More Anti-Catholic Falsehoods From NYT’s Dowd

By Dave Pierre | April 30, 2011 | 16:49

A A

Can the New York Times' Maureen Dowd address the topic of the Catholic Church without promulgating falsehoods? It doesn't seem like it.

Dowd's recent rant, released on Easter Sunday (Sun. 4/24/11), contains a number of false statements.

1. In addressing the papacy of Pope John Paul II (JPII), Dowd claims that the former pontiff "forfeited his right to beatification when he failed to establish a legal standard to remove pedophiles from the priesthood, and simply turned away for many years."

First of all, long before JPII, there was already a "legal standard" to remove those who abuse children. It is called the Code of Canon Law. As someone who claims to have attended Catholic schools for many years, Dowd already should have known this.

And in 2001, the Pope issued a very important document (“Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela”) outlining the handling of these serious abuse cases. (Reminder: This was before the scandals erupted in the media in 2002. (Read: CWNews.com, 1/7/02.))

In addition, in 2002, JPII helped to oversee the measures the United States bishops took to address abuse crimes.

While massive abuse and cover-ups have flared in school districts like Los Angeles, no one would ever think to point the finger at President Obama or even Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The finger would rightfully be pointed at the local school authorities. But those with an animus against the Church have no problem pointing the finger at a guy all the way across the ocean for the sins and crimes of local prelates thousands of miles away. That is simply unfair.

It is the duty of local bishops to supervise priests. JPII did not "turn away" or "fail to establish" anything. Dowd is simply wrong. It was John Paul II who exclaimed, "People need to know that there is no room in the priesthood for those who abuse children."

2. Dowd also repeated the oft-heard anti-Catholic lie that Pope Pius XII, the World War II-era pontiff, "remained silent about the Holocaust as it happened."

This grossly false tale has been roundly debunked repeatedly:

In a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote, "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism ... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
An August 6, 1942, headline in the New York Times read, "Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France."
In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, "The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." Lapide adds that this "figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined."
Michael Tagliacozzo, "the foremost survivor on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews" and "a survivor of the raid himself," said Pius' actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome's Jews. Said Tagliacozzo, "Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us." (Rabbi David G. Dalin, p. 83)
In the June 21, 2009, edition of the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel's ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted, "It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church."

So much for Dowd's claim of Pope Pius XII "remaining silent." There have been scores of books, research papers, and articles (list 1, 2) that outline what Pope Pius XII really did during World War II.

3. Dowd also uncritically cites investigative writer Jason Berry, whom I've shown can have a dubious grasp of honest journalism.

Dowd needs to straighten out.

Previous: "NYT Dowd's Anti-Catholic Piece is Riddled With Errors, Deceptions" (NB, 10/09)

See also: "SNAP: Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests"

-- Dave Pierre is the author of the book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church. Dave is also the creator of TheMediaReport.com and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.

Dave Pierre's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

→ OK

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:30pm.

It serves no purpose to argue either side of this issue.

I'm curious

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:40pm.

why Mr. Pierre would mention Obama in connection with a school abuse scandal which occurred in May of 2008.

Jer

Well, Jer.....

Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 5:47pm.

There is Larry Sinclair amongst Barack's chums, is there not? And have you seen him throw a baseball? I'm just sayin'.....

Hold on ...

Submitted by Dave Pierre on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 6:19pm.

I was not trying to tie Pres. Obama - or any president - to any local school scandal. That was the point I was trying to make! ("no one would ever think to point the finger ...")

I was simply trying to point out that these scandals are still rampant "today" (as opposed to decades ago, as in nearly all of cases involving Catholic clergy). I simply posted the 2008 piece, because it has been my most widely viewed item on the topic.

However, if it is more recent posts you are seeking, here are three:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/22/media-quiet-case-non-citizen-convicted-child-molester-who-was-high-scho

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2010/12/18/medias-double-standard-continues-when-reporting-child-sex-abuse

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/05/11/not-catholic-church-iv-l-school-district-repeatedly-returned-child-mole

Cheers,
Dave

An example of a liberal knee jerk reaction---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 6:44pm.

in defense of Obama where none was necessary.

Going to see a lot more of that in the coming days.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

excellent piece Mr. Pierre

Submitted by lotr on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:45pm.

Thanks.

I understood your point, Dave...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:32am.

I knew you weren't tying Obama to the incident and I wasnt implying you were doing so. I just found the context of your statement a bit odd inasmuch as Obama wasn't even the president when your cited example took place. It is like someone saying, "a US President is not responsible for high school violence. George Bush shouldn't be blamed for Columbine." [Columbine of course occurred during the Clinton admnistration.]

Anyway, I apologize for the distraction.

Jer

This sums up everything about Maureen Dowd in 6 words:

Submitted by djwolf12 on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 6:10pm.

This broad needs to get laid.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).

No volunteers

Submitted by JeffC... on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:13pm.

Too much wrong in that concept and this isn't the place to get into it.

The feminist man hating bigot

Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 6:35pm.

The feminist man hating bigot is still published? She apparently she has added religious intolerance to her bile by speaking ill of the dead and the guy who with Reagan brought an end to the Soviet Union. I would think by now even the NYT would be done with her tiresome hate filled ranting.

Note to the NYT, free speech doesn't mean you have to subsidize hate speech by paying a bigot a salary to write such ugly religious intolerance. This does not reflect well upon the editors nor the board of the NYT as YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VILE HATE SPEECH UTTERED BY YOUR EMPLOYEES since it was clearly sanctioned by same.

I'm curious, does the NYT print opinion pieces from bigots like KKK members? How about the Aryan Nation? No? Yet they print hate speech from a liberal bigots. Where are the standards?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Standards, dscott?

Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:34pm.

the NYT has never, ever, had standards, of any kind.

They print released secrets, but refuse to print leaked Climategate e-mails, Sulzberger stated that, in a hypothetical shoot out between a US soldier and a North Vietnamese soldier, he'd prefer that the US soldier be "shot".

So, it should surprise no one, that Maureen Dowd, and her bosses at the NYT have no standards.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

There is no such thing as

Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:54pm.

There is no such thing as hate speech. You're buying into what liberals are selling. When are so-called conservatives going to stop doing this?

Why does that matter? I like

Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:25pm.

Why does that matter? I like rubbing their inconsistencies in the liberal elites faces. IF liberals are selling something, then they should sample their product, don't you think?

Ask yourself this question: How long would hate speech laws be on the books IF liberals were to be convicted of them?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

No, I don't. Hypocrisy is not

Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:38pm.

No, I don't. Hypocrisy is not a crime if you're a liberal. It is only a crime if you are conservative/Republican. You aren't going to win fighting on their terms and trying to point out double standards. That's just playing their game by their rules. Hate speech is thought crime. Labeling it as such is a means to repress speech. You accept it as a legit term and premise, therefore they win.

So-called conservatives.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:58pm.

So-called conservative is an insult and off topic.

Are you going to call him out on it or do you reserve your off-topic requests only for people you revile?

dscott: Posting here at NB is a privilege as such it can be revoked at any time. You are derailing the discussion thread with off topic nonsense. I am asking you politely to stop.

walk a kilometer in their moccasins

Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:16pm.

As far as the Church and the Nazi's are concerned we must put everything in context. WWII was preceded by the Great Depression. MANY people had doubts about the long term survival of capitalism and democracy. An independent power like the Church had to deal with the prospect of either accommodating the Nazi's or the Communists. Either of those two evil forces could wipe the Church right off the map if they chose to do so if they won the war. The small island of Britain and a few brave leaders such as Winston Churchill were all that stood between a world with freedom or a world totally condemned to tyranny. So when accusations of turning a blind eye to Nazi atrocities is made against the Church we must remember they were also facing the prospect of annihilation themselves.

→ I've heard that too

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:42pm.

Most of us like to believe if we were chosen as "The Vicar Of Christ On Earth", our legacy would be something more than a subdued response to Adolph Hitler.

I'm not an adherent to the theory that Pacelli, Pope to at least 33% of Germans, did all he could to stop Hitler.

Whether he is in heaven, it's not for man to declare, nor is it tasteful to exhume John Paul II.

The Pope didn't have tanks to

Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:29pm.

The Pope didn't have tanks to confront Hitler but he did all he could which was through prayer. And since Christ gave St. Peter (the Church) the power to loosen or bind on earth which will also be in Heaven, I am confident that a declaration of Beatification here will be reflected in Heaven. St. Pio was exhumed and was found to be incorrupt proving the Church's authority.
http://douglawrence.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/st-padre-pios-incorrupt-body/

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ I've seen them too

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:36pm.

My mom has a book of photos of these "incorruptibles". It proves nothing about the salvation of their souls.

The phenomenon is neither miraculous nor is it unique to the Catholic Church.

The Church determines who's

Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 9:34pm.

The Church determines who's holy by the miracles that person performed during their lifetime and after their death as well as other criteria, non-Catholic experts including those in medicine are consulted to verify miraculous acts, Declarations of Sainthood are not done on whims and it often takes decades or more. Being incorrupt is an outward sign of their holiness and not the sole measure of their sanctity. Many Catholics blessed with this title of sanctity have demonstrated an incorrupt body after exhumation which is why JPII is being exhumed. Many of these incorruptables are Catholic Saints.

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ Yes, I'm aware of the logic

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 10:06pm.

Lenin's body hasn't shown much decay either.

John Paul II was a great man who spoke out against oppression. I hope he's in Heaven, and if I were making bets, I'd say he is. But it is neither for me nor any other living being to know at this time.

Give me a break. Lenin is

Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 10:27pm.

Give me a break. Lenin is stuffed with chemicals and probably old Chinese newspapers. St. Pio was not embalmed and remains as he died after 40 years in the grave neither he or Catholic incorruptables were embalmed.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ said, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." I'll take Christ's word over yours or anyone else's. Christ gave this authority to the Church. If you don't believe it that's your affair and it won't change JPII's beatification.

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ You don't believe it

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:32pm.

If you really believed it. . . If Pius XII really believed it . . . He would have spoken boldly against Adolph Hitler (binding him?), a man with whom he'd had dealings for years before becoming pope.

Upon this rock (thou art the Messiah, the Son of the Living God). Instead, the interpretation is twisted to "Upon you, Peter"

That's some serious license you're taking there.

License? Not at all, I don't

Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:57pm.

License? Not at all, I don't have to invent my beliefs. I am grateful the Church has been around for a while and has worked it out with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers can attest to Peter's primacy.

"It is to Peter himself that He says; "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matt 16:18)." Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal"...........St. Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms 40:30+. J1261, 387 A.D.

"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19).".....Augustine, Sermons 295:2+. J1526, 391 A.D.

"For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.".....St. Cyprian, Letter to Quintas 71:1. J592a, 254 A.D.

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ Which proves nothing

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:10am.

You quote one Scripture, and though you cannot bring yourself to rewrite it, you can bring yourself to choose the comfortable interpretation of your religion.

But on one thing we agree. Peter was not infallible. God used Paul to point out his hypocrisy.

I choose to follow the Church

Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:35am.

I choose to follow the Church Christ founded, I don't have to rewrite anything to suite my beliefs. and at the time of those writings there was only one Church and one interpretation. I humbly accept the Church's teaching I don't go from church to church until I find something I like. You choose to ignore Christ's meaning and that is your affair. I've spent years studying my faith and I don't think you understand infallibility enough to make a comment on the matter, you don't understand Catholic teaching. I presented evidence of the Church's authority and that's enough.

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."
Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, 374 A.D. 15,2 J1346

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ Oh, I understand Ex-cathedra

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:42am.

Mortal sins were created through it, having no basis in scripture.

Tell me, how many people went to hell as a result of not attending Mass on the feast of the Immaculate Conception? Did Jesus give Peter the right to create mortal sin?

Do you really want to know?

Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 1:10am.

Do you really want to know? Are you really concerned with people's souls? The Church sets feast days and are mandatory, but we attend Mass because we love the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament not because we are driven by the fear of sin. Sin was from the Devil from the beginning and Christ taught against it, it didn't need to be invented. Christ gave authority to His Church and can set feast days, that is the Church's prerogative not because of a whim, but because it edifies and teaches the faith., if I didn't believe it then I wouldn't attend Mass and that would be the end of that. But my faith lies in the Church Jesus founded and I take Him at His word, I trust that He left the faith to trustworthy men. Are they perfect? No, many saints were scoundrels to say the least. But they rose above their faults and found that treasure in the field, sold all they had for that field and were rewarded. The Church is a vessel of Jesus' mercy to us sinners and I am grateful for it.

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

→ Confusion

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 9:03am.

"Sin was from the Devil from the beginning" great observation.

And there can be absolutely no argument that the Roman Catholic Church created mortal sins in spiritual places they did not previously exist.

Your own observation presents a very strange contrast. On the one hand, there is enough sin in the World to keep the faithful busy for quite some time. On the other, you believe the Church has the right to create sin.

I understand your heavy investment. But God is not the author of confusion.

Cool Arrow, Why do you argue

Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:33pm.

Cool Arrow,

Why do you argue about the Roman Catholic Theologyc which you clearly do not know or understand? Please educate yourself before writing so much nonsense.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't create sins. This is what YOU believe, not what we Roman Catholics belive.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#III

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

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

This is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about sin. Mortal sins. All based on Scripture.

Of course there is a huge argument against your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church created mortal sins in spiritual places they did not previously exist. Your statement is far from true.

You constantly want to claim as fact your biased and erroneous beliefs against the Church.

Futbol

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:58pm.

Please defend your ludicrous claim that it has, from the beginning of Christianity, been a Mortal sin to miss Mass on the feast of The Immaculate Conception.

Unless you can prove otherwise, The feast of The Immaculate Conception officially became a "near occasion of Mortal Sin" in 1854 AD.

What was it before that, Fut?

I'll leave you with this;

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

Do you think maybe Paul or one of the Gospel authors forgot about your newfound command to divert worship from the One True God?

This doctrine of a "coredemptrix" is found nowhere in the Bible. It was conceived in the mind of man, and does nothing but insult the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the only Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

No, fut. What bothers you is that I do know, and I do understand.

You may return now to on your "doctrines" and the source from whence they come.

You don't have the facts. Not

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:44pm.

You don't have the facts. Not at all.

→ Look it up, Nimrod

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:50pm.

No, seriously. Look up Nimrod.

He declared his mother a goddess.

It's always the non-Catholics

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:00pm.

It's always the non-Catholics who are the experts on Catholicism. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception has been a Holy Day of Obligation long before 1854. Missing mass intentionally is a mortal sin. And the Catholic Church does not create sin, no matter how many times you say it does.

→ Weak try

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:09pm.

Obviously you don't know what the "Immaculate Conception" refers to.

Obviously you don't know s***

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:17pm.

Obviously you don't know s*** about Catholicism.

→ OK

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:26pm.

Gosh, Incestmo! You sure got me on that one. I thought, at the very least, you'd tell me what the "Immaculate Conception" is all about. But you can't even do that.

Yes, I did, and other

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:30pm.

Yes, I did, and other Catholics know it, too.

Another rebuttal to your

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:05pm.

Another rebuttal to your ignorance: "Mortal sins were created through it, having no basis in scripture."

John 5.16-17: "If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one - to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal." (NRSV)

→ Thanks, Satchmo

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:24pm.

It's hard to tell if you're trying to make my case or your own.

Cool Arrow, You are as

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:47am.

Cool Arrow,

You are as closed mind and dense as they come.

I, as well as others, have pointed out countless of times that The Immaculate Conception has been around since the beginning of the Church, not something that the Church cooked up, made up in 1854, as per your claim.

Read the Bible, don't take things out of quote. Have you ever heard of the Magnificat in the Bible? Have you heard of how The Angel St. Gabriel greeted the Virgin Mary when he appeard to her and announced the birth of our Lord to her?

It is all there. No, Cool Arrow, it doesn't bother me that you know. You do not know. What bothers me is the errors that you spread about the Roman Catholic Church. You do what every single Protestant that I know does, pick and choose the parts of the Bible that suits your beliefs and ignore those that do not!

What bothers me is that you love, enjoy attacking the Church based on your interpretation of Catholic teachings.

You are wrong, not matter how much you try to claimi other wise, not matter how much you quote the parts of the Bible that suit you and ignore those that do not suit you.

The Truth about the Immaculate Conception was taught in the Church long before 1854, Centuries before, but don't let the facts get on your way of your dislike of the Church. I have put links up for you to read, which you have obviously ignored in the past. So, why do it again, Coll Arrow! You are not interested in the Truth, you are not interested in facts. All youo are interested in is proving the Church wrong.

No, Cooll Arrow, you DO NOT know and you DO NOT understand.

→ Futbol

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:57am.

You're describing the "Annunciation", not the "Immaculate Conception"

Please keep your feast days straight if you're going to TRY to show yourself as a learned Catholic defender.

The "Immaculate Conception" is found nowhere in Scripture.

You are embarrassing yourself

Cool Arrow, Are you serious?

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:23am.

Cool Arrow,

Are you serious? You once again prove how little you know about the Roman Catholic Church!

From the Annunciation comes the Immaculate Conception!!! WOW!!!!

From the Visition to her cousin St. Elizabeth also comes the Immaculate Conception!

You are not here to find the Truth. You are here to prove you are right and the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

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

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Both of these sites prove that the Immaculate Conception is based on Scripture. I you were interested in the Truth, you would take the time to read these Catholic sites which clearly prove your assertions against the Immaculate Conception wrong.

By the way...any answers to:

1) Where can I find in the Bible where it says, Sola Scripture is the way to go?

2) Why do you ignore St. Peter's first letter where he clearly states that God will judge us according to our work?

3) Why do you quote St. Paul when he never used the Bible to teach? He used Tradition and the word as it was given to him by others, never the Bible.

By the way, why the need to claim that I am embarrassing myself? Why? Where does that get you? Does it make you feel good? Do you think it will hurt me? Why do you lack so much humility? Why?

Instead of attacking the Church so much, why don't you LIVE the Scripture which you claim to know so much? Why don't you humble yourself like Christ did, to the point that he gave up his life? Do you not believe in Christ? Or do you think that accepting Jesus is merely saying it, but not living it?

If I am embarrassing myself on the account of defending the Church of God and defending the Virgin Mother, I thank God for embarrassing myself in front of you. And I welcome more embarrassment for this cause!

→ Done with you

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:46am.

You refuse to describe, much less explain the "Immaculate Conception"

You avoid it out of cowardice, knowing it is an indefensible distraction from the Gospel.

You have embarrassed yourself.

Done with you.

Cool Arrow, You are one

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:26pm.

Cool Arrow,

You are one crazy nut!! Seriously

When did you ask me to explain the Immaculate Conception?!

All you have asked for is the Bible verses where we can find Immaculate Conception. I did this by linking you to sites that do this PLUS explain the Immaculate Conception and you go off on a crazy rant about something you never asked for.

Cool Arrow, as always, your hate and anger against the Church blinds you.

If you are done with me, I ask you to please respect the Roman Catholic Church. You are not done with me if you attack Her. I told you once and I will tell you again, every time I see you spreading your errors, your lies, your half-truths about the Church, I will confront you. I will prove you wrong as I always do.

Please control yourself and you will not have to deal with me, understood?

You try to pass yourself as an expert of the Roman Catholic Church, Her Teachings, Her Theology. However, since the first day you attacked the Church you have proven completely the opposite. Your beliefs against the Church are based on your misconception, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Theology, Catholic teaching.

You enjoy attempting to put Catholics down, much like Trach did. So be it. I just wish Protestants like you worried more about LIVING the Word of God instead of constantly preaching it and sadly, preaching it full of errors.

As if you truly have any

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:02am.

As if you truly have any intellectual interest in learning about it. You have repeatedly shown that you don't. The only one embarrassing himself is you.

Sez the Stupid Butt Hurt Satchmo troll.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:19am.

The same troll that says Alabama is a sovereign state that can negotiate treaties, Bush should have been on TV selling the Iraq war 2 years after it started, the holiday shopping season starts before Thanksgiving, and the United States does not have a 2 party electoral system.

Cool Arrow, Of course St.

Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:18pm.

Cool Arrow,

Of course St. Peter was infallible when it cames to matters of Dogma and Faith. Peter also scolded St. Paul and asked him to bring his teachings down to the level of those who were not educated.

The question is, why do protestants such as yourself who claim to believe in Sola Scriptura ignore St. Peter's letters. Specially this part, "14 Like obedient children, do not act in compliance with the desires of your former ignorance 8 15 but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, 16 for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy." 17 Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, 18 realizing that you were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold 19 but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb."

Did you read it Cool Arrow, he who claims to believe in Sola Scriptura, "Now, if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's WORKS."! wow....would you look at that, the Bible clearly states, through St. Peter's letter that we will be judged according to our works.

Why do you ignore this Cool Arrow? But I have noticed often that Protestants embrace St. Paul, and only the parts which are convenient to their beliefs and ignore St. Peter.

Furthermore, Cool Arrow, you are great at attacking the Church, but you hate answering questions that put your faith into question such as...if Sola Scriptura is the way to go and not the Holy Bible with Holy Tradition, how can you or anyone else who believes in Sola Scriptura accept the teachings of St. Paul which were NOT based on Holy Bible!!! When did the Bible come into existence? LONG after St. Paul passed away, in fact CENTURIES!!!

Care to address this inconseintancy? Of course not, you have always run away when I point this obvious error to you. Easier to attack, right Cool Arrow?!

By the way, while you are it, care to point out where in the Bible we can read, "The Holy Bible is the only way to go. Not Holy Tradition" If you can't point to this in the Bible, all those who claim Sola Scriptura are NOT using Sola Scriptura.

Why do Protestants as yourself add things to the Bible that are not there? Why do you follow St. Paul's teachings when he never used the Bible?

→ Sorry fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 6:15pm.

But filling a page with your convoluted logic (which, by the way, doesn't fit your argument) still doesn't give you, or your church, the right to create sin.

Cool Arrow, As always, you

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:52am.

Cool Arrow,

As always, you prove your cowardice. You enjoy attacking the Church based on your ridiculous, poor understaning of the Church and Her Teachings.

let me put it to you this way, sorry Cool Arrow, but filling a page with your convoluted logic, still doesn't give you, or your church, the right to claim the Roman Catholic Church is wrong.

Cool Arrow, why run away from the questions that make you uncomfortable, eh?

You always demand that the Church speak the Truth, that Catholic realize the Church is wrong, yet you can't answer simple questions about your "logic".

1) Why do you claim Sola Scriptura when such a teaching is not found in the Bible? I am still waiting for you to quote the part of Scripture where it says Sola Scriptura is the way to go. Give us all chapter and verse. If you can't find it then YOU are using tradition too!! Ouch!

2) How can you claim Sola Scriptura is the way to go when St. Paul, which Protestants love to quote out of context, never used the Bible to teach the Truth? According to you, he is wrong since he used Holy Tradition and the Word passed down to him from others, NOT the Biblle.

3) Why do you ignore St. Peter's letter in which he clearly claims that God will judge your work?!

→ Once again

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:59am.

You are straying from topic and embarrassing yourself.

Cool Arrow, Straying from

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:13am.

Cool Arrow,

Straying from the topic? You have attacked the Roman Catholic Church with many different topics that had nothing to do with the original topic of this forum. But heck, only Cool Arrow can stray from the topic, not anyone else.

No Cool Arrow, you refuse to answer the questions because you know where they lead. They prove you wrong.

You and I know you are not here to debate, to find out the Truth. You hate the Roman Catholic Church. I have proven you wrong many times before about your Immaculate Conception assertions. Since you are repeating the same falsehoods and half-truths which I have debunked countless of times before, I know you are not interested in the Truth. Look up Magnificat, Look kup the word St. Gabriel used to address the Virgin Mary, you know specially the meaning of the words, "Full of Grace" in the original Greek.

3) Why do you ignore St. Peter's letter in which he clearly claims that God will judge your work?!

Cool Arrow, Really? Have you

Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 4:56pm.

Cool Arrow,

Really? Have you ever bothered to study what Pius XII did for Jews and against Hitler? Pius XII spoke publicly and privately strongly against Hitler and Nazim. Thanks to Pius XII countless of Jews were hidden inside the Vatican!!! If the Nazis would have found this out, they would have no problem killing everyone inside the Vatican!

Furthermore, the Pope gave orders to all monasteries, all places where nuns, priests, monks where religious Catholics lived to open up their doors to Jews and hide them!!!!

What you are saying is pure propaganda against Pope Pius XII based on fantacy, not facts.

Individuals like you can never answer this, if Pope Piux XII did not do enough to save Jews and stand up against the Nazis, why is it that Israel that Golda Meir gave the Pope the highest medal that could be given during their times to civilian Israelis and praised him for all the great things he did to stand up to the Nazis and save Jews?

Pope Piux XII words and actions saved more Jews than any other person.

Anti-Catholicism from the right

Submitted by lotr on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:40pm.

"did all he could to stop Hitler"

Wow. I guess maybe the Pope should've challenged Hitler to a dual, or perhaps a Celebrity Death Match?

How (in the real world) is a Pope to "stop" a Fascist egomaniacal madman dictator who controlled the armies (and propaganda) occupying nearly all of Europe, with a Fascist ally in control of the Italian State?

As the well stated facts made by Dave Pierre clearly attests, the postmortem character assassination of Pius XII is anti-Catholic revisionist history, plain and simple. And given the great good that this man achieved (again, in the real world), I find it quite revolting.

But I'm sure that the neo-pagan libs certainly love it when the anti-Catholic "brethren" pile on with them.

"Whether he is in heaven, it's not for man to declare"

That's odd. I've been to countless Protestant funeral services where the pastor unilaterally declares the deceased to "be in a better place." And they don't even go by whether or not the deceased lived a life manifestly consistent with faith, hope and love.

→ Big difference

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:51pm.

I've also heard preachers express their belief, based on whether the deceased has accepted Jesus, that they are with God.

Never heard one of those preachers encourage listeners to pray to the dead for intercession. Big difference between expressing a belief somebody is in Heaven and praying to (or through) them.

No comparison.

Cool Arrow, No comparison?

Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:27pm.

Cool Arrow,

No comparison? haaha!!! of course not, it would throw a wrench to your beliefs against the Church, right?

How do you or anyone else know whether someone who died accepted Jesus? Because the person said so? So, are you saying you know what is in a person's heart?

The Roman Catholic doesn't claim that anyone is in Heaven without evidence. Your actions while you are alive clearly show whether or not you accepted Jesus Christ. Merely claiming that you accept Jesus doesn't mean that you did!

and you are wrong! I have heard preachers claim without out a doubt, with much less evidence than the Church presents, that a person is in Heaven. Oh wait, since the person told everyone before he/she passed away that they accept Jesus, then the person is saved.

Accepting Jesus is also showing it. Just like if I tell my wife I love her, but I don't show it through my works would prove that I do not love my wife no matter how many times I say it. It is NOT that we are saved through work, it is that our work muts show and prove we have accepted Jesus. God not only requires that we accept Jesus with our words, He also wants us to show it through our work as it is clearly stated in St. Peter's first letter when he says that God will judge our work!!!

and you show a lot of ignorance when you attempted to claim that Lenin is an incorruptable. Everyone knows that Lenin was stuffed with chemicals and all types of agents to preserve it from decay. This was purposedly done by the Soviet Union to create confusion and get individuals like you who do not like the Church to make the claim that you made about the Incorruptables. The Saints that are Incorruptables have been studied by scientists and prove no outside force either human or natural that would have caused their bodies to be preserved! The only logical reasoning is that God chose, through a miracle which we can't understand, to preserve the body from deacy.

You have the Right to believe as you wish, Cool Arrow, but you do not have the Right to make things up about the Roman Catholic Church as you have done since the first day that you spoke against Her here on NB.

Have you ever asked someone

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:08pm.

Have you ever asked someone to pray for you or a loved one? Have you ever prayed to Jesus?

→ Well, of course

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:41pm.

I've asked living people to pray for me, and with me. Group prayer is Scriptural, isn't it?

Communicating with the dead is forbidden, however.

And of course I ask of the Father through Jesus. What? you think I should ask my dead grandpa for help?

Seriously? When I can "come boldly before the throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need"

Why should I pray to anyone else but Jesus?

Your ignorance of the "Immaculate Conception" is still astounding.

So you've asked for the

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 9:32pm.

So you've asked for the intercession of others, especially the ultimate intercessor, Jesus.

→ Of course, Satch

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:27pm.

Who else would a Christian pray to but Jesus?

And If you want to go the way of Saul, trying to conjure up the ghost of Samuel, be very careful.

How about Our Father? Damn,

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:35pm.

How about Our Father?

Damn, you're dense.

Scroll up, Doofus

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:41pm.

I already said I pray to the Father, through Jesus.

You are the one having problems with info sinking through.

BTW. Neither The Father, nor His Son, are dead.

Cool Arrow, You pray to the

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:06am.

Cool Arrow,

You pray to the Father through Jesus. Good, so do I. But why don't you pray directly to the Father? Why do you use Jesus Christ as an intercessor? Hmmmm.....

Furthermore, the Truth of what is known in the Roman Catholic Church as the Communion of the Saints, is also found in protestants. Say for example when people say, "The sins of the world led to 9/11". Remember that?

So, Protestants believe that only bad things happen when all of us are not behaving well, but can't fathom the opposite, that when people behave good good things happen to everyone.

Sorry Cool Arrow, you do not know Scripture, only the parts that suit your particular flavor of Christianity.

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

Cool Arrow, please educate yourself. Honestly. The only reason I bother with you and Trach when he was around is because you speak with such assurance that your errors against the Church might be believed by those who do not know any better.

→ Don't be stupid fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:38am.

Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through Me"

He NEVER said "You're going to have to ask My mom first" and He NEVER told us to pray through dead people.

And you're not doing a very good job of explaining the "Immaculate Conception" either. And both of us know why. Because it is not in the Bible.

You are embarrassing yourself.

nope, sorry, you're not geting out of that so easy

Submitted by lotr on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:52pm.

"Whether he is in heaven, it's not for man to declare"

Those are your words, are they not?

Am I to understand that you are now retracting them?

Or that a Protestant minister who pronounces before the congregation that "Joe is now in a better place, free of misery or suffering -- he is now smiling down upon us" (something I've heard countless times) is somehow not "man declaring him in heaven"? Not only that, but that those in heaven somehow know of our state of affairs, and vice versa.

→ Sorry lotr

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:59pm.

You can pray to the dead all you want. Many religions do. And you can erect graven images of them if you want. Many religions do. But you're not going to convince me it's Scriptural, or of God.

another dodge

Submitted by lotr on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 9:11pm.

I am not talking about praying to the dead.

Continuing, however, with topic of Protestant ministers and their pronouncements about the dead, what is also implied in such statements as the example I provided is that those in heaven somehow know of our state of affairs on Earth (and are capable of reacting, e.g., "smile down upon us"). Very curious indeed.

→ Pronouncements?

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:31pm.

Yes, I've heard people pronounce an opinion that so-n-so is in heaven. That's a far cry from encouraging others to pray to the dead.

Cool Arrow, Mr. "Scripture"

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 10:58am.

Cool Arrow,

Mr. "Scripture" himself, but he can't provide answers to:

3) Why do you ignore St. Peter's letter in which he clearly claims that God will judge your work?!

Why do you take things out from Scripture Cool Arrow and add to it?

→ futbol

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:05am.

It's not necessary for you to demonstrate over and over that you can't defend the "Immaculate Conception"

If you need a Queen of Heaven, that's your choice, but don't try to justify it through Scripture.

Just admit it is based in tradition only, and be done with it.

Cool Arrow, Of course the

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:29am.

Cool Arrow,

Of course the Immaculate Conception is based on Scripture.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

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

It is not based on Holy Tradition.

But I guess no answers from you to:

1) Why do you proclaim Sola Scriptura when no such thing can be found in Scripture? I guess you can based things on Protestant Tradition, but Catholics can't base any teachings in part, not whole, on Tradition, eh?

2) Why do you ignore the teachings of St. Peter when he clearly claims in his first letter that God will judge our work? You claim that your beliefs are based on Scripture, so why ignore this one?

3) Why do you use St. Paul when his teachings are based on Tradition and the word as it was pass down to him, NOT the Holy Bible, NOT Scripture? Once again, I guess only Protestants as yourself can use tradition, but not the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you honestly, truly blind to what is infront of you Cool Arrow? Does your hate against the Roman Catholic Church truly blind you? Or are you pretending?

→ Maybe that's the issue

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:43am.

You have finally admitted you do not believe the writings of Paul to be Scriptural. You declare Paul's Writingsto be questionable.

But you readily accept new doctrine from others?

You really are embarrassing yourself.

Cool Arrow, Eh? You are one

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 11:58am.

Cool Arrow,

Proven wrong, you do your typical dance of straying from the topic. Why answer questions, right Cool Arrow? Easier to attack, attack, and attack. Why are you so terrified of answer the questionst that I have put forth. If you are so well versed in the Bible, if you know it so well, if Scripture is the only way to go, where can I then find the Bible Chapter and Verses that say that Holy Bible is the only way to go? Where Cool Arrow? Put me in my place, put the Roman Catholic Church in Her place.

I promise you, you show me where it says it and I will take it to my priest and tell him how wrong he is. I will fly to the Vatican and ask an audience with the Pope and tell him how wrong he is.

Show everyone here on NB, for the world to see, the Chapter and Verse that says that Sola Scriptura is the way to go, that HOly Bible is the only way to go.

word of warning, I can show you Chapter and Verse where it says Holy Tradition is good.

and you are one weird person, Cool Arrow.

St. Paul's writing are based on the Holy Bible? Really? are you serious?! Tell me what Bible version did St. Paul use back then? St. Paul's writings are based on the Word of God, not any Bible since guess, what? The Holy Bible came into existence when?

Yes, St. Paul's writings make up the Holy Bible which did not exist during the time of St. Paul!!! St. Paul used Tradition and the Word of God as it was passed down to him, not any Bible!

Cool Arrow, when was the first century that a Bible came into existence? Start there guy.

But isn't awesome of you to once again....change topic, stray from the topic when you are proven wrong?

I guess no answers to:

1) Where can I find in the Bible, where is the Bible Chapter and Verse that says, "You shall only use Holy Scripture". where Cool Arrow?

2) Why do you ignore the Bible? why do you ignore the teachings of St. Peter found in Holy Scripture? It is you the one who ignores the first Letter of St. Peter when he clearly states that God will judge our work.

3) Why do you use St. Paul's teachings, all included in the Holy Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church, when St. Paul's teachings are not based on any Holy Bible? Please tell me you are not claiming that St. Paul used a Bible to teach from? I hope not Cool Arrow.

But as I told you, thank you for letting me know I am embarrasing myself defending the Roman Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ, God established here on Earth. Thank you for letting me know that I am embarrassing myself defending the Mother of Jesus Christ. I honestly and truly welcome the embarrasment.

Sadly, it is you Cool Arrow that have accepted the errors of others. I wish you were here to find out the Truth, not preach and proclaim how the Church is wrong. It would make this a lot more interesting.

→ See that, fut?

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:02pm.

You throw up links, but you can't bring yourself to simply describe the "Immaculate Conception".

And now you're saying Paul's writings aren't Scripture.

Yes, you have embarrassed yourself.

Cool Arrow, 1) Thank you for

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:11pm.

Cool Arrow,

1) Thank you for telling once again that I am embarrassing myself defending the Church of God, the religion of God and the Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ.

2) Hmmm...funny, all you were asking before is to prove that the Immaculate Conception is based on Scripture. I linked you to two sites that clearly show that the Immaculate Conception is based on Scripture and now you want me to personally describe teh Immaculate Conception. LOL.

The links explain it much better than I can. That was the purpose of including the links. But you and I both know what we both mean when we speak of the Immaculate Conception. You were proven wrong and now you are doing everything within your power to move the goal post.

3) When did I say that St. Paul's writings aren't Scripture. His writings make up Scripture, but they are not based on any Holy Bible, are they? St. Paul's writings are based on the Word of God and Tradition, yes, I am saying this. If you can prove me wrong, instead of making ridiculous statements, I am more than glad to listen to you.

But so far all you have done is ignore anything that proves you wrong and attempt to go on the attack.

1) Why do you proclaim Sola Scripture when you are incapable of showing Chapter and Verse of where the Holy Bible teaches this?

2) Why do you ignore St. Peter's first letter where he clearly states that God will judge our work?

3) Why do you use St. Paul's teachings when he did not have a Bible he taught from? Using the "logic" of Sola Scriptura, St. Paul's writings are not to be taken seriously. That is, using YOUR logic, using what YOU claim the Bible says.

→ And thank you fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:21pm.

You finally admit Paul's writings are Scripture.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed Galatians 1:8

Sorry fut, but the "Immaculate Conception" appears nowhere in Scripture, and no amount of tortured teasing can justify it Scripturally.

And your refusal to state plainly what the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" is, displays just how ashamed you are of its pronouncement.

Cool Arrow, Hmmm...sorry, I

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:40pm.

Cool Arrow,

Hmmm...sorry, I did not and will never admit that St. Paul's writings, teachings are based on any Holy Bible. You err big time Cool Arrow.

Sorry Cool Arrow, the Immaculate Conception does appear in the Holy Bible which is Holy Scripture!!! You would be the first and only person I know that would claim the HOly Bible and Holy Scripture are not the same thing.

and my refusal to state plainly the Immaculate Conception? Are you serious? When did you ask for this? NEVER!!! and you know what the Immaculate Conception doctrine is, that the Virgin Mary was born without Origina Sin.

Here is the Doctrine, which you could have easily read from the link I presented to you.

"In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

I am ashamed of its pronouncements? Stop making claims of what I am ashamed of or not. Please. Don't be so presumptions and arrogant.

But refusing to answer my questions, Cool Arrow, (using your logic), proves just how ashamed you are of your religion, of your version of Christianity. Refusing to even name what religion you belong to, using your logic, proves just how ashamed you are of your religion, of its teachings.

I am a proud Roman Catholic. Can you claim that you are a proud member of your religion giving the name of it?

If you are not ashamed of what you believe, using your logic, then answer the following questions:

1) Where can I find Sola Scriptura is the only way to go? What Chapter and Verse in the Bible demands that Sola Scriptura is the way to go? If you aren't ashamed, you will answer.

2) Why do you ignore the teachings of St. Peter where he clearly states in his First letter that God will judge our work? If your aren't ashamed, you will answer.

3) Why do you use St. Paul's teachings when none are based on any Holy Bible? If you aren't ashamed, you will answer.

Using the rule, using the logic that you are using to judge me, then you are very ashamed of your beliefs, of your religion if you can't answer the questions and publicly name the religion you belong to.

Doesn't it suck when someone else using your logic that you have used to judge others to judge you?

Cool Arrow, Answer this,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:18pm.

Cool Arrow,

Answer this, which I doubt you will since you use the Liberal's "debating" tactics of avoiding to answer questions that prove you wrong.

Why are you so interested in attacking the Church?

Why are you so interested in passing your personal beliefs, based on errors, half-truths and sorry, right out lies, of the Roman Catholic Church as true.

Why are you so interested in attacking the Virgin Mary?

What is it to you what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or doesn't?

you have stated countless times through out the years you andn I have embroiled ourselves in this back and forth of the Church that you aren't a Catholic and that you don't care for Her.

So, why do you care so much?

This are honest questions, as honest as the ones I am asking you about Sola Scriptura, St. Peter and St. Paul. I am not attacking you, putting you down.

and finally, why do you debate like a "Liberal" when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church?

you demand that I answer questions for you, prove the Roman Catholic Church, but two things you have avoided.

1) Mentioning which particular Christian religion you follow.

2) Answering the questions I have put forth.

why Cool Arrow, why? This would go a lot smoother if you were just a bit more humble and we could have a civil back and forth, but from your actions, your posts, it seems that this is not what you are interested in.

You're boring me

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:24pm.

I understand that you can't explain or defend your faith.

And I understand why you refuse to do so.

You're ashamed.

Cool Arrow, Seriouly? This

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:33pm.

Cool Arrow,

Seriouly? This is the best you have?

Explain my Faith?

Who is the one who has refused to even mention what Christian religion they belong to?

who is the one who has refused to answer the questions about Sola Scriptura, St. Peter and St. Paul?

All you know how to do is attack and attempt to destroy that which you clearly do not understand.

You don't bore me. You are a human being and as such you deserve the respect which the BIBLE commands that we give to all human beings.

Why do so many of your Protestants love to quote out of context the Bible, but have such a hard time LIVING the Word of God?

Why do you debate like a Liberal when it comes to the Roman Catholic topic?

Why can't you quote the part in the Bible that says that Sola Scriptura is the way to go?

Why do you ignore St. Peter's teaching that God will judge our work?

Why do you use St. Paul's teachings when they are not based in any Holy Bible since St. Paul didn't have a Bible to teach from?

My links explain my Faith and the Immaculate Conception, I ask you, what have YOU done to explain your Faith? do you honestly beleive that attacking the Roman Catholic Church is explaining your Faith?

I have asked you questions with the spirit of debate and in all honesty and all you have done is make an attempt at insulting me.

You are my brother in Christ and as such, I love you Cool Arrow. i truly do.

→ No fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:38pm.

I just read your latest post, and you still refuse to state plainly the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception"

It must be something you're ashamed of.

Here comes PBS.

Cool Arrow, I love you, you

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:46pm.

Cool Arrow,

I love you, you are my brother in Christ. I hope to meet you one day in Heaven. You are a good man and I am glad you are so passionate about your Christian beliefs.

Please see above, i clealry stated, which you NEVER asked, until you started attacking about it, and in fact, you still have never asked for it, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, The Virgin Mary was born without Original Sin. For the purpose of the debate, it was not necessary to mention it since both you and I know what the Immaculate Conception is.

But as I said, using your logic, you must be ashamed of your religion, since you can't even name it publicly.

You must be ashamed of your beliefs since you can't answer:

1) Where in the Bible can I find Sola Scriptura is the way to go? Still waiting for Chapter and Verse.

2) Why do you ignore the teachings of St. Peter, in his first letter he clearly claims that God will judge our work.

3) Why do you claim that St. Paul's writings are based on the Holy Bible when....yeah...hmmm...the Holy Bible did not exist until Centuries after his death?

Using your logic, you are very much ashamed of your religion and its teachings if you can't answer these simple questions.

I am only using the rules, the standards by which you have measured me. It is only fair, right?

It must be something you are ashamed of that you can't even name the religion you belong to.

Finally

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 1:22pm.

You admit your Scripturally unfounded belief that Mary was the first person ever born who never sinned.

I salute you for not trying to prove this doctrine using the Word Of God. Because God never passed such a dogma down to man, though your church claims it through tradition.

Mary was a great woman. I believe she would have condemned the thought of prayer being diverted from her Son.

Scripture commands me not to attempt to communicate with the dead. Jesus is alive. He needs none of this "press 1 if you want to pray to St. Jude. If you have lost something, press 2 for St. Anthony.

I come boldly before God, asking in the Name of His Son Jesus, to meet my needs.

I wish you no success in your seeking intercession through the dead. That is what Saul attempted to do in trying to communicate with the dead prophet, Samuel.

Cool Arrow, You ignore that

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 1:56pm.

Cool Arrow,

You ignore that which proves you wrong. My links direct you to the exact points in the Holy Bible, Holy Scripture that show the Truth of the Immaculate Conception. Oh since I didn't cut and paste it for you, I didn't show it, eh? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? LOL

Everything else that you said, sadly, is just noise since you are truly ashamed of your religion, of what it teaches.

It is truly sad that you are so ashamed of your religion and what it teaches. You must be truly ashamed of it since you can't even point out where in the Holy Bible, Where the Word of God tell us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go.

You are truly ashamed since you can't reconcile the fact that St. Paul never used a Bible to teach, but rather Tradition and the Word of God as passed down to him by the spoken word of others.

And nothing on St. Peter telling us that our work will be judged by God.

It is all over Scripture that we can and should pray to people that have died. But hey, you can't be a good Cool Arrow if you dohn't pick and chose the parts of the Bible that fit Cool Arrows errors. LOL

But I know that I am speakign with someone who believes that quoting the parts of the Bible that suit him and ignoring the parts that prove him wrong is the way to show someone else how wrong they are about God's Teachings.

dodge #3

Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 1:22pm.

And a very lame one at that.

Pronouncement (n) - 1. An authoritative declaration

So I take it now Cool Arrow has himself "pronounced" that Protestant ministers have no church authority?

Or worse, that when they speak from the pulpit and make bold statements (never prefaced with "in my opinion," either, BTW) such as "the deceased is a in a better place now," they don't really mean it? That they are really telling a momentous lie, knowing full well that the deceased may, in fact, be burning in Hell?

For the third time, I am not talking about "praying to the dead" (N.B. for those reading the thread, this is incorrect phraseology, as it is properly understood to be communing with the Blessed in Heaven, who, by definition, not only live, but "have life more abundantly" than we do). You keep bringing that up, and each time you do, it only comes over to me as another lame attempt to not man up and either defend or retract what was intended to be a blatantly anti-Catholic declaration: "Whether he is in heaven, it's not for man to declare"

Of course, I could read between the lines and realize that you have already implicitly retracted the statement, given wimpy acknowledgements such as "Yes, I've heard people pronounce an opinion that so-n-so is in heaven," but I am waiting for you to acknowledge it yourself.

→ lotr

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 1:30pm.

I don't pray to the dead. Of course, I have opinions as to whether certain people are in Heaven.

But if a preacher ever told me I could pray to the dead, I would flee him also. And if he told I could bow down before a statue as a sign of veneration, I'd tell him to check out the 10 Commandments which, oddly enough, even your Church couldn't rewrite to fit its desires, even though they have been re-enumerated.

No walking back. I'm consistent.

Cool Arrow, Why are you

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:01pm.

Cool Arrow,

Why are you terrified and ashamed of naming the religion you belong to?

What the Ten Commandments forbid is worship of statues. You are beyond wrong if you believe that when I kneel before a Statue of the Viring Mary I am kneeling to pray and worship a statue.

Statues are like pictures, photos, they remind us of the Mother of Chirst, of Saints, of Christ, etc, etc. Statues in the Roman Catholic Church are not there for me to worship a statue, there are there so I venerate and pay my respects to the Virgin Mary, but in no way does it mean that she is above God or Jesus Christ.

I will give you one thing, you are consistent, consistent in your half-truths, errors, misunderstandings, lack of knowledge, presumptions and arrogance against the Church. Yes, you are consistent, I agree with you.

→ Fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:05pm.

Did I say you worship statues?

You're making things up, aren't you? You're lying to defend your faith? That doesn't make moral sense, but carry on.

Cool Arrow, I will do what

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:16pm.

Cool Arrow,

Why are you so ashamed of letting us know what religion you belong to? Why are you so ashamed of answering my questions? Why are you so ashamed of defending your Christian beliefs?

it is easy to attack, Cool Arrow. A two year old can attack based on his lack of understanding, knowledge, education. It takes a humble and man of conviction to defend his personal beliefs of his religion.

I will do what you are incapable of doing. You are right, you never said worship, you said, "bow down in sign of veneration".

You still misunderstand it. I don't bow down to the statue, I bow down to the power of God. The Virgin Mary, the Mystery of the Immaculate Conception, the mystery of the Saints shows the power of God, Thus, when I bow down, I thank God and God alone and yes, I pray to those whose souls are alive in Heaven and not dead in Hell.

I apologize for my mistatement, but my mistatement does not prove you right.

and funny you get upset and angry about a mistatement of mine. You are constantly lying about the Church and about what I say about her.

no please stop with your fake outrage since you love lying and putting words that where never said or written by me or those whom you disagree with. The Bible does teach not to be hypocrites, you know this, right? Or do you only know how to quote th eparts that suit you?
I guess Still nothing on....

Quoting the chapter and verse that tells us all that Sola Scriptura is the way to go, eh?

Explaining why you ignore St. Peter's first letter where he clearly teaches that our work will be judged by God.

Explaining how you can reconciling claiming that it is Sola Scriptura, only the Bile and then using St. Paul who never used a Bible to teach. Using your logic, St. Paul's teachings are wrong.

But hey, why answer questions that prove you wrong, right Cool Arrow, better to ignore the facts and preach what Cool Arrow claims is right.

→ you keep saying

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:26pm.

You keep saying I ignore that our works will be judged by God.

Of course our works will be judged by God. It's just that I don't see how that passage even remotely relates to your belief that Mary was born without Original sin, abstained from sex her whole life, and never sinned her whole life.

There is no Scriptural support for your belief.

And though technically there is no proof Paul carried a physical copy of the Holy Scriptures with him, certainly he knew them and used them in his letters.

Again, you lie in defense of your faith. Why do you do that?

Cool Arrow, 1) Well good,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:36pm.

Cool Arrow,

1) Well good, now we are getting somewhere. Nice of you to admit that God will judge our works. Not too long ago, when Trach was around, you claimed differently, but since the old NB is all but deleted from this world, you'll claim that I am lying.

2) You can't be serious with your statement, "technically there is no proof Paul carried a physical copy of the Holy Scriptures with him, certainly he knew them and used them in his letters."

what St. Paul knew was the Word of God as it was passed down to him through TRADITION AND the word of others.

Not that technically there is no proof St. Paul carried a Bible, it is that the Bible didn't come into existence until centuries after he died!!!

You are attempting to claim that Holy Scripture is not the Holy Bible. You would be the first person ever to make such a claim. Holy Scripture IS the Holy Bible and within the Holy Bible, within the Holy Scripture we find the letters, the teachings of St. Paul!!!! Holy Scripture=Holy Bible.

You are talking out of your behind now to cover up the errors of your beliefs! wow!!!

3) Nothing on providing the chapter and verse where the Bible tells us Sola Scriptura?

and my links provided you chapter and verses in the Bible to back up the Immaculate Conception.

Thus, it is you who needs to answer the question, "again, you lie in defense of your attacks against the Church. Why do you do that?"

4) Nothing on naming your religion, eh?

and go ahea, attempt to claim that Holy Scripture is Not the Holy Bible. You are making things up quite fast to defend your faith, why, Cool Arrow, why?

→ Wrong again fut.

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:47pm.

Paul was a scholar of Old Testament writings.

He makes this claim

"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. - Acts 22:3

Again, you lie in defense of your faith. Why would you do that.

Cool Arrow, As usual, you

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 5:20pm.

Cool Arrow,

As usual, you pick and choose what suits your needs. You know what you are Cool Arrow....you are the equivalent of a Truther, a Birther, a Racer, when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church. You are full of crazy, wacked out, outlandish misconeptions, lies, half-truth about the Roman Catholic Church and like the Birthers, Truthers, Racers, you are obssesed with it. No matter the FACTS and the TRUTH that slaps you, you will ignore it and just focus on those things that help you feel comfortable in your anti-Catholicism.

You are truly something else. You are as crazy and as wacked as the Birthers and Truthers. And believe me, I am being as charitable as I can be, but I am tired of your half-truths, lies, and now attempting to miscontrude what Holy Scripture means and is. Pathic Cool Arrow, even shameful for you sorry behind.

St. Paul was a scholar of the Old Testament. he was part of the Sanhedrin which was made up of the most knowledgable scholars in Israel. However, he wasn't a scholar of the NEW TESTAMENT because the NEW TESTAMENT did not exist!! In fact, St. Paul is part of the New TESTAMENT.

Thus no, the one who lies, who speaks literally in half-truths is you, son.

You just literally grabbed HALF of the Holy Scripture, the Old Testament and completely ignored the other half, the NEW Testament to support your radical, wacked out beliefs. How the hell is anyone going to claim that St. Paul used Holy Scripture when it did not exist, or to be like Cool Arrow, only HALF of it was in existence during St. Paul's time.

Cool Arrow, you have reduced yourself to an anti-Catholic hater, Birther-like, Truther-like, Racer-Like obssesed individual.

Thank you for pointing out to what you constantely do, speaking in half-truths!! You literally grabbed half of Holy Scripture and are making a laughable and feable attempt to now back up your ridiculous, historically wrong claim that St. Paul did actually have Holy Scripture.

Cool Arrow, son, all you have proven is that you are a false prophet that will do and say whatever, even make up history, literally ignore half of Holy Scripture so your radical, Birther-like, Truther-like, Racer-like lies against the Church stick.

Sad Cool Arrow, how truly sad. Do you realize how low you have gone Cool Arrow to justify your disdain and hate for the Church? Make up anything and everything you want even about St. Paul. Most Protestants I know, while wrong, at least respect St. Paul enough to admit that he never used Holy Scripture to preach.

Holy Scripture is NOT Half of the Holy Bible, it is all, every single one of the Books contained with in the Bible, Old Testament AND New Testament.

Son, you are WRONG no matter how much you now attempt to fix your HUGE error about St. Paul using Holy Scripture to preach and write his letters.

Why do you lie so much, Cool Arrow, to attack that which you clearly do not understand or know? Why Cool Arrow? Why the need to speak in half-truth and pass as facts lies?

Why do you ignore the Scriputure that has been show to you to back up Catholic Teaching?

Why do you always take half of Scripture and ignore the other parts that prove you wrong?

and i guess nothing on showing me Chapter and Verse(s) that prove Sola Scriptura is the way to go, eh?

and nothing on naming your particular flavor of Christianity, right? What's the matter ashamed of your religion?

→ Fut, lying again

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 5:28pm.

If you weren't so intent on lying in defense of your faith, you would have noticed the post you just answered contained a quote from the Acts of the Apostles, (New Testament)

You absolutely cannot say I "completely ignored the other half, the NEW Testament".

I WAS QUOTING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT!!

Once again, why do you lie to defend your faith?

It will be hard, but I will try to ignore you henceforth, inasmuch as you have exposed yourself as a purveyor of lies in defense of your faith. I cannot refute every lie you tell just to get attention.

You lied about me. You owe me an apology.

Cool Arrow, The

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:23pm.

Cool Arrow,

The Birther-Like, Truther-Like wacko.

I lied about you I owe you and apology? Are you crazy man? Seriouisly, are you a senile old man or something. I am just wondering because the things you say make no sense, son.

1) You owe the Roman Catholic Church an apology, more like a million since you are constantly lying about Her.

2) You owe God an apology since you constantly lie about His Church.

3) You owe Jesus Christ an apology for attacking His Mother.

Do you really want to go down this route.

and no, you claimed that St. Paul used Holy Scripture because he used the Old Testament to preach. In this statement of yours, you completely ignored the New Testament which is Holy Scripture. Tell me, what Gospels did St. Paul use to preach? St. John's, St. Matthew's, St. Mark's, St. Luke's? What part of the Acts of the Apostles did he use? hahaha!!! weak Cool Arrow, sorry man, but trully weak on your part.

You have had better arguments than this. Give up this one, you are sounding more ridiculous than your usual self, my Birther-Like, Truther-like anti-Catholic wacky man.

You used the Acts of the Apostle to prove that St. Paul was a very well educated man, which he was.

St. Paul did not use Holy Scripturre=Holy Bible to preach, it did not exist until centuries after his death. Thus proving Sola Scriptura is a farce, a lie coming from false prophets. Furthermore, Cool Arrow, the supposed well-educated Bible scholar (hahaha! yeah right) can't even spell out Chapter and Verse(s) where the supposed command of Sola Scriptura is found.

However, Holy Tradition has been quoted as stated by St. Paul in his letters, but better to ignore this part of Holy Scripture, Cool Arrow, it doesn't suit your particular flavor of your version of Christianity.

But your claim is that St. Paul used Holy Scripture to preach and then claimed that since he was learned in the Old Testament this proves your point. WRONG!!! as always.

Holy Scripture is both The Old Testament AND The New Testament together, not one or the other. Thus, when you claim that St. Paul used Holy Scripture you are claiming that he used BOTH The Old AND The New Testaments together to preach. He could have never done this since Holy Scripture was not put together did not exist yet, Holy Bible=Holy Scripture was not put together until centuries after St. Paul's death. Cool Arrow=Liar, RAdical like Birthers, Truthers, Racers.

Yes, he used what we know as the Old Testament today to preach WITH the Word of God as he learned it through Tradition and words of others. But don't let the facts get on your personal and wrong interpretation of the Bible, Cool Arrow, pope of the church he is too ashamed to name.

And you continue to with your lies and half-truths, Birther-Like, Truther-like "Christian".

You owe me an apology for lying about the Roman Catholic Church, my Faith. You owe me an apology for not having the guts to provide the chapter and verse(s) in the Bible where it commands Sola Scriptura.

You owe rational, intelligent, logical, well educated people an apology since you attempt to pass as such, but are none.

Thus, start apologizing, son.

By the way, anything on finding that Bible Chapter and Verse(s) that comands that we should all follow Sola Scriptura? Don't worry Cool Arrow, I know that you are ignoring this because you can't answer it. LOL

And still ashamed of publicly naming the religion you belong to, I see.

Cool Arrow, The

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:24pm.

double

Cool Arrow, Holy Scripture

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:43pm.

Cool Arrow,

Holy Scripture refers to the Holy writings found within the Bible!!!

Thus, when you claim that St. Paul used Scripture, you are claiming he used the Bible!!!!

St. Paul's writings are part of Holy Scripture, Holy Writings found inside the Holy Bible!!!!

St. Paul NEVER had an opportunity to read the Gospels since they came into existence after his death!!!

everything he learned about Jesus Christ was taught to him through tradition and through the word of others! Never throurgh Sacred Scripture.

YOU ARE WRONG!!!

Not only are you wrong, now you are reduce to make stuff up. Incredibly. truly incredibly.

But sadly, what can I expect from someone that picks and choses the parts of the Bible that suits him and ignores the parts that disagree with him.

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

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

here for you to ignore since it proves you wrong. Chapter and verses in the Bible that say Tradition is ok. But since it doesn't fit the final authority of the Bible in Cool Arrows mind, Cool Arrow, it is wrong. LOL

Here's one of many

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:45pm.

You say "Scripture" didn't exist until after the New Testament was written?

Matt 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘ The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.This was the LORD’s doing,And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Once again, fut. You would rather rebuke Jesus Christ, Himself, than admit Old Testament writings were also referred to as Scripture.

There are several references to the Law and The Prophets as "Scripture".

You really are all balled up in tradition if you refuse to respect the words of Jesus, Himself.

Why do you lie to defend your faith?

Cool Arrow, You are a senile

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:00pm.

Cool Arrow,

You are a senile old man. WOW!!

Doofus, moron, I don't know what is about irrational, anti-Catholics who do not know how to read.

Hmmmm...I have stated that Holy Scripture IS The Old Testament AND The New Testament. When Christ spoke, you fool, he was referring to The Old Testament only and He said He was not here to change the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. Thus the Old Testament is fulfilled. However, the New Testament, which is also part of Holy Scripture was not put in writing until centuries after St. Paul's death. LOL

Thus, when St. Paul preached and taught about the Passion of Christ, His Birth, he was basing these on word of mouth as passed on to him and Tradition, NOT on Holy Scripture.

The point is, my dense boy, that St. Paul used Old Testament, but he also used Tradition and the words of others as taught to him, to preach and teach. This is something that neither you or any other Protestant can face because it goes against the error of Sola Scriptura (not to mention that you can't even quote Chapter and Verse where this can be found.) Furthermore, as I pointed out and you chose to ignore. As we know it today, St. Paul did NOT use Holy Scripture. I am still waiting for you to tell me which Gospel he used the most to preach and teach about Jesus Christ. LOL

Sola Scriptura means, my foolish anti-Catholic, that only Holy Scripture shall be use to teach the Word of God. Cleary, St. Paul used much more than merely Scripture to teach and preach, he also used Tradition and the word of others and taught to him. Thus according to you, St. Paul's teachings are in error since he used....Tradition!!! WOW!!! would you look at that. NOt only did he use Tradition, he also commanded that Tradition be used by others.

St. Paul used Jewish Holy Book PLUS Tradition to teach the Word of God. This fact stumps every single Sola Scriptura believer as I have stumped you, Cool Arrow. If he didn't ue Tradition please let me know from which Gospel he preached, which one was his favorite? What was his favorite Gospel passage.

So, you tell me Cool Arrow, was St. Paul in error for using unwritten words and Tradition to teach Christ's Birth, Christ's Passions, Christ's Teachings while The Word of God was here on Earth?

By the way, anything on providing the Chapter and Verse(s) where the command Sola Scriptura can be found?

→ Here, Fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:06pm.

Rev: 22:18,19

Cool Arrow, WRONG!!! that

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:20pm.

Cool Arrow,

WRONG!!! that has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

This means that we can't add or subtract to the Holy Bible, not that Tradition can't be used. Wrong, wrong as always, wrong. But nice of you to be doing research on the internet and coming up with Bible passages that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Also, nice to see that you interpret the Bible as you please, but you have a sh..t fit when you feel the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Bibles. Only Cool Arrow can interpret the Bible. LOL

Kid, I also go to those websites. Try harder.

if Holy Tradition is wrong, why did St. Paul command us to use it when he said,

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). (Here he not only tells us that tradition is ok to use, but also clearly states that he has taught through word of mouth, NOT HOLY SCRIPTURE alone)

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

According to Cool Arrow, St. Paul was in error. I dare you to address these passage from Holy Scripture=Holy Bible and still claim that Holy Tradition is an error because if it is, St. Paul erred!

Why do you subtract from the Bible, Cool Arrow? Why do you ignore these teachings from St. Paul? Why Cool Arrow, why? Why do you want to make yourself God?

→ Well, in that case

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:02pm.

Since you put it that way, I guess it's perfectly OK to replace the Word of God with man-made traditions.

NOT!!

Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through Me" He didn't say anything about using the Dead People Switchboard.

That's something that has been ADDED since John warned against adding or subtracting from the Book.

But since it's just a "tradition", it must be OK to add extra hoops to your obstacle course. While you're at it, send some people to hell for eating meat on Fridays.

Cool Arrow, LOL, are you

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:15pm.

Cool Arrow,

Talk to St. Paul, son, he is the one that said Tradition is to be accepted. Plus, praying to the Living souls in Heaven is Scriptural. But not that you care to read to educate yourself.

Tradition can and is to be accepted per St. Paul.

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). (Here he not only tells us that tradition is ok to use, but also clearly states that he has taught through word of mouth, NOT HOLY SCRIPTURE alone)

→ fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:23pm.

I'm trying to find where he says "Make your own traditions, the sillier and farther away from the Gospel, the better"

Nope, he says "hold to the traditions you were taught by us"

Cool Arrow, I am trying to

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:28pm.

Cool Arrow,

I am trying to find where Jesus Christ said, "I command Sola Scriptura". Nope, no where to be found in any Gospel or Bible. In fact the words Sola Scriptura are not found anywhere in the Bible. Using Cool Arrows logic, Sola Scriptura is an error.

and are you now accepting Tradition? Funny, a few posts ago, that is a few hours ago you were telling me how Holy Tradition is not to be used only Sola Scriptura. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Do you now accept Tradition as well as Holy Scripture?

Anything on telling us the name of your religion? Why are you so ashamed of telling everyone? ARen't you proud of your religion?

Cool Arrow, and of course,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:37pm.

Cool Arrow,

and of course, the Holy Roman Catholi Church, the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't make up Tradition. But not that you care about the Truth.

Your blind hatred for the Church blinds and impedes your intellect.

All the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are based on Scripture as well as Holy Tradition. Just like St. Paul's!!!! and St. Peter's!!!

but seriously, I can't find the place in the Gospels where Jesus Christ said, "I command you all to use Sola Scriptura". Care to help me where I can find these words, maybe just Sola Scriptura. I will give it to you if you can find Sola Scriptura. I mean since you are such a nit pick for the exact words in the Bible there is no way that Cool Arrow would be following a teaching which he claims is Biblical and the exact words can't be found.

Nah, Cool Arrow is consistent, he wouldn't tell me that since the words "Immaculate Conceptions" are not in the Bible this doctrine is wrong and then turn around tell me Sola Scriptura is the way to go even though the words "Sola Scriptura" are no where to be found in the Bible. No way does Cool Arrow interpret the Bible to mean what he wishes and then demand exact words of Church's teaching, right? HAHA!!!

you are one funny cat cool arrow. hahaha!!!

dodge number 4

Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:40pm.

I did not ask whether you "prayed to the dead." But, if it makes you happy, "good for you!" You have my blessing.

Now, back to the topic at hand:

"Whether he is in heaven, it's not for man to declare"

Since you are self-righteously holding fast to it, then I'll couple it with subsequent statements of yours, such as:

"I've also heard [non-Catholic] preachers express their belief, based on whether the deceased has accepted Jesus, that they are with God."

From these two statements, we may deduce that your position is one of the following:

1. These non-Catholic preachers are liars, for they know full well that "it's not for man to declare," but declare so anyway as God's Minister and Pastor. Woe unto them.

2. These non-Catholic preachers do not know what they preach. But we are not simply talking about isolated cases -- we are talking about all of them, for I have yet to hear a preacher not declare a deceased person to be "in a better place now."

3. You are actually a Universalist who holds to the doctrine that "all go to Heaven," and thus the preachers are neither wrong, nor liars. But, of course this raises the difficulty that we have just declared that "all go to Heaven," something clearly unscriptural, and we are back to square one.

→ Obviously wrong

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:53pm.

So you think it is sinful to declare "I think mom's in heaven" after the death of one's mother? Why?

We're certainly free to wonder about it, and express our opinion based on the life she lived, or whether she lived what we consider to be a good life in acceptance of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I've witnessed a preacher absolutely avoid any opinion as to the deceased's afterlife.

But if you want to take your beliefs to another dimension and pray to the dead, you're certainly free to waste your prayers given that Jesus already gave us a pattern for our prayers, and it absolutely does not include praying to a dead mama in the prescription.

When the Apostles asked "Lord, teach us to pray", he didn't say, "Well, you need to go to your church and find a good dead person to talk to".

Don't be silly.

Cool Arrow, Of course

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:05pm.

Cool Arrow,

Of course completely wrong, but what else is new.

Funny, you have zero problem adding to the Bible by claiming Sola Scriptura which is no where to be found in the Bible.

Of course, on the other hand, you can find Bible verse that talk about praying to the LIVING souls in Heaven.

you are clueless about living and dead when speaking about the Supernatural,

Anyway, anything on telling us the name of your Christian religion you belong to?

have you found Bible chapter and verse that talks to us about Sola Scriptura?

the problem with individuals like Cool Arrows is that they want to have it both ways. They take the Bible literally when it suits their purposes, but then run around interpreting passages to force them to mean what they are not ment to mean. LOL

Cool Arrow, still waiting for the place, the Gospel, where Jesus Christ said, "I command the use of Sola Scriptura" tick, tock, tick, tock.....LOL

Lotr, didn't you know that only Cool Arrow can interpret the Bible and teach it. Anyone else who dares to do so is sinning against Cool Arrow.

Cool Arrow, seriously, I

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:42pm.

Cool Arrow,

seriously, I can't find the place in the Gospels where Jesus Christ said, "I command you all to use Sola Scriptura". Care to help me where I can find these words, maybe just the words Sola Scriptura. I will give it to you if you can find the words Sola Scriptura. I mean since you are such a nit pick for the exact words in the Bible there is no way that Cool Arrow would be following a teaching which he claims is Biblical and the exact words can't be found.

you are one funny cat cool arrow. hahaha!!!

lotr, Another problem with

Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:21am.

lotr,

Another problem with Cool Arrow's argument is that Jesus Christ had contact and prayed to the dead!!

Cool Arrow must have forgotten the part in the Gospel where Jesus Christ prayed to and met with Elijah and Moses, during The Transfiguration. Not only did Elijah and Moses, who were dead, appear to Jesus Christ. God allow them to be seen Christ's Apostles. (Matt 17:3)

So, if we aren't suppose to have contact with the dead, be talking and praying to the dead, per Cool Arrow and Christian Fundamentalist, Christ sinned big time, right Cool ARrow? Oh, but wait, Christ can't sin, thus as it is so frequent in the Gospel, He was giving us exmaple of what to do here on Earth. Just like he spoke with the living souls in Heaven while Christ was here on Earth. We also can and should pray to the living souls in Heaven.

So, Cool Arrow's, The Christian Fundamentalist notion of no contact with the dead is dead...WRONG!!! (sorry, pun intended). What the Bible forbids is wizardy, things like cojering up the dead like the ouji board things, witch craft, etc.

But don't let the facts and Bible Chapters and Verse(s) that don't suit you, Cool Arrow, stand on your way of making things up.

Cool Arrow, honestly, why do you only quote the parts of the Bible that suit your purposes and ignore the rest?

are you still ashamed of your Christian religion? will you name it now?

and anything on finding the words Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

yes, you are obviously wrong

Submitted by lotr on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:58am.

But you won't admit it. Fine. At first I thought you might, but I've abandoned that notion several posts of yours ago, when I recognized that you don't honestly intend to engage, but rather only to impugn Catholicism, something that NB forbid years ago, and something that I will not sit back and tolerate.

What part of this particular blog's title or topic didn't you understand? That NYT's Dowd doesn't have a habit of proclaiming anti-Catholic falsehoods from the left? The last thing we need here is for triumphalistic sectarian anti-Catholic falsehoods from the right, which is exactly what you sallied in here with, the very first comment of the entire blog. Is it your MO to remain poised at the keyboard waiting for any Catholic-sympathizing article to pop up and then pounce in with the tired old triumphalistic rhetoric?

So then, back to the topic at hand. I know you want to distract away from it, but sorry, it's not gonna happen.

I'm not the one who says it's "sinful to declare 'I think mom's in Heaven'." You are the one who says it is:

Whether [she] is in heaven, it's not for man to declare

When non-Catholic preachers unanimously preach (that's what preachers do, is it not?) that the deceased "is in a better place now", it is in no way shape or form presented as an opinion, but rather as an incontrovertible fact.

Lotr, you are going to wait

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:14pm.

Lotr,

you are going to wait a long time for Cool Arrow to admit his errors, especially when it comes to admitting how wrong he is about the Roman Catholi Church. Humility is not one of his strong suits.

Cool Arrow used the word pronounce and then he started running fast the other way when caught.

I find it also very interested that he refused to name the religion he belongs to. Something tells me that the preachers in his religion have pronounced during funerals of someone that they know is in Heaven.

But Cool Arrow seems to believe that the final authority on the Bible is....Cool Arrow. Well, the Bible does warn us about false prophets.

→ That's just dumb fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:14pm.

the phrase I used was "pronounce an opinion"

An opinion is not a statement of fact. Once again, you are lying to defend your faith.

Why do you feel you need to do that?

Cool Arrow, Why do you feel

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:19pm.

Cool Arrow,

Why do you feel the need to lie about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

Why are you so ashamed of letting us know what religion you belong to?

Why are you so ashamed of your beliefs that you can't even point out where in the Bible it instructs us Sola Scriptura?

Why are you so ashamed of your beliefs that you can't address what St. Peter taught us about works being judge by God?

Why are you so ashamed of your beliefs that you can't address the fact that St. Paul's teachings are not based on the Holy Bible, thus using your logic, St. Paul's teachings are not to be taken seriously?

Why do you feel the need to be so arrogant, presumptious? Why do you feel the need to attack, lie, speak in half-truths about the Roman Catholic Church?

Cool Arrow, By the way, nice

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:29pm.

Cool Arrow,

By the way, nice of you to do what you always do. You use the Old Testament to prove your point about dead people, but ignore everything that comes afterwords!!! LOL!!!

Using your logic of only paying attention to the Old Testament when it comes to praying to the dead (which lotr did a good job in explaining that these individuals are not dead, but very much alive. They would be dead if in Hell), then we as Christians should still not eat pig and all the other forbidden foods in the Old Testament.

Thanks for proving me correct, you take the parts of the Bible that suit your beliefs, errors and arrogance and ignore the parts that do not fit your purpose.

Keep on doing what you have been doing through out this forum, ignore the chapters and verses of the Bible that prove you wrong when it comes to the Immaculate Conception, praying to those who are in Heaven. If you didn't keep on subtracting from the Bible and ignorantly attacking the Roman CAtholic Church you wouldn't be Cool Arrow.

→ Fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:41pm.

Maybe you can show me where there are instances in the NT of people praying to the dead.

Seems to me there was a perfect opportunity after the stoning of Stephen. But strangely for your beliefs, that doesn't appear to have happened.

Show me where somebody cried out "Oh Stephen, who dwelleth in Heaven with Our Lord, give us strength to withstand martyrdom as you did"

Certainly, if such a petition existed, it would have been documented in the Acts of the Apostles.

But no. The early Church knew of only One Advocate with The Father. Jesus Christ.

Cool Arrow,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 2:51pm.

Cool Arrow,

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

cleary shows with chapter and verse that praying to those in Heaven, whose souls are very much alive, is not a bad thing.

But heck, why read anything that disproves Cool Arrow wrong, right Cool Arrow? Better to be arrogant and believe that Cool ARrow is the final authority in the Bible. How dare anyone question Cool Arrow, how dare you?! LOL

But interesting enough, I can't find that part in the Bible that tells us, "You shall only use Holy Scripture, not Holy Tradition" but funny enough, I can find chapter and verse telling us that Holy Tradition is ok. go figure Cool Arrow.

Why do you refuse, Cool Arrow, to point to the Chapter and Verse that clearly states that only Holy Scripture, only the Holy Bible is to be used?

You have called me a liar, attacking my Faith, claimed that I am ashamed, so why do you find it so hard to put me in my place and show me the chapter and verse in the Bible that clearly backs up your belief of Sola Scriptura?

I await, pope cool arrow of the church he is too ashamed to name. I mean geez, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church can't interprent the Bible, only Cool Arrow can interprent the Bible and tell us all the true teachings of the Bible, of God. How dare anyone but Cool Arrow interpret the Bible.

→ fut, you doofus

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 5:35pm.

Living believers are referred to as "saints" several times in the New Testament.

You're really trying hard to justify your communication with the dead, aren't you?

Now I'm done.

Cool Arrow, The

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:34pm.

Cool Arrow,

The Birther-like, Truther-like wacky senile man.

Really? putting saint infront of a name, like SAINT Paul, SAINT Peter means that these individuals are in Heaven, just like Saint ArchAngel Gabriel. I guess you are going to tell me how it is an opinion that Saint Archangel Gabriel is in Heaven, right?

Hey, but are you going to tell us all that St. Paul, St. Peter and not in Heaven? Oh, it comes full circle, right? I guess you have an opinion of where these men are. Why would we then learn about God, Jesus Christ from two men that you are not sure they are in Heaven. LOL

Weak arguments. Cool Arrow, weak arguments that my 7 year old son who is about to do his first communion can destroy.

and please tell me you aren't dense enough to believe that dead and alive merely means of our physical body.

Anything on admitting how you put your foot in your mouth when you claimed St. Paul used Holy Scripture=Holy Bible to teach and preach? LOL

You constantly prove that a Bible scholar, you are not.

Carry on Cool Arrow, you know I will always be here to take your radical, irrational, based on ignorance anti-Catholicism.

And nothing in providing Chapter and Verse(s) where the Bible commands Sola Scriptura?

and I see that you are still too ashamed to name your particular flavor of Christianity public.

→ Answered, fut

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:47pm.

Answered here.

Cool Arrow, You are kidding,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 7:08pm.

Cool Arrow,

You are kidding, right? HAHA!!!

That passage doesn't speak to anything remotely regarding Sola Scriptura. LOL. Jesus Christ is merely pointing out to what Scripture said, not talking about Sola Scriptura. Christ is giving us a parable, the Parable of the wicked Tenant. Christ is comparing the wicked tenants to the Israeli priests, scribes and elders who God made Tenants of Israel and because of their blindness and wickedness will put Jesus Christ to death. It has NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura. WOW!!!

in fact, the previous parable goes hand in hand with the parable of the Wicked Tenants which Christ is talking about in the Bible Verse you quoted.

But not surprised that like the Pharisees, you have use the Word of God to suit your personal needs and beliefs.

Wow!! But heck, you can interpret the Bible as you wish, but if the Pope or the Church Magisterium dares to do the same, they are wrong. LOL

You are consistent, in proving that a Bible scholar, you are not.

Cool Arrow, Why do you care

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 6:44pm.

Cool Arrow,

Why do you care about the New Testament. According to you St. Paul only used the Old Testament to preach. WOW!!! Just WOW!!!!

Thus, if, as according to your radical ways, St. Paul only used the Old Testament, which in fact did not exist as we know it today during his time, why do you want to see anything in the New Testament. St. Paul didn't have the New Testament, he used Tradition and the word of others to teach and preach combined with the right teachings, what we know today as the Old Testament, of the Jewish religion.

According to Cool Arrow logic, or more lack of logic, St. Paul is in error since he did not follow Sola Scriptura. St. Paul didn't use one Gospel to preach or teach. St. Paul used none of the parts of the Acts of the Apostles to teach and preach, he used none of St. Peter's letters to preach and teach. Man, St. Paul was really wrong according to Sola Scriptura.

Holy Scripture=Holy Bible. St. Paul did not use the Bible to preach, thus, according to Cool Arrows Birther-like, Truther-like believes, St. Paul was in error for not following Sola Scriptura.

You can't reconcile the facts and thus, you make them up as you go along Cool Arrow. Sad.

By the way, Cool Arrow, care to point out where in the Bible we can all find the command of Sola Scriptura?

dowd

Submitted by scarletandgold on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:37pm.

people still read what that lunatic says...nah...cant be...shes insane

Nobody hates the Catholic Church as much as

Submitted by CarolinaJimbo on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:52pm.

former Parochial School students.

Maureen attended back in the 60's, when the Maryknollers and Jesuits were fomenting Liberation Theology. She is so angry that JPII and Ratzinger put an end to that nonsense.

Don't stereotype parochial school students

Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:22pm.

Maureen Dowd is not typical. An entire generation, of which I am a part, attended parochial school in the 60's.
Dowd is the exception, not the rule.

While I don't have a pony in

Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:30pm.

While I don't have a pony in this race since I am not a Catholic, I find it wholey distasteful and just plain poor form.

But then maybe Ann Coulter could do a Maureen Dowd on Senator Edward Kennedy except with the true accounts of his exploitation of his victims. Nothing like rubbing the dirt in a liberal's face by subjecting them to the exact same rules they play by.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

"While massive abuse and

Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 7:52pm.

"While massive abuse and cover-ups have flared in school districts like Los Angeles, no one would ever think to point the finger at President Obama or even Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The finger would rightfully be pointed at the local school authorities. But those with an animus against the Church have no problem pointing the finger at a guy all the way across the ocean for the sins and crimes of local prelates thousands of miles away. That is simply unfair."

Except the Vatican has a hand in assigning bishops and the like. The WH and the Sec. of Edu. do not have authority over local districts. This is a very poor analogy.

So, the WH

Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:00pm.

and DoEd don't threaten to hold back fed education funds if they perceive that local districts or states aren't fulfilling what the feds dictate they should be doing? Would that be "authority over local districts"?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

They hav zero say in any

Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:40pm.

They hav zero say in any personnel matter and certainly don't appoint those who are elected by the populace. It is a poor analogy.

Satchmo---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:20pm.

Trying to find a nugget of truth in what you post is worse than trying to find an undigested piece of grain in bovine manure.

Dangling federal subsidy money in front of a "local" school district, or waving it at them, does indeed equate to having a say about district actions or policies.

You surely do post a lot of absolute bullshit.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

"Dangling federal money" is a

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:59am.

"Dangling federal money" is a red herring. The federal government does not place local school officials in office. It has no authority in any personnel placement. The Vatican directly places bishops, cardinals, etc., in their diocese/jurisdictions. It is a poor analogy.

Changing your emphasis now, won't work, Satchmo---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:01pm.

I specifically meant federal money sways local decisions about policy, not who or whom is elected to fill personnel slots.

It is those personnel, however, who make policy decisions, and you can bet your ass those decisions will be in line with whatever will bring federal monies into local district coffers.

Your continued use of the phrase "It is a poor analogy", given your piss poor debating skills, is laughable.

As are you.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

It's still a read herring.

Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:09pm.

I know what you meant. It's still a red herring. You clearly have no idea what is being discussed.

→ A read herring?

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:44pm.

Who reads fish? You?

And that, Satchmo---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:57pm.

seems to be your signature line, anymore.

No one knows but you.

You are a dipsh*t poseur.

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

"motherbelt's axiom" comes into play here.

Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:18pm.

Liberals know the truth. The facts are a conspiracy.

So don't bother offering all that evidence about Pius XII, they "know" that's just a cover story for what really happened.

You are right on target, Mr. Pierre. Liberals never let the blame for anything go beyond the red-handed person's personal space. But every child abuse case is the fault of the Pope in Rome.

They are simply not interested in the truth.

There are many concerned Catholics who have worked in their own areas, and advocated against local bishops who were the ones who had the power and didn't use it, and that is appropriate; blaming the Pontiff is not useful, except for those who want to agitate for a more "progressive" leader for the Church. They live in perpetual hope that the "next" Pope will be the one who allows abortion, divorce, and women priests.

apprently motherbelt's axiom doesn't just apply to liberals

Submitted by lotr on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:43pm.

See above threads.

NYT`s Dowd

Submitted by NVRAT on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 8:41pm.

This paper and Dowd is the 2 hole "Outhouse of America"...no doubt about it. And, I`m sure there are quite a few A$$ Wipes hanging around the same structure. Where else could all this $hit come from?

NVRAT

The issue of the Pope and the

Submitted by LaVallette on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 10:42pm.

The issue of the Pope and the Holocaust is all about the immediate Post War German generation attempting to pass on guilt and responsibility to someone else besides their parents. The whole bandwagon had its origin in Rolf Hochhut's play "The Representative" aka "The Deputy" on which every anti-Pope and anti-Catholic bigot jumped on. What is sad for our society is that "Our Enlightened Glitterati" also took up the cudgel. But truth always wins in the end!!!

I don't think its a matter of

Submitted by redfish on Sat, 04/30/2011 - 11:09pm.

I don't think its a matter of shifting responsibility, the left has always blamed the Holocaust on conservative values and right-wing politics, religion was only one target of this. Those type of arguments go on to this day, see The White Ribbon by Michael Haneke ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Ribbon )

I find it just as bad that conservatives -- Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck -- have decided to turn the table around and blame it on progressives and the left.

At least it gives us an alternative point of view, but I still long for the day when the Holocaust is no longer used as a political football.