Truth is not grasped by logic you use. Truth is a facet hidden from proud eyes. Truth does not operate in the way you suppose.
The Jesuits ... What is their role? Part 1 and 2
- Thread starter quietthinker
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,972
- 3,411
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I see you completely ignored the airtight Scriptural argument I presented in post #440.
Your buddy @Brakelight2 also failed to refute this Biblical truth.
Gee - I WONDER why that is??
Philip James
Well-Known Member
And I would say that you are dishonouring Mary in refusing to acknowledge who she is.
Brother,
There is no need to be afraid of Mary, or acknowledging who she is: the mother of the King!
You need to lay down the lies that men have told you and embrace the Truth.
And the Truth will set you free!
Peace be with you!
Mother Mary, pray for us!
The whole 'Mary' emphasis is a construct not found in the scriptures Phillip. Any serious searcher for truth on this matter by necessity applies themselves to the search.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
One needn't search far:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod
The woman gave birth to the King.
The Virgin Mary gave birth to the King.
If A=B and B=C
Then A=C
Peace!
Last edited:
I am not a Protestant.
I am a Catholic.
True Christians do not have to lower themselves to such charades.
Any Christian who backs down to fit in with carnal mobs is not Representing Christ, this Pope France is always grovelling to Carnal creeps, the Media is a whore and have dubbed Pope Francis the Peoples Pope. well that's an insult !
A real Pope is not the Peoples Pope at all in fact.
A true position of a Pope is to serve Christ Jesus, not the carnal world.
The RCC went off the rails with Vatican 2 and that was the work of the Jesuits and their mates the so called Zionist Satanist, Pope Paul said about such an attack was taking place in the RCC, Pope J P 2 said the same and so did Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal.
Vatican 2 is a curse, it opened the doors to all the filth to enter into the Priest hood, slowly but surly the rot set in and the Popes lost control over the situation and their was nothing that they could do about such of all the Sodomite derelict Priest within.
What happened 1000 years ago such as that, is not truly worthy of bring up now, such is a fast.
Pope Frances is only trying to pin medals on himself.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
How can you suddenly claim to be a Catholic when so many of your posts are anti-Catholic? If you are a Catholic, you have just placed yourself outside the Church, being duped by radical reactionaries and slanted media. It's no secret there are Satanists AT the Vatican, but no one has been able to prove they run or influence anything.I am not a Protestant.
I am a Catholic.
True Christians do not have to lower themselves to such charades.
Any Christian who backs down to fit in with carnal mobs is not Representing Christ, this Pope France is always grovelling to Carnal creeps, the Media is a whore and have dubbed Pope Francis the Peoples Pope. well that's an insult !
A real Pope is not the Peoples Pope at all in fact.
A true position of a Pope is to serve Christ Jesus, not the carnal world.
The RCC went off the rails with Vatican 2 and that was the work of the Jesuits and their mates the so called Zionist Satanist, Pope Paul said about such an attack was taking place in the RCC, Pope J P 2 said the same and so did Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal.
Vatican 2 is a curse, it opened the doors to all the filth to enter into the Priest hood, slowly but surly the rot set in and the Popes lost control over the situation and their was nothing that they could do about such of all the Sodomite derelict Priest within.
What happened 1000 years ago such as that, is not truly worthy of bring up now, such is a fast.
Pope Frances is only trying to pin medals on himself.
Cardinal Sarah: To oppose the pope is to be outside the church
VATICAN CITY -- Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said the people who portray him as an opponent of Pope Francis are being used by the devil to help divide the church.
Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers
"...These are serious, world-class lies; outright whoppers, the very opposite of the truth: worthy of the old Soviet Union, Communist China, or the Nazi propaganda machine. Where do people get off lying like this? It’s mortal, soul-endangering sin. And when a Catholic commits it against the pope, it’s also blasphemy (yes, blasphemy is more than just lying about God).
Now, what I did was simply search Pope Francis’ Twitter page (since both men above made reference to it), using Google advanced search, for any of the following terms: gospel, good news, salvation, save[d], repent[ant], preach[ing], evangel[ize] [-ism], and faith[ful]. We’ll see how often — as a matter of fact — the Holy Father stresses these things, and some other related ones as well. And the more he does (actually, far more than any of us stress and proclaim them), the more Skojec and White are seen to be damnable, blasphemous liars in this respect. Here are the results, categorized by terms, and in chronological order. You be the judge...click here.
Last edited:
He was referring to this,
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Religion the greatest abomination on the face of this earth.. all of it,
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I'm sure you know what I am talking about.
A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."
The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.
The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.
This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.
This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:
"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).
Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.
This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
INFO: Mary and the saints
A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."
The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.
The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.
This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.
This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:
"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).
Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.
This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
INFO: Mary and the saints
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35).
Who are the many? The children of the woman in Rev. 12:17. "...those who keep God’s commandments and hold to the testimony about Jesus."
Mary is the Mother of all Christians whether they understand it or not. That's not her concern, her concern is to "do whatever He tells you" John 2:5
That is the essence of all Catholic Mariology.
Who are the many? The children of the woman in Rev. 12:17. "...those who keep God’s commandments and hold to the testimony about Jesus."
Mary is the Mother of all Christians whether they understand it or not. That's not her concern, her concern is to "do whatever He tells you" John 2:5
That is the essence of all Catholic Mariology.
Last edited:
Your mistake is to assume that your interpretation of the scriptures is the primary source of truth. That is an antichrist fallacy introduced by heretics who are unwitting servants of Satan.
Where do the scriptures say the Bible is the "fullness" of Christ?
Eph 1:22-23 says the CHURCH is the "fullness" of Christ - gee, I wonder what that means ...
Yes so many say and dont realize what is is they say... So many condemn them selves through ignorance.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Readings:
Isaiah 62:1–5
Psalm 96:1–3, 7–10
1 Corinthians 12:4–11
John 2:1–12
Think of these first weeks after Christmas as a season of “epiphanies.” The liturgy is showing us who Jesus is and what He has revealed about our relationship with God.
Last week and the week before, the imagery was royal and filial—Jesus is the newborn king of the Jews who makes us co-heirs of Israel’s promise, beloved children of God. Last week in the liturgy we went to a baptism.
This week we’re at a wedding.
We’re being shown another dimension of our relationship with God. If we’re sons and daughters of God, it’s because we’ve married into the family.
Have you ever wondered why the Bible begins and ends with a wedding—Adam and Eve’s in the garden and the marriage supper of the Lamb (compare Genesis 2:23–24 and Revelation 19:9; Revelation 21:9; Revelation 22:17)???
Throughout the Bible, marriage is the symbol of the covenant relationship God desires with His chosen people. He is the groom, humanity His beloved and soughtafter bride. We see this reflected beautifully in today’s First Reading.
When Israel breaks the covenant, she is compared to an unfaithful spouse (see Jeremiah 2:20–36; 3:1–13). But God promises to take her back, to “espouse” her to Him forever in an everlasting covenant (see Hosea 2:18–22).
That’s why in today’s Gospel Jesus performs His first public “sign” at a wedding feast.
Jesus is the divine bridegroom (see John 3:29), calling us to His royal wedding feast (see Matthew 22:1–14). By His New Covenant, He will become “one flesh” with all humanity in the Church (see Ephesians 5:21–33). By our baptism, each of us has been betrothed to Christ as a bride to a husband (see 2 Corinthians 11:2).
The new wine that Jesus pours out at today’s feast is the gift of the Holy Spirit given to His bride and body, as today’s Epistle says. This is the “salvation” announced to the “families of nations” in today’s Psalm.
Psalm 96
1 Sing to the Lord a new song.
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2 Sing to the Lord. Praise his name.
Announce every day how he delivers.
3 Tell the nations about his splendor.
7 Ascribe to the Lord, O families of the nations,
ascribe to the Lord splendor and strength.
8 Ascribe to the Lord the splendor he deserves.
Bring an offering and enter his courts.
9 Worship the Lord in holy attire.
Tremble before him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!
In the Wedding: Scott Hahn Reflects on the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time | St. Paul Center
Isaiah 62:1–5
Psalm 96:1–3, 7–10
1 Corinthians 12:4–11
John 2:1–12
Think of these first weeks after Christmas as a season of “epiphanies.” The liturgy is showing us who Jesus is and what He has revealed about our relationship with God.
Last week and the week before, the imagery was royal and filial—Jesus is the newborn king of the Jews who makes us co-heirs of Israel’s promise, beloved children of God. Last week in the liturgy we went to a baptism.
This week we’re at a wedding.
We’re being shown another dimension of our relationship with God. If we’re sons and daughters of God, it’s because we’ve married into the family.
Have you ever wondered why the Bible begins and ends with a wedding—Adam and Eve’s in the garden and the marriage supper of the Lamb (compare Genesis 2:23–24 and Revelation 19:9; Revelation 21:9; Revelation 22:17)???
Throughout the Bible, marriage is the symbol of the covenant relationship God desires with His chosen people. He is the groom, humanity His beloved and soughtafter bride. We see this reflected beautifully in today’s First Reading.
When Israel breaks the covenant, she is compared to an unfaithful spouse (see Jeremiah 2:20–36; 3:1–13). But God promises to take her back, to “espouse” her to Him forever in an everlasting covenant (see Hosea 2:18–22).
That’s why in today’s Gospel Jesus performs His first public “sign” at a wedding feast.
Jesus is the divine bridegroom (see John 3:29), calling us to His royal wedding feast (see Matthew 22:1–14). By His New Covenant, He will become “one flesh” with all humanity in the Church (see Ephesians 5:21–33). By our baptism, each of us has been betrothed to Christ as a bride to a husband (see 2 Corinthians 11:2).
The new wine that Jesus pours out at today’s feast is the gift of the Holy Spirit given to His bride and body, as today’s Epistle says. This is the “salvation” announced to the “families of nations” in today’s Psalm.
Psalm 96
1 Sing to the Lord a new song.
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2 Sing to the Lord. Praise his name.
Announce every day how he delivers.
3 Tell the nations about his splendor.
7 Ascribe to the Lord, O families of the nations,
ascribe to the Lord splendor and strength.
8 Ascribe to the Lord the splendor he deserves.
Bring an offering and enter his courts.
9 Worship the Lord in holy attire.
Tremble before him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!
In the Wedding: Scott Hahn Reflects on the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time | St. Paul Center
Last edited:
Firstly, it is not up to me to do you homework for you - you made the claim that Thomas Aquinas approved of the death penalty for heretics, so the onus is on you to cite an example. Not providing the evidence and passing the buck does nothing for your credibility - it just makes you look like a bs-artist.
Secondly, you don’t understand how the Catholic Church arrives at doctrine. The personal opinions of individuals - Thomas Aquinas, for example - are not necessarily the same as doctrine. Neither is the personal opinion of a Pope necessarily the same as doctrine - unless a Pope is making an ex cathedra (“infallible”) declaration, in which case, it is not the Pope who is speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
The opinion of Thomas Aquinas probably contributed to certain doctrinal matters, but not every one of his opinions was adopted by the Church.
The scriptures themselves were written by men, inspired and infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit - in exactly the same way, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are written by men, inspired and infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore the doctrines of the CC are every bit as valid as scripture. This is one reason Eph 1:22-23 says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ.
Heretics oppose the Church, which is the body of Christ - therefore heretics oppose Christ himself (Acts 9:5). In the eyes of God, perhaps death is a just and worthy punishment for heretics, but that is not for me to judge.
News to me.
I don’t know of any Catholic doctrine that isn’t referred to in scripture - but even if a Catholic doctrine had no scriptural support whatsoever, I would still accept it as the infallible word of God, because the CC is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15).
Most non-Catholics seem to have little understanding of what the Church is, nor what Eph 1:22-23 means when it says the Church is the “fullness” of Christ. In Rev 2 and 3, members of the seven Churches (which, btw, are actually one and the same Church) were obviously imperfect, so the “fullness” of Christ cannot refer to sinful and flawed human beings.
The Church is more than simply a collection of sinful and flawed human beings - the Church is the body of Christ, so Christ is always present in his Church and cannot be separated from her - which means the Church is both human and divine.
Because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ, she is infallibly guided by Christ, therefore the Church’s doctrines come from the mind of Christ and are the infallible word of God … regardless of the fact that Christ’s doctrines transcend and reach us through imperfect and fallible human beings (God’s infallible words came from fallible prophets and God’s infallible scriptures were written by fallible men, after all).
Because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16), so the Church cannot be destroyed or doctrinally corrupted.
Because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ, Christ gave the fallible human leader of his Church infallible divine powers - “I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” (Matt 16).
Because the Church is the “fullness” of Christ, Christ gave certain selected disciples (aka ordained priests) in his Church the divine power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23).
So I would like to hear from a Catholic, could one of you give me a summary on what is a Jesuit?
You make a valid point - after all, the “woman” who rides the beast in Rev 17 is not a literal woman. However, not all the characters in the book of Revelation are symbolic - many of them are literal. For example, I think you would agree that the “saints”, the “elders”, the “inhabitants” of the earth and the “great multitude in Heaven” are literal and not symbolic; and that the “angels” are literal and not symbolic. So, to be fair, the “woman” in Rev 12 could well be a literal woman and not symbolic.
Furthermore, Rev 12:5 says the “woman” gave birth to Jesus - did a symbolic woman give birth to Jesus, or a literal woman? My understanding is that a literal woman gave birth to Jesus, and her name was Mary. So the “woman” is both literal (Mary) and symbolic (Israel and the Church).
A Jesuit is a Catholic priest who is a member of the Society of Jesus, which is a religious order that was founded in the sixteen century and is today headquartered in Rome. (Jesuits are highly intelligent and it takes about ten years of full-time study to become one.)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Jesuits (The Society of Jesus)
Last edited:
Similar threads
