the propriety of invoking them logically follows from the plain fact of their intercession. This is identical to the Catholic teaching. Protestant commentaries scramble to come up with some alternate version of what is taking place here, straining at gnats, rationalizing, and splitting hairs. It is amusing to find that often these Protestant works will vehemently maintain that the Catholic view is definitely not taught in a particular Bible verse, while rarely offering a plausible or coherent alternate explanation! Protestantism accepts the superior knowledge of angels and their ability to understand and influence our thoughts (see 1 Cor 4:9), yet illogically deny that we could ever ask them for their aid, since they construct a false dichotomy whereby invocation of any being beside God is somehow always and necessarily idolatrous. Here, in these passages, dead saints are also exercising the same function as the angels. Yet, if we can't ask either type of being for their intercession, it seems that we could not pray for each other either, since the "invocation" of a saint or angel simply means asking them for their prayers to God, not as beings who are capable of answering the prayers in and of themselves. The Protestant argument, then, proves too much and must be discarded. 4) Revelation 6:9-10??? "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: (10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"? {cf. Zech 1:12} These dead Christian martyrs are uttering what are known as "imprecatory prayers," pleas for God's judgment of the wicked and vindication of the righteous (e.g., see Ps 35;69;79;109;139; Jer 11:18 ff.; 15:15 ff.; 18:19 ff.; Jesus in Mt 26:53). Thus, dead saints are praying for Christians on earth, and, by logical extension, can be asked for prayers. They are aware of earthly events (Heb 12:1), and are more alive, unfathomably more righteous (Jas 5:16), and obviously closer to God than we are. They need not be omniscient to hear our prayers, but merely out of time. It makes no less sense to ask for their prayers than to request those of any person on earth. In fact, the prayer above was answered by God who hastens the end of the age (8:1-5). Therefore, if the prayers of the Christians in heaven is so important in this instance, one can only imagine their immense weightiness in the overall scheme of things. 5) Matthew 18:10?? "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." The notion that every person has their own guardian angel, who has direct access to God, is strongly implied. If Jesus said He could have asked for the assistance of an angel (Mt 26:53) - and He certainly would not have been worshiping them in so doing - then we, who need their help infinitely more than He, can do the same without necessarily engaging in idolatry (anything can become an idol if we let it). Nor will it do for Protestants to equate the Intercession of the Saints with the communication with evil spirits by means of a medium or other occultic techniques. This is nonsense. The Communion of the Saints is nothing more than the recognition that saints after death (and angels) are more alive than us, aware of happenings on earth, desirous of aiding us, and able to be asked for help and to assist us with their prayer and intercession. 6) Dead Saints Appear on Earth to Interact With Men Not only does God not want a prohibition of contact between saints in heaven and on earth, but He goes so far as to allow, on several occasions as recorded in the Bible, dead saints to return to earth for this very purpose! These are instances accepted by Protestants, but their implications are only fully developed within Catholicism. We find, for example, Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration to talk to Jesus, while Peter, James, and John were present (Mt 17:1-3 / Mk 9:4 / Lk 9:30-31). Likewise, the two "witnesses" of Rev 11:3-13 are saints who had come back to life, thought by many commentators to be, again, Moses and Elijah, and by others, Enoch and Elijah. Thirdly, the prophet Samuel (not just a demon impersonating him) appears in 1 Sam 28:7-20,? as the great majority of commentators hold (the "Apocryphal" book Ecclesiasticus makes this clear - 46:13,20). "Many bodies of the saints" came out of their graves after Jesus' Resurrection and went into Jerusalem, appearing to many (Mt 27:50-53). Lastly, Jeremiah returns to earth (2 Maccabees 15:13-16). All of these occurrences involve long-dead figures (as op-posed to other resurrections such as Lazarus and Jairus' daughter), and demolish the notion of Protestantism that there is an unbridgeable gulf between heaven and earth - a sort of spiritual "Berlin wall." There is no such bridge, according to the Bible, because there is only one Church and Mystical Body of Christ, and death cannot affect the communion between its members of whatever estate. It's interesting to note that Moses and Samuel, who together appear in two and perhaps three of the five examples above, are renowned among Jews and Christians for their powerful intercession (Ex 32:11-12; 1 Sam 7:9; Ps 99:6; Jer 15:1 - implied after-death prayer). In all cases, much communication takes place with people on earth. Samuel talks to Saul and Saul replies; Peter, James, and John may have heard Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus (it's unclear); the two witnesses prophesy for three and a half years (obviously including conversation), the resurrected saints of Mt 27 "appeared unto many," presumably talking with them as did Jesus in His post-Resurrection appearances; and Jeremiah spoke to Judas Maccabeus. In light of these scriptural facts, how could anyone contend that God forbids such interaction, allowing only that between man and God, and men with men on earth? God could easily have disallowed any of these occurrences if they were indeed "contrary to the unique mediatorship of Jesus Christ." In conclusion, we find, then, that all the elements of the Catholic doctrines of the Communion of Saints are undoubtedly found in the Bible, and not just in the Deutero-canonical books, for all to see. 7) The Veneration of Saints? Devotions to angels and saints no more interfere and corrupt the incommunicable Glory of the Eternal God and Creator than does the love we have towards friends and relatives. A tender and healthy attachment to the saints will give vent to feelings in the language of hyperbole, just as human lovers wax eloquent in their romantic praises of each other, never intending to literally worship the object of love and affection.

You pertend to fallow Christ but do not listen to Him. Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ Jhn 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. 1Cr 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1Cr 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Act 18:15 But if it be a question of words and names, and [of] your law, look ye [to it]; for I will be no judge of such [matters]. Even Paul does not Judge on such matters. Dear Fiosh. Woe to you when all men speak well of you." Luke 6:26 Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and, speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for My sake. Rejoice and exult, BECAUSE YOUR REWARD IS GREAT IN HEAVEN; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:11-12

Ah, but you just gave the answer yourself. It is because, not the visibility fo the Catholic church, but the TEACHING and practises of the Catholic Church, are unscriptural. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By who's authority do you make this statement and is this opinion infallible?

From the diary of St. Faustina. Jesus words to St. Faustina as she was praying for Poland June 1938" I BEAR A SPECIAL LOVE FOR POLAND AND IF SHE IS OBEDIANT TO MY WILL I WILL EXALT HER IN MIGHT AND HOLINESS. FROM HER WILL COME FORTH THE (SPARK) THAT WILL PREPAIR THE WORLD FOR MY FINAL COMING".

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) believe that Baptism is regenerational -- that is to say, that the Sacrament itself transforms the person by "water and the Word," (cf. Eph 5:26) thus adopting that person into the Body of Christ and making that person a participant in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 4:6-7). From earliest times, literally every Church Father including in the writing of the four that were instructed by the Apostles , as well as every orthodox Christian scholar until the Protestant reformation, understood Baptism as regenerational. This included Martin Luther and most of the Protestant reformers who followed him. Do you take Scripture seriously? 1 Peter 3:21-22 --- "This prefigured Baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clear conscious, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ..." Acts 2:38 -- "Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' " Mark 16:16 -- "Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." In Acts 2:38, Baptism is clearly associated with the forgiveness of sins: "Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

They were already stated and I never said that he wasn't in the room or incapable of speaking

Christ established

All of the denominations and fractions of "Christianity" have been prophesied in the Bible...even by Jesus Himself. This should come of no surprise to a believer in Christ. The true "Church" of Jesus Christ our Lord is not a physical entity visible by the eye or human intellect...it is a new spiritual creation washed by the blood of the Lamb by faith. Trust me...there were "Protestants" throughout the Catholic Dark Ages...only most of them were living on mountaintops and in caves hiding from being slaughtered. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example . 1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose." Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents." Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing." Ephesians 4:1-6 --

Tell that to Jesus. When Jesus knocked Saul to the ground on the road to Damascus, Jesus asked him "Why are you prosecuting ME!?" He didn't ask, "Why are you prosecuting My followers!?" The Church IS Jesus body. No need to worry about Catholics. You do not have certitude of faith with simple intellectual belief. To achieve the and rise to the heights of faith and let God communicate directly to the soul illuminated by the Hloy Spirit you must be a Contemplative. Then you will be granted an underlying peace that the superficial and transient pursutes and pleasures of this world cnnot give no matter how we immerse in them. In the progress toward perfection you will become aware of the evere deepeing and divine incomprehensibility of God. Thius is the Church of the heart which clings to the Lord and meditates unceasingly on Him. Having intered this heart Church you then can ascend to the high Church and its liturgy which transcends all human speach. To enter ther must be self emptying and total purification of the heart.

Acts, chapter 19 1: While Apol'los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2: And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." aha, so the answer to the question was NO! Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Oh, so even faith-alone Paul indicated that they should be baptized immediately, if they believed. Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. and faith-alone Paul used outward actions that he expected to have inward results. Sounds like Paul was a sacramentalist after all. And it sounds like God responded to the faith that is demonstrated by laying on of hands. And it sounds like God wants us to recognize that we don't believe or get baptized or receive the Holy Spirit in a God-and-me situation, but in a community context. Another person lays on hands--you can't do it to yourself. That seems to be God's plan

Or could it be until the 16th century, the Church didn't quite understand the true nature of Christ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Christ established one Church 2000 years ago and promsed here-- Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world Amen." This is a promise directly from Jesus Christ . Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall, not prevail against it. If you are correct what happened to this promise by Christ? John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you." "I will not leave you orphans." John 14:18 Did Jesus lie here ?

Justification is defined by the RCC as: The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22 cf. 6:3-4) Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctifiction and renewal of the interior man. Through the power of the HS we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself. Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15:1-4 The first work of the grace of the HS is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Mt 4:17. Justification detaches man from sin and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful inititative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God- frees him from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. Justification is also the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Chris. Righteousness here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is confered in baptism, the sacrament of fiath. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just (righteous) by the power of his mercy. Rom 3:21-26 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent. When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight. Council of Trent: DS 1525 (Denziger) Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that "the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth," because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away." St. Augustine, In Jo ev. 72, 3: PL 35,1823 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," (Cf. Rom 7:22, Eph. 3:16) justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. (Rom 6:19, 22) Evangelical scholar Alister McGrath writes at the conclusion of his doctoral dissertation IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 -- "The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY has been introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EXISTED BEFORHowever, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly FAITHFUL to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, WHERE THE REFORMERS DEPARTED FROM IT The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis- [the order of salvation], the essential point is that a notional distinction is made WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BEFORE [my emphasis]. The Reformation understanding of the NATURE of justification -- as opposed to its mode -- must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological NOVUM." According to this Christ decieved all Christians about salvation till the 16th Century.

Really? Where? To put men on the same level of Christ? God forbid! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> God gave men the power to forgive sins in His name. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair." --------------- And to further it up: for a long time the catholics never wanted the book translated into any vernacular language, meaning only the educated (which at some points in Europe's middle ages were very few) could read it. A very small minority could even touch the book, let alone understand it! Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed, "Against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." "We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. ... Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures." (Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844, encyclical) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD) "The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life

No, they did not. If you believe this myth, then simply show me any credible source on when and where the Catholic Church outlawed it. I wouldn't say they outlawed it, rather, they wouldn't let any catholic layman read it. Only the clergy and the pope could, and even then it was in Latin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not aware of any provisions which forbid the clergy from letting layman read the bible. The problem was was that back then, books were incredibly expensive, most people couldn't even afford basic ones because they were all hand written. Something as large and comprehenive as the bible would have taken an enormous amount of time and money to copy. In the past, pirates, raiders and looters would actually take books with them because they were so valuable. The only people that would have access to something as valuable as the bible back then would be scholars and they'd know Latin anyways. So, peasants that probably couldn't read didn't have regular access to the bible because of its value, so what? What would a bible like that cost in today's money? $200,000, $300,000? You are just going to let everyone in town thumb through it? People would still have access to the word of God by what they were taught at Church and told at every Mass. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I grew up in the Catholic Church. In my grade school days, we had access to the "Catholic" Bible. It was called the Douay-Rheims Bible and it was written in scholarly archaic English which I found difficult to even get interested in, much less understand. We technically had access to the Douay-Rheims. Copies could be purchased at Catholic bookstores. I don't recall ever being told that I could'nt read it; but, on the other hand, I was never encouraged to read it, either. I don't believe that our local parish priests read it, either. The sermon topics that they preached, including Scripture quotations, came in print form from the hierarchy through the local bishop. I spent nearly 50 years as a Roman Catholic and in all that time, I can only recall three priests who knew the Bible. It was by subtle inference, not by any official declaration, that we lay people in the Catholic Church came to accept that only members of the hierarchy could understand Scripture. Thus, any interest I had in reading the Bible was squelched. I believe that, like the Pharisees who battled Jesus, members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in that day, were in a "circle the wagons" mode, striving to protect their positions; their places of honor. Praise God that the winds of change are blowing through the Catholic Church at long last. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be to perpetuate a prejudice founded on Luther's often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther's day and to what extent it was studied among educated people. Modern research, not seldom carried out by open-minded Protestants, has furnished some surprising results in this respect. {Hartmann Grisar, Luther, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, v. 5, p. 536} The publisher of the Cologne Bible [1480] writes . . . : All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation. The rapidity with which the different editions followed each other and the testimony of contemporary writers point to a wide distribution of German Bibles among the people. {Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., tr. A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (orig. 1891), v. 1, pp. 58-60} It says at the end of a Koberger Vulgate of 1477: The Holy Scriptures excel all the learning of the world . . . All believers should watch zealously and exert themselves unremittingly to understand the contents of these most useful and exalted writings, and to retain them in the memory. Holy Scripture is that beautiful garden of Paradise in which the leaves of the commandments grow green, the branches of evangelical counsel sprout . . . These words admirably describe the attitude which the Church in the Middle Ages held with regard to Holy Scripture. That the Bible at that time was a book lying under a bank is an unhistorical assertion . . . First and foremost the study of the Bible was urgently enjoined on the priests . . . The Breviary and the Missal . . . are for the most part made up of words from Holy Scripture . . . Thomas a Kempis, in agreement with the Fathers, compares the Word of Christ with the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and declares that without the Eucharist and the Holy Scriptures, his food and his light, life would be unbearable to him. {Ibid., v. 14, pp. 381-383} In Catholic countries the walls of churches and monasteries and convents, and even cemeteries, are covered with pictures representing Scriptural scenes . . . Stained glass windows may be mentioned in the same category . . . The simple truth is that the Catholic Church adopted every means at her disposal in these old days to bring a knowledge of God's Word to those who could not read, as well as to those who could. Bibles were not printed because there was no printing press; but whose fault was that? Is the Church to blame for not inventing printing sooner? {Graham, ibid., pp. 85-6} The Canon of the Bible . . . was framed in the fourth century. In that same century Pope Damascus commanded a new and complete translation of the Scriptures to be made into the Latin language, which was then the living tongue not only of Rome and Italy, but of the civilized world. If the Popes were afraid that the Bible should see the light, this was a singular way of manifesting their fear. The task of preparing a new edition of the Scriptures was assigned to St. Jerome, the most learned Hebrew scholar of his time. This new translation was disseminated throughout Christendom, and on that account was called the Vulgate, or popular edition. In the 6th and 7th centuries the modern languages of Europe began to spring up like so many shoots from the parent Latin stock. The Scriptures, also, soon found their way into these languages. {James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, NY: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, rev. ed., 1917, p. 74} There were just two classes of people then: those who could read, and those who could not read. Now, those who did read could read Latin, and, therefore, were perfectly content with the Scriptures in Latin. Those who could not read Latin could not read at all . . . The whole mistake in peoples' minds arises, of course, from the supposition they make that Latin was then a dead language, whereas it was really a living one in every sense of the term, being read and spoken and written universally in Europe. {Graham, ibid., pp. 89,91} The Bible and other books were chained in the libraries and churches in the Middle Ages to preserve them from theft, and especially to make them accessible to students . . . The Reformers adopted this custom of having chained Bibles in their churches, and the practice lasted for over 300 years. There were chained libraries at Grantham (1598), Bolton (1651) and Wimborne (1686), England, and chained Bibles in most of the English churches . . . The Oxford Colleges of Eton, Brasenose and Merton did not remove the chains until the 18th century, while some libraries removed them only in the 19th (Manchester, Cirencester, Llanbadarn). At the present time we have records of over 5000 chained books in eleven Protestant and two Catholic libraries. {Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, NY: Paulist Press, 1929, p. 86. Sources: Lenhart, Chained Bibles, Savage, Old English Librarie} The desire to possess the Holy Scriptures in the mother tongue is already met with on German soil in the time of Charlemagne [742-814]; and, strange to say, it is just the earliest translators of the Middle Ages who have come nearest to perfection in this task. {Janssen, ibid., v. 14, p. 384} The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . . [Other editions in High German: Strasburg: 1470,1485 / Basel, Switzerland: 1474 / Augsburg: 1473 (2),1477 (2),1480,1487,1490,1507,1518 / Nuremburg: 1483]. Bible Translations in Low German: Cologne: 1480 (2) / Lubeck: 1494 / Halberstadt: 1522 / Delf: before 1522] {Janssen, ibid., v. 1, pp. 56-57; v. 14, p. 388} Raban Maur, born in Mainz in 776, translated the Old and New Testament into the Teutonic, or old German, tongue. Some time later, Valafrid Strabon made a new translation of the whole Bible. Huges of Fleury also translated the Scriptures into German, and the monk Ottfried of Wissemburg rendered it into verse . . . Hallam, the non-Catholic historian, in his work on the Middle Ages, chap. 9, part 2, says: In the 8th and 9th centuries, when the Vulgate ceased to be generally intelligible . . . translations were freely made into the vernacular languages, and, perhaps, read in churches. {Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, rev. ed., 1987 (orig. Cincinnati, 1916), pp.183,185} The well-known Anglican writer, Dr. Blunt, in his History of the Reformation (Vol. I. pp. 501-502), tells us that: There has been much wild and foolish writing about the scarcity of the Bible in the ages preceding the Reformation . . . that the Holy Scripture was almost a sealed book until it was printed in English by Tyndale and Coverdale, and that the only source of knowledge respecting it before them was the translation made by Wyckliffe. The facts are . . . that all laymen who could read were, as a rule, provided with their Gospels, their Psalter, or other devotional portions of the Bible. Men did, in fact, take a vast amount of personal trouble with respect to the productions of the Holy Scriptures . . . The clergy studied the Word of God and made it known to the laity; and those few among the laity who could read had abundant opportunity of reading the Bible either in Latin or English, up to the Reformation period. {O'Hare, ibid., pp. 185-186} We shall . . . refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof . . . To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the 7th century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of the Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow . . . In the same (8th) century we have the copies of Eadhelm . . . of Guthlac, . . . and of Egbert . . . these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great . . . and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury . . . After the Norman conquest of 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue . . . such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle . . . (d.1349) . . . The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface,' refer to previous translations . . . : Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation. {Graham, ibid., pp. 98-101} From 1450 to 1520 [there were] many translations of the whole Bible . . . seventeen German, eleven Italian, ten French, two Bohemian, one Belgian, . . . and one Russian edition. {Grisar, ibid., v. 5, p. 536. Data from Franz Falk, The Bible in the Middle Ages, Cologne: 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.} Says another Protestant scholar, . . . : It can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture . . . We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame. {Ibid., v. 5, p. 537. Citation of E. v. Dobschutz, Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, pp. 61ff.} We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing . . . In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Protestants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. In all . . . 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world . . . What, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion . . . that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? . . . Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous . . . We may examine and investigate the action of the Church in various countries and in various centuries as to her legislation in regard to Bible reading among the people; and wherever we find some apparently severe or unaccountable prohibition of it, we shall on enquiry find that it was necessitated by the foolish or sinful conduct on the part either of some of her own people, or of bitter and aggressive enemies who literally forced her to forbid what in ordinary circumstances she would not only have allowed but have approved and encouraged. {Graham, ibid., pp. 98,105-106,108,120}

Scripture or simple intellectual belief is not certitude of faith. Certitude of faith is experientially rooted in the very God who communicates directally to the soul. True filial devotion to Mary is a gift of her Son. Thoes who reject Mary sacrifice the opportunity for healing onto wholeness whereby we are united with God. One of many examples is the fallowing and i will be impartial by using this article from the International Survivalist Society. Many athiests and agnostics especialy doctors were converted just by this one of many first class miricals at Lourdes. Suppurating Fracture of the Leg. - Pierre de Rudder, who lived at Jabbeke, near Ostend, had his leg broken by a falling tree. Dr. Affenaer reduced the fracture and placed it in a starch splint, both bones being fractured and protruding through the skin. The flesh turned gangrenous, a large ulcer formed on the dorsal part of the foot, the wound was full of pus, and Dr. Vassanaere and others, called to a consultation, advised immediate amputation; to which the patient would not consent. About the middle of January Dr. Verriest again advised amputation, without effect. In April the patient was taken to the Grotto at Lourdes. There was a gap of over an inch between the ends of the bones and foul pus poured from the wound. Arrived at the Grotto he felt something happening as he rested on the seat. He knelt down and got up unaided, his leg resumed its normal size, the wounds healed up and the bones were solidly united. De Rudder then got up and walked without crutches to the omnibus which took him back to Ghent. The next day Dr. Affenaer came to visit him; "he found the bones quite smooth at the scat of fracture, which was firmly united without any callus. The man lived for twenty-three years after, and during that time worked continually on his land without the least sign of fatigue or pain." "As this case excited an enormous amount of interest throughout Belgium, Dr. van Hoestenberghe, after De Rudder's death, got permission to exhume the body, and he removed the bones of the legs, which are now in the possession of the Bishop of Bruges." These bones were photographed, right and left leg for comparison: the photograph shows deformity at the scat of the fracture, but perfect union of the bones; there is no shortening and only slight displacement from the straight. The medical gentleman who has so kindly brought this case to my special notice remarks: How can we explain this case? We are confronted with the same difficulty as in the previous one. It is impossible to reject the direct evidence of so many competent medical men who examined the fracture both before and after the cure. Besides, we have the direct evidence of the united bones which were exhumed in the presence of a number of witnesses. We have no alternative but to admit the miraculous, although it goes dead against all our preconceived notions of the inviolability of natural laws to do so. Are we to believe that Nature's laws can be set aside, or are we to reject all human testimony and the evidence of the bones themselves? Or may it be that the miracle is the result of some unknown law of the spiritual world? When Dr. Verriest examined the fracture three months before the cure, he stated that there was a separation of three centimetres (1 1/3 inches) between the two ends. In the centre of the wound two bony fragments could be seen, blackened and necrosed, and bathed in pus. To obtain a natural cure the necrosed ends would first have to be removed, and by that time the separation of the bones would have amounted to three inches or more. How was this cavity filled up? The periosteum had long since been destroyed by the suppuration ... But here is another difficulty: where did the phosphate of lime come from to fill the gap? It could only come from the blood. Now the whole blood in the body only contains about 1.6 grammes of phosphate of lime, and the callus would require at least four times that amount. Where could it come from?(1) And further, what became of the sequestra? They must have disappeared, but where? And where did all the pus go to? It was so profuse that it poured over the cushions of the vehicle that brought him to the Grotto, much to the annoyance of the driver. And, lastly, the muscles during all these years after the fracture took place were atrophied and useless. How did they regain instantly their pristine vigor? No one is able to answer any of these questions, and yet the cure is incontestable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> but he brings up an excellent point. Are you praying to Mary or not? Do you really believe that she even hears you? If so, are her prayers on your behalf better than going yourself to whom the Bible says is our ONE Mediator between God and man....and that is ONLY Yeshua. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is a good place to start. Mary? She ain't my queen or my life, or my sweetness, or my hope. I don't "cry" to her, send up my sighs, mourning or weeping any vail of tears. She ain't no advocate, and is too dead to show mercy or pray for me. This idolotry is no better than the worship of dark angels. Should we just agree with it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As a former Roman Catholic who came to Christ through the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, I'd like to point out that the Catholic Church preaches that Mary has said that she wants to get people to focus on Jesus. Yet, in the guise of honoring Mary, they have developed a regimen of ceremonies and practices that surely look like worship to me and to worship anyone but God is idolatry. The Catholic Church puts much emphasis on praying to Mary for her to intercede with Jesus on my behalf. Growing up, I was led to believe that her prayer had a better chance of being heard than mine because she was/is Jesus' mother and I was only a kid living on earth. What a surprise it was when I read in my St. Joseph (Catholic) Bible that I can come all by myself to the Throne of Grace for help in time of need (Heb 4: 16). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For a former Roman Catholic you have little knowledge of this prayer or historical Christianity. The prayer starts out ----Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness, and our hope! She is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God therefor Jesus is our Our life, our sweetness, and our hope comprende.