Assisi

And what about: Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Isn't this what "Hail Mary" and "Our Father" prayers are? You know, "say 10 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers and you will be forgiven." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The operative Greek word here for "vain repetitions" is battalogeo, or babbling. That is, the heathens had a magical perception of prayer and thought the more they babbled to their gods, the more that that god would respond: I Kings 18:26: "And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered." Christ Himself prayed in repetitions. Matthew 26:44: "And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words". Mark 14:39 reads: "And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words." Do you believe that the Father heard Him the first time? The angels pray repetitiously. Revelation 4:8: "...and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." The liturgy of the synagogue was (and is) filled with repetition and formalized prayer. Christ said "use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do". Were the Jews heathens? They prayed (and still pray) the sh'ma twice a day and, in their liturgy, the Shemoneh Esrei, the Kaddish, the morning blessings, the Aleinu, etc. Check out a Jewish siddur (missal) sometime; does it look more typically Protestant or Catholic.

Eusebius records this story, but says his source is from a church theologian named Origen (who wrote about AD 230): "Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, to the Jews that were scattered abroad; who also, finally coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way" (Ecclesiastical History 3:1). "Thus Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God, was led on in his fury to slaughter the apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been beheaded at Rome, and Peter to have been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed by the fact, that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day" (Ecclesiastical History 2:25).

U.S. Civil War & Assassination of President Lincoln Lincoln was assassinated by the Jesuits for two reasons. 1) For defending, while still a lawyer, Charles Chiniquy, a renegade Canadian priest who had founded a community in Illinois. Chiniquy was the target of repeated Vatican attacks for breaking with the Church. Lincoln won the case. 2) For foiling the Confederacy in the Civil War, a Jesuit engineered, Vatican backed plot to destroy the U.S. After Lincoln won the Civil War, the Vatican exacted its revenge. Not surprisingly, John Wilkes Booth wore a medal of the Virgin Mary around his neck. Jack Chick Anti-Catholicism and the Know-Nothings In the early part of the 19th century a group of Americans who were opposed to the immigration of Irish and German Catholics in the United States formed a secret society officially known as the Order of United Americans. Whenever a member was asked about the group, he would say, "I know nothing." Thus they became known as the "Know-Nothings." They accepted into their group only native-born Protestants who were unrelated to Catholics either by blood or marriage. Their movement to stop the flood of Catholic immigrants is known as nativism. New Vatican in Ohio? By 1825 over 100 periodicals were being published in the United States; 75% of them were religious and half of those were anti-Catholic. The nativists produced a vast amount of propaganda against the Catholic Church in the first half of the 19th century. The great number of Catholics, mostly German and Irish, moving to the Midwest caused the Know-Nothings and other nativists to think that the power of the Pope might be transferred there. Many of these anti-Catholic publications stated that Catholics were not patriotic but owed their allegiance solely to the Pope and therefore could never be true Americans. The propaganda became increasingly absurd: some articles predicted that the Pope and a papal army would land on American shores to set up a new Vatican in Cincinnati, Ohio. No insurance for Catholics In 1834 Lyman Beecher returned to Boston to deliver three anti-Catholic sermons in various churches on a single day. He succeeded in rallying the Protestants together and the next day a mob gathered at the Ursuline School in Charlestown, carrying banners which said, "Down with Popery" and "Down with the Cross." Fifty men broke down the doors of the convent and set everything on fire. Although the arsonists were caught, none were found guilty. Mob attacks on Catholic churches in New England soon became so frequent that insurance companies refused to insure Catholic buildings. Beecher returned to Cincinnati and published his rabble-rousing sermon as a pamphlet called "Plea for the West." He amplified the papal plot envisaged by Morse, maintaining that Catholic schools would win converts who would ally themselves with Catholic immigrants to control the west. Many joined Beecher, allying themselves against the immigrant Catholics. The nativist presence under the leadership of Lyman Beecher in Cincinnati prompted the bishop of that city to erect a new cathedral which became the tallest building west of the Allegheny River at the time. The cathedral was designed without windows in the lower walls, rather only solid stone some 45 feet high to protect against anyone throwing bombs into the building as had been happening in the New England church burnings. Know-Nothing president In the 1840s the Know-Nothings became more formally organized and became politically active. By 1855 most of the state senators and representatives were affiliated with the Know-Nothings. In 1856 they even nominated a Presidential candidate, Milliard Fillmore. Bigotry against Catholics continued, especially reaching unheard of bitterness in the national elections of 1856 when Abraham Lincoln wrote "If the Know-Nothings get control, the Declaration of Independence will read: All men are created equal except for,Catholics Negroes,and foreigners ." Wow Jack Chick said the Jesuits assassinated Linclon. It doesent take an intellectual to see that Lincoln viewed all men as equal and was protecting Catholics and that you get your anti Catholic literature from Jack Chick.

You are in agreement with these Protestant Scholars Smalcald. Naturally, Protestants aren

Jesus gives me Knowledge so I can see through the futility of passing things and keep my eyes on the invisible reality. To feed my soul with His word, He gives me Understanding so I may pray without ceasing and trust without doubt. And then, as if to seal all these gifts so they are not lost, He gives me Wisdom, that ever growing awareness of His Presence within me and around me. To be a Christian is to have a special vocation. Paul told the first Christians, "Lead a life worthy of your vocation. Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together." (Eph. 4:1-4) My thoughts, opinions, goals and desires should radiate the Spirit of Jesus. I must be vigilant over my senses and ever keep His Will before me that I may "grow strong in the Lord with the strength of His power." (Eph. 6:10)

You need To understand Apostolic tradition before i can reason any further with you. It is now 30 AD. Jesus is beginning His ministry and choosing His disciples. The Jewish people in Palestine have the Torah, or the Law of Moses, the collected works of the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, or the remaining books of the Old Testament. This collection includes the Deuterocanonical books of the Greek Septuagint, including Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, etc. Also circulating are Jewish apocrypha such as the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, which, while not considered Scripture, are familiar to Jews and are looked upon as didactic texts which are okay to read for informational purposes. Jesus condemns the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders for neglecting the Jewish Scriptures and the Law in favor of thier own man-made traditions, because in doing so, they are neglecting the spirit of the Law and why it was written in the first place: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Instead of doing this, the Pharisees think you can dislike whomever you want, and so long as you keep your animal sacrifices going and drop some more money in the pot, you're good to go. This is corrupt Pharisaic tradition, which Jesus rightly condemns. He is not condemning all tradition, however; and He is certainly not condemning Christian tradition, because Christian tradition is still in the process of being formed. Jesus travels around with His disciples for three years, teaching them everything that He has to say. All this stuff is stored up in their minds. Finally, the day comes that He has to leave, but He promises that when He does, the Holy Spirit will come and remind them of everything He has told them. Now it's 33 AD. Jesus ascends to Heaven, and the Holy Spirit descends at Pentecost. The Apostles are enabled to remember everything that Jesus has taught them. This collective rememberance of His teachings constitutes Apostolic Tradition, and is the main body of the Deposit of the Christian Faith. There is no Christian Bible. It has not been written yet. There are no epistles, there are no Gospels, there are no Christian writings of any kind. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The Apostles spread Jesus teachings by word of mouth. People remember what the Apostles have taught them and repeat it orally, much like the oral bardic systems in northern Europe. Within forty years, people have asked for written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, and the four evangelists have complied, writing the four Gospels. When disputes have arisen in the various churches begun by the Apostles, the Apostles have written letters to them to explain and teach, thus creating the epistles. These Christian Scriptures are addressed to people who already know the fullness of the Christian Faith, not to those who need to be converted. As time goes on, these Apostolic writings are copied and passed around to various churches. Already knowing the oral teachings which they received first (Apostolic Tradition), the people in these churches naturally enough understand these writings in light of that primary oral source. Some churches have copies of some Christian books, but not others. It takes about three hundred years for the full collection to be gathered and sorted out---some books, such as the Gosple of Peter and the Acts of Pontius Pilate are rejected, while other books, such as the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles are retained. Why? It's because all these books are examined by the bishops of the Church in light of the original, oral Tradition which came from the Apostles. If a book is in agreement with what the Apostles passed down by world of mouth, it is kept; if a book does not agree, it is rejected. And thus, a conformity of the Christian Scriptures is reached, and by the end of the fourth century, we have the collected 27 books of the New Testament. Put together with the collected books of the Jewish Scriptures, you have "The Bible". But the oral Tradition came first; the Scriptures are simply that part of Tradition which managed to get written down. Put together, they form the Deposit of the Faith, which the Catholic Church is based upon. Thus you can see that the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church is not the same thing as "man-made tradition"; Apostolic Tradition is made up of the words of Jesus Himself, His teachings which He told the Apostles first-hand. They in turn passed those teachings on to their followers, and eventually some of them got written down. But not all of them. Even John himself said that not everything Jesus said was written down. Many of the collected teachings of the Apostles remain, even to this day, in an oral form that is passed down from generation to generation, although naturally enough, over the last 2,000 years most of it has been written down in various documents of the Church; but it can be traced back to those original oral teachings. Many teachings of the Church can be found alluded to in the Patristic writings of the Church Fathers, who say things like "This is the Tradition that came from the Apostles, which we received and have preserved and passed on." This is why Protestant Scholars Philip Schaff, and J.N.D. Kelly tell us If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51) the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606) This is logical if a heritic misinterprets something in the Bible the Church falls back on tradition to those original oral teachings. Hopefully after reading the above you will understand. You cannot go to scripture if they conflict because the Church was given the original deposit of faith and has the key to true interpretation as Protestant historical scholars tell us.

Catholic adhear to Apostolic Tradition. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.

It is an equally well-documented fact that for hundreds of years those who maintained loyalty to Rome were persecuted, disenfranchised, and many times brutally murdered by good Bible-believing Protestants, simply because they were Catholic. The reigns of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Oliver Cromwell saw the execution of thousands of Catholics, for no other reason than the fact that they were Catholic. Religious wars on the Continent such as the Thirty Year's War caused the death of thousands of others. Add to this the loving kindness displayed by many of the Reformers and early Protestants towards each other (Luther's admonishment to the German princes to slay without mercy during the Peasant's Rebellion, Calvin's numerous brutal executions of various dissidents to his reign, the Salem witch trials, and others), and pretty soon the Protestants start to look just as ugly, vicious, brutal, and un-Christlike as the Catholics. The "Dark Ages" (so-called because the period was one of upheaval and anarchy, and very little was recorded during it) lasted from approximately 500 AD to about 1000 AD. Religious strife was certainly present, but compared to the complete collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the breakdown of all trade, communications, law, and infrastructure, and invading waves of Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards, Huns, Burgundians, Thuringians, Suevi, Heruli, Quadi, Magyars, and Vikings, it was rather low on the list of reasons why the "Dark Ages" were such an unsavory era. In order to see the terrible wrongfulness of the early Christians being charged with heresy, one needs to understand that they were God's messingers shedding forth the light of the Gospel into a dark world. I agree that killing Christians being charged with heresy, was not a terribly good solution, at least seen from our perspective 1600 years later; but I'm not so sure about the "messengers shedding forth the light of the Gospel" aspect of it. The Kerinthians, Ebionites, Elchasaites, and Mandeanites were all Gnostic heretics, who believed in numerous gods including the Jewish God, and although they derived their doctrine from a Christian base, they denied the divinity of Christ. The Adoptionists and Modalists also denied Christ's status as the Son of God. The Montanists and the Manicheists believed that God and Satan were equal, locked in an eternal struggle, and that physical aspects of life such as eating and sex were evil. The Novatianists believed that there were some sins which could not be forgiven. The Monophysites and the Apollinarianists believed that Christ had no human nature---He was God, but not man. Which of these teachings, in your view, represent the "light of the Gospel" that they were shedding forth? And after 476 AD, there was no Roman Empire west of Rumania. There was no government, no army, no police, and no order. The various barbarian tribes, unless they were Arians, were not Christians but worshippers of Thor and Freya. How did they link to the Church to maintain a religious monopoly?

Please do not skip over what i have provided here. The protestant Historical Scholars were correct when they say that the church tradition determines the canon,and furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 60 And If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of .Early Christian Doctrines page 47-4 The Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics. Marcion was a Gnostic appealed exclusively to the Scripture and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus, "They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it." Gnostic relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes: "Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." Prescription Against the Heretics, 19 Church History, V:28:13 St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians' rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy: "The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, 'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes." De Synodis,14 St. Basil of Ceasarea observes the same fatal flaw in those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit - the Pneumatomachianiststhe Spirit fighters. St. Basil writes: "It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of 'sound doctrine' is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors.--they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." Holy Spirit,10:25 This is as clear as you can get contrasting the rule of faith between Catholics and heretics. The Pneumatomachianists, like the Arians and Gnostics, appealed to the Scriptures alone and rejected the tradition of the Church! Here is a good example for Protestants to read since they continue to defend Scriptue alone. St. Augustine finds the wayward principle in the Pelagians and Arians. Pelagius expresses himself as follows: "What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice to have said this of all cases." Nature and Grace,46[39] In other words, Pelagius would only admit what is read within the pages of Holy Writ; hence, like the heretics before him rejected tradition. In the latter part of St. Augustine's life, St. Augustine was involved in an oral debate with an Arian bishop - Maximinus. Maximinus proclaims at the very start of the exchange: "I did not come to this city in order to stage a debate with Your Holiness. Rather, I am here, sent by Count Segisvult with a view to peace ... If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstances accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts (Mt 15:9)"Debate with Maximinus,1 In other words, Maximinus rejected all traditional monuments such as Nicea and would only accept what was found in Scripture. Coincidentally, Maximinus appealed to 1 Tim 3:16 in defense of his Bible-only mentality: "All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35)." Debate with Maximinus,15:16 Elsewhere, Maximinus continues to denigrate the authority of tradition and the deity of Christ: "Even if one produces from testimonies from the divine scriptures all day long, it will not be truly counted against one as wordiness. But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous." Debate with Maximinus,13 Time and time again, Maximinus criticizes the traditional monuments such as Trinity and homoousios! Later, Maximinus challenges St. Augustine to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit's on the basis of the Scriptures-alone: "The truth is not obtained by argumentation, but is proved by certain [scriptural] testimonies. For this reason you ought to produce [scriptural] testimonies that the Holy Spirit is God." Debate with Maximinus,15:21 This is about as obvious as it can get The heretic appeal to scripture and the Catholics tradition to correct the false interpretation of thes heretics. The arch-heretic Eutyches affirmed after the Incarnation that Christ possessed only one nature not two - the divine and human nature. The Council of Chalcedon writes: "He[Eutyches] said that he was ready to receive the decrees of the holy fathers assembled in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and promises to subscribe to their definitions. But if in their declarations anything by chance should be found either unsound or false, he says that he will neither reject or approve of it: but search the scripture alone as being more solid than all the decrees of the fathers." Council of Chalcedon, Act 1 Here we find Luther all over again! What could be more different than Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Eutychianism and Pneumatomachianism? Yet, we find the formal principle of sola scriptura applied across these early heresies. The early testimony is clear - if one fails to interpret Scripture within the milieu of Tradition and replace it with a private reading of Scripture than one can come up with about anything. Rufinus,Church History, 2:9 gives us The Antidote "Putting aside all Greek literature, they[st. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers."

How is the believer in Sola Scriptura to TEST "by Scripture" the very traditions upon which the apostolicity and canonicity of the books of Scripture are based? I am referring to the New Testament here. How are the traditions behind the canonicity of the Gospels to be tested? The only way is by Tradition. Traditions behind the apostolicity and canonicity of the NT must be accepted by implicit faith in the reliability of the Church which completed the task of "testing" for all Christians today. You have no ability to test these "by Scripture" therefore the above principle as practiced by Protestants is inconsistent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You avoided the question. Why did the Apologist and early church fathers appeal solely to scripture when making their defense? Why did they not appeal to tradition? I am not nullifying tradition. I'm simply placing scripture above tradition and saying that the early church fathers, as well as myself, believe that all tradition must rest upon scripture. Now, answer the question <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Catholic Church and the early Fathers admit a material sufficiency of the Bible but it maintains that Tradition, Church and Scripture are inseparable. and that the one cannot understand the meaning of the Sacred Scripture without Tradition and Church! That is why the early Fathers can admit a sufficiency of the Bible and the existence of unwritten traditions at the same time. Vincent of Lerins make this point. in his Commonitories Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, becuase of the great distortions caused by various erros, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" Comm 2 Athanasius discourse on the Arian heritics interpretation of Christ writes: 'Had they dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an ANCHOR for the faith, they would not have of the faith have made shipwreck of the faith' Orat iii, 58 Without the tradition of the Churchas evidence by the ecclesiastical sense of faith the interpretation of Scripture and one's faith can become shipwrecked. Some presant day examples. Mormonism Jehovah's Witness Seventh Day Adventism One International Church of Christ Onenss Pentecostals Christian science Christadelphianismri ect.

Let

Let us look at the words of our Lord in order to see if he used Tradition. 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. Moses seat is nowhere found in Scripture at all. Thousands of years transpired from the time of Adam to the time of Ezra , to the time of Maccabees in the Catholic Bible, and nowhere is Moses seat ever alluded to in the Old Testament. Here Jesus legitimizes this tradition., He later castigates the Pharisees because they don

How is the believer in Sola Scriptura to TEST "by Scripture" the very traditions upon which the apostolicity and canonicity of the books of Scripture are based? I am referring to the New Testament here. How are the traditions behind the canonicity of the Gospels to be tested? The only way is by Tradition. Traditions behind the apostolicity and canonicity of the NT must be accepted by implicit faith in the reliability of the Church which completed the task of "testing" for all Christians today. You have no ability to test these "by Scripture" therefore the above principle as practiced by Protestants is inconsistent.

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?

Again this is nothing more that RCC circular reasoning

I am sorry, but the early church "fathers" (read: "heretics") have a poor track record where I am concerned. I am Jewish, and my people have suffered for 1700 years because of some of the demonic, blasphemous doctrines of the early church "fathers." Pope Pius XII (Y'makh shmo v'zikhron v'ed, "may his name and memory be obliterated forever") refused to condemn the holocaust. Rather, he gave silent approval to it, as did the rest of the leadership of the Catholic church. As a result, some of my ancestors were more easily rounded up and slaughtered in Hitler's death camps. I can quote for you some of the most venomous anti-Semitic diatribes that come from the early church "fathers" starting with the heretic Constantine and moving forward. The writings of the early church fathers are no more inspired than Shakespeare and even less valuable. I have no use for their writings except to line my cat's litter box. Anything good they may have said is overshadowed by the evil they allowed to occur in the Name of Jesus. There is only ONE Father of my faith, and it is Jesus. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2) While I love Catholic people, and bear no ill feeligs toward them, I have no respect for the Catholic "fathers." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need to read. History as Bigotry: Daniel Goldhagen slanders the Catholic Church A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews By Rabbi David Daliny Rabbi David Dalin The fallowing is during an era that i lived and expierienced so no false historic information. On Christmas Day, 1941, the New York Times, commenting on Pius XII

Actually I have a very objective standard for interpretation of Scriptures. It is a set of rules called hermeneutics. It provides a means of correctly dividing Word of God by allowing the plain meaning of the Scriptures to be made evident. The purpose of hermeneutics is to let the bible speak for itself. Your tragic handling Job and Jeremiah only shows that you are parroting what someone else has told you those verses mean. It is amazing how far someone will go, and to what degree they will twist and contort the scriptures to support silly ideas like like dead saints interceding for us.

how does this support any of the catholic teachings/traditions surrounding mary? or the passages in job and jeremiah? i thought those passages had already been covered by someone else here. they are clearly not saying what you think they are. the other person (forget who did it already) who refuted these claims regarding the passages in job and jeremiah did a fine job. please scroll back a page or two and read again what they said. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They have no objective standard for their interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Thus, how can you say that their interpretation is any better than mine?? You can't. Not with objective certainty. Thus, they are using personal opinion -- the very thing condemned in 2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2:1-3. As i described above They do not share unity with with the Christians who came before them. Look at the preponderance of Bibical itrepretations ending in more and more divisions in the Body of Christ who Prayed to the Father that we should have unity in everything. Many Christian churches today spend much of their resources not in spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth but in fighting and canniblizing other Christian churches. To maintain their identity and show that they are distinct from other Christian churches, they emphasize their differences rather that the things they have in common.The disunity and infighting among Christians is an abuse of God