A Latina theologian says...

Why is this the lead element in this article? Why does ABP insist on making race/ethnicity an issue? Why does it matter whether the theologian is a Latina/o or any other racial or ethnic group?

In regard to the issue at hand, if the only thing Baptists and women can get from “embracing the ‘life-giving’ aspects of Marian veneration” (what are the life-giving aspects of veneration of Mary, anyway) is inspiring women to be strong-willed and socially conscious, is it really that momentous? Women generally do that naturally -- at least in America. Baptist women are generally very strong-willed, the real movers-and-shakers in our churches -- especially the smaller ones.

If the polar opposites of the chaste Virgin and the wanton Harlot were the only two models for women in the Bible, I’d say Dr. Lozano might have a point, but there are so many other women of courage and character, from the OT Deborah to the NT Priscilla. What men want from women needs to be secondary for them to what God wants from them. And is it any less confusing for men with characters like Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, etc., and the ever-shifting expectations of women?

Should veneration of Mary as a "demi-goddess" be a barrier to relations between Catholics and Baptists? Sure, even if we can discover what the “‘life-giving’ aspects of Marian veneration” are, giving to her what is only due God cannot be spiritually healthy.

Lozano observed that “Mary is not a passive presence in [Luke’s Christmas] stories... but an active and willing participant in God’s work.” How was she an active and willing participant in the “Christmas” stories? By submitting to the Lord’s will. What should that mean to women?

I don't know if this article is the weirdest thing I've ever read on ABP, but it certainly ranks in the top five (which is no small achievement). Twenty-odd years ago, liberals were lambasting SBC conservatives for insisting that seminary professors should believe in the virgin birth. At least one liberal stated that the virgin birth was a "Catholic doctrine" (he either didn't know what he was talking about, or he was lying).

Now we've got an article on ABP suggesting Baptists to exalt Mary to the same idolatrous status that she holds in the Catholic church. Why aren't liberals complaining about this?

We must all be careful not to let our observations become unduly clouded by our personal prejudice. I understand that the possibility of complete objectivity is a myth that "conservatives" and "liberals" often imbibe, but we should at least strive for such a position.

There seems to be no language or insinuation here of elevating Mary to an idolatrous status similar to our RC brothers and sisters. In fact, the speaker calls for Baptists to take the via media. One may take issue with the implications for social justice, etc., but a close reading of the article suggests that the speaker calls for the "veneration" of Mary in the most basic sense of the word and not in a pro-RCC manner.

Sorry, Ken. I forgot to offer my answer to your question. Your question assumes that all "liberals" (or, at least those you know of) decry the virgin birth. I have a hunch that you would label me as liberal based on any number of my theological leanings, yet I have no problem with the virgin birth. That's why I, for one, am not complaining about this article.

Okay, so why does race/ethnicity need to be the lead in the article?

What are the life-giving aspects of veneration of Mary? (Note: I'm not asking, "What are the life-giving aspects evident in Mary's life or story, but of veneration of her?" because that's what Lozano said.)

"Your question assumes that all "liberals" (or, at least those you know of) decry the virgin birth."

Not all of them necessarily "decried" the virgin birth, but they were willing to let professors teach in our seminaries who did not believe in it. Cecil Sherman, the founding coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, openly dismissed the virgin birth as unimportant.

Thus, I find it most ironic that some of these same liberals are calling on us to learn from the Catholics with regard to the virgin Mary. They go to the opposite extreme and exalt Mary to the level of idolatry. What can Baptists learn from that?

By the way, until I know what your theological leanings are, I have no grounds to label you as anything. I'll thank you to show me the same courtesy and not make presumptions about me.

If being a strong-willed, socially conscious woman is the only lesson, then Lozano's remarks at the BWA is much ado about nothing. So, is there more to this; is there something more to learn?

Are women really confused -- any more than men?

Fair enough, Ken. I'm making a guess about what you would think of my leanings based on a fairly large sampling of your comments on this site. Yet, it's only a guess and in no way implies that I categorically know what you think. Like I said, I try not to profile but I still do. I'm sorry for doing so in this case.

Is it wrong to allow the at least near-idolatrous level of Marian-veneration to come between me and my Catholic colleague, Father Todd? The same question must be posed in regard to her being given co-redemptrix status and the immaculate conception. (Note: According to the RCC the "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary without any stain of original sin. The church dogma says that she was filled with divine grace from the first moment of her existence and did not need sanctifying grace, thus she lived a life completely free from sin, start to finish.)

Does Mary's submissiveness anything have to teach women?

Are women the only ones who have something to learn from Mary?

If not (that is, if men can learn life lessons from the women of the Bible), can women learn life lessons from the men of the Bible or can they only learn them from women in the Bible?

pjerwin, if these questions are really important to you, why don't you e-mail and ask the author who wrote the story about word-choice and the speaker who delivered the talk about its implications?

News reporters want people talking about their material. I'm confident that part of the reason this is a forum for comment and discussion among ABP readers. I'm interested in what other ABP readers think. I presume the authors peruse the posts for their articles, too. I know I would.

I also presume that part of the reason for the forum is to cut down on e-mails to the writers and editors. I have often written them and they rarely respond.

While the specific questions I threw out are legitimate points for discussion in light of the article, the real question is, "What makes this worth reporting?"

pjerwin, while your questions come across as a bit pedantic to me, the importance of this article as I see it lies in the dialogue taking place between Roman Catholic Christians and Baptist Christians. Mary is singled out as a point of contact by this speaker and participant. While Lozano doesn't advocate going as far as some Roman Catholics with regard to Mary, she does urge Baptists to Mary more seriously as a saint worthy of emulation. You may dislike the point or disagree, but that ecumenical dialogue such as this takes place is worthy of attention in my opinion.

It isn't pedantic to ask whether or not race/ethnicity should lead the article. What bearing does this have on the issue in the article? In my opinion, none, at least not as the lead, but it does shed light on what motivates the editorial staff and reporters at ABP.

The question regarding "the life-giving aspects of veneration of Mary" isn't in the least pedantic. I'd like to know if ABP readers feel that there are life-giving aspects of the veneration of Mary and what they might think those are. Perhaps fellow readers can enlighten me on this.

Since the only benefits for women cited by the author have to do with women becoming strong-willed and socially conscious, it is not pedantic to wonder if that bears out such focus.

pjerwin,

Come on now, this makes perfect sense! :-) Exalting Mary to a goddess soothes feminist theologians that hate the fact that God is presented as masculine in the Bible. At least the Catholics have a pseudo female deity in Mary. Yet they don't like the perfect standard connected to Mary. As she says:

"Because Mary is so perfect in popular Catholic theology in Latin America -- perpetually a virgin, although a mother; blameless, even sinless -- Lozano said she becomes an impossible standard of womanhood. Nonetheless, many men look for this standard in the mother of their children."

Imagine how oppressed I am as a man. Women expect me to be like Jesus!!! How unfair! lol This article reflects liberalism perfectly. Liberals want respect as they refuse to have concrete standards. Yet who respects any philosophy that holds to no standards? Thus "liberal", the word, has become a taunt for people without principle.

This article reminds me of an old country song. . . "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything!" In this article a liberal Latina almost falls for an unbiblical, perfected, sexless, sinless Mary. Yet her rudderless morality keeps her from the arms of the pope.

It isn't pedantic to ask whether Scripture paints any more confusing a picture for women than it does for men, given the uneven character of the men in the Bible. At least the character of the wanton Harlot and the chaste Virgin are consistent, but how inconsistent are Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, and other men?

It is not pedantic to ask whether or not we should expect to have close relations with those who hold to what we believe are un-biblical dogmas, doctrines and practices. If we should cultivate closer relations, how close should we expect to become?

The picture Lozano seems to want women to get from Mary is being strong-willed and liberated, but Scripture also portrays her as submissive. It isn't pedantic to ask whether or not the tension between the two should be maintained or if submissiveness should be jettisoned.

I believe godly characters in the Bible have something to teach men and women regardless of the character's gender. It may seem pedantic, but the way the article is written the implication is that Mary has something to teach only women.

This was not ecumenical dialogue, the remarks were delivered at a meeting of Baptists.

The Blessed Vigin Mary is a perfect model of God's creation, where Eve was tempted to know more and disobeyed God, Mary preserved in grace is obedient to God's will and understands all is done according to God's will.She is in compliance to God's will,not strong willed.Mary was chosen by God,for his Son and is the spouse of the Holy Spirit'our Mother Mary is not to be slighted.Jesus loves His Mother so much, he gave Her to us from the Cross,Mary will always lead us to Jesus.If one does not understand Mary, all you have to do is sincerely ask Jesus to help you understand, what son or daughter would want to ignore their mother.Do you think a mother here on earth would let you ignore her? Not my mother, you will acknowledge her.To know and love Jesus is to know his Mother.As a catholic, she not worship,we venerate Her.We place her and our prayers in our Heart,so She will take them and give them directly to Jesus.She intercedes and works hard for us all to come to Jesus.

One prblem with Protestants is they think they know the Bible, but they don't read the Bible, only yhe few snippets they like and look at, over and over, missing the enire point.

For example, remember, Jesus is the Davidic king prophesied in the Old Testament. David's queen was his mother, as stated in the Bible. Remember, they had many wives,so the queen role was given to the king's mother.

Since Jesus is in the line of King David, and thus a Davidic king, Mary, his mother, is the Queen-mother and reigns as Queen beside her son, as David's mom sat on the throne beside her son (see the Old Testament). In the New Testament, Elizabeth, "filled with the Holy Spirit, said, how is it that the mother of my Lord comes to me?" The phrase mother-of-my-lord means queen-mother. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she proclaimed this, so says the Bible.

SO the Bible itself declares Mary as Queen, Jesus as King, and says the Queen sits beside her throne on the Queen's throne-seat. This is all in the Bible, if one would only read it. It further says that David's Queen-mother was an advocate of the King's subjects,the people,and brought petitions form the people to her son the King. This is the Bible, too. Which is why we Catholics petition Mary to bring out requests to her son.

Protestants, read your Bibles, all of it (even the parts you threw away!)

Why do protestants always accuse Catholics of idol worship when talking about the Blessed Mother? It simply is not true. Read, read and read and quit accusing us of something because you don't understand it nor will you ever try.

"David rose and returned to Judah"

“Mary rose and journeyed to the hill country of Judah”

"How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"

"And why is it granted me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

"The House of Obededom the Gittite"

"The House of Zechariah"

"The ark of the Lord remained at the house of Obededom the Gittite three months."

"And Mary remained with her about three months"

David leaped before the Lord

"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb"

Note the house of Obededom and the House of Zechariah are the same geographical location, and both the Ark of the Covenant and Mary stayed there for three months.

Baptists will never understand Catholics until they understand that the Catholic Church is of Jewish origin and not od Roman origin.

For example when a Jew attends his first Catholic Mass he is shocked at the similarities, from the water font at the entrance,the liturgy, alter,vestments,sacred vessels, offering prayers for the dead, incense, tabinacle veil, eucharist (which Jews used to have and was prophesied would be the last offering left after the Messiah had come), candles and minoras, belief in purgatory, Scripture and Tradition are both sacred to each etc.

If Baptists had any Jewish Tradition they would easily see that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

I say to bobbyfrankly, J.Davidson, TCP, and Tarsus: “Thanks for making the point for us.”
__________________________________

bobbyfrankly wrote:

One prblem [sic] with Protestants is they think they know the Bible, but they don't read the Bible, only yhe [sic] few snippets they like and look at, over and over, missing the enire point.

With your broad generalization about Protestants, you've done the very thing you rail against.

Further, note the following:

Of the wife or wives of Jesse we know nothing, and consequently are without information upon a most interesting point -- the personality of the mother of David; but that she too may have been of the tribe of Moab is rendered probable by the fact that, when hard pressed, David placed his parents under the protection of the king of that country (1 Sam 22:3,1).

Where, exactly, in the Old Testament does the Bible say anything about David’s mother sitting beside him on the throne and that she was an advocate for the people before David? I seem to have missed that.
__________________________________

I must admit that Mariology is interesting, with all its allegory and typology, so let me see if I follow your logic, Tarsus:

1) “David rose and returned to Judah” and “Mary rose and journeyed to the hill country of Judah” hence, Mary must be David.

2) David said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” and Elizabeth said, “And why is it granted me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” hence Elizabeth must be David.

3) “The House of Obededom the Gittite,” only identified in Scripture as being outside the city of David, and “The House of Zechariah,” only identified in Scripture as being in a city in the hill country of Judah, are [roughly] in the same geographical region, hence the House of Zechariah must be the House of Obededom the Gittite.

4) Since the Ark of the Lord and Mary remained in houses in roughly the same geographical region about three months, Mary must be the Ark of the Lord.

5) Since David leaped before the Lord when the Ark was brought into the city of David and Elizabeth’s babe leaped in her womb when she heard the greeting of Mary, John the Baptist must be David.

Of course, I’m just saying this to make a point: your reasoning is specious and defies logic.
__________________________________

Jesus is at the right hand of God and intercedes for us and the Holy Spirit also intercedes for us. Why do we need another intercessor besides the Son and the Spirit to intervene between us and the Father? Jesus inaugurated for us a way into the Holy-of-Holies into God’s presence.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)

In John 14:15ff, Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit as our Helper. Why would we need Mary as our helper? I genuinely do not understand.
__________________________________

Finally, Tarsus wrote:

Baptists will never understand Catholics until they understand that the Catholic Church is of Jewish origin and not od [sic] Roman origin.

Genuine questions: Why is the Catholic Church called the Roman Catholic Church? If it is so important that we understand the Jewish-ness of the Catholic faith, why is the seat of the Catholic Church in Rome and not Jerusalem? Why is the Pope in the grand St. Peter’s Basilica rather than the restored Jerusalem Temple?

pjerwin, perhaps you don`t understand that the OT scriptures must be fulfilled, which is why you can`t see it and don`t see the Jewish significance. God always shows us when the scriptures are fulfilled. But for some it is not given for them to understand. You have neither the Jewish or Catholic Apostolic Traditions so you miss the Holy Spirits teachings and explainations of scripture. The house of Obededom and Zechariah are on the EXACT SAME PLACE! Not roughly!

Why do Catholics need Mary? Why did the Israelites need the Ark if they could simply turn to God for help? Why did Joshusa lie face down in veneration to the Ark? Why was the Jewish Temple filled with statues and graven images?

pjerwin you say:
Genuine questions: Why is the Catholic Church called the Roman Catholic Church? If it is so important that we understand the Jewish-ness of the Catholic faith, why is the seat of the Catholic Church in Rome and not Jerusalem? Why is the Pope in the grand St. Peter’s Basilica rather than the restored Jerusalem Temple?

Look at our Catechism it clearly states on the front cover "Catechism of the Catholic Church". It has never said Roman Catholic ever!

Why is the Catholic Church founded in Rome?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2 (c. 180 AD) “…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History 2, 15, 4 (303 AD) “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Eusebius Pamphilus, The Chronicle Ad An. Dom 42 (c. 303 AD) “The second year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad (42 AD) the apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty five years…”

Even the tradition of having Popes is Jewish!

If Jesus is our only intercessor why does the Word of God only come to us through the Prophets, Mary and the Apostles?

Dear Baptist Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Why are you so angry with Mary? She loves you as only the mother of Christ could. Do not be angry with Jesus either for giving us His mother. He is so good and kind, that He gave His all for us. He gave His total self and the one He loved dearly, His mother. Remember to honor her and know that she is an advocate for you. Please do not call her a goddess because you are disrespecting not only the Virgin Mary, but also Jesus.


It is not only unkind but a sin to spread slander about your fellow believers in Christ. Catholics venerate (come to with honor) those saintly people who have gone before us. We ask for their prayers and intercession. We are family, here on earth and in heaven. While we are on this earth we cannot see the evil spirits nor the angelic and saintly spirits. Please remember the enemy is the one who divides us. Lets love one another with kindness and humility.

Please remember the Catholic Church is the orginal, the one that brought you the bible by the power of the Holy Spirit, that has kept the bible and protected the bible. Why would she do otherwise? In the love of Christ, Andree

BobbyFrank,

That is the best defense I have ever seen for praying to Mary. Thank you! Yet I would have to disagree. . . I'm sure you are not shocked. ;-) Catholics believe that Mary was always a virgin. Yet James and the other brothers of Christ referenced in the scripture disprove this. You are a bright man and can see the significant weight in this argument.

Also, Catholics pray to Mary and thus pray to the dead. Scripture forbids praying to the dead/saints/Mary.

Isaiah 8:19
19 "And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

The blood of Christ enables the believer to speak directly to God. Did not Christ teach us to pray "Our Father?" Mediums enable us to speak to the dead, but the believer does not consult the dead on the behalf of the living. Rather we pray to a superior source for guidence/help. . . Almighty God! Catholic prayers to the saints and Mary are sin.

tj282828

Also, Catholics pray to Mary and thus pray to the dead. Scripture forbids praying to the dead/saints/Mary.

However, many Catholics believe in the bodily resurrection of Mary. When the other Apostles informed Thomas that Mary had died, he said he wouldn't believe it until he saw he body. They took him to her tomb and when he entered, he found it empty; she had been assumed bodily into heaven -- the assumption.

Tarsus wrote:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2 (c. 180 AD) “...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul...

Hold on a moment. The most ancient church was founded and organized in Jerusalem, called "the church in Jrusalem" (see Acts 1:12-8:4). The first in the line of Apostolic succession occured in Jerusalem when Mattathias was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26). The Apostles Peter and Paul submitted themselves to the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Further, it is curious in his own epistle to the Roman church, Paul wrote, "I long to see you... often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:11-13). He had not been there and had no fruit among them, therefore he was not a founder of that church.

However, none of us are angry with Mary. We have no problem with Mary. We would be only too happy to venerate her if given credible biblical instruction to do so. But as it stands, what you've presented so far isn't credible.

andree wrote:

Please remember the Catholic Church is the orginal, the one that brought you the bible by the power of the Holy Spirit, that has kept the bible and protected the bible. Why would she do otherwise?

I study and research Church history. The Catholic Church did not bring us the Bible, they tried hard to keep it from us, burning men at the stake for trying to bring it to the people.

No one should marvel at the division between Baptists and Catholics, for from the very founding of the Baptist movement, the Catholic Church sought to exterminate the Anabaptists.

The latin vulgate was the first Latin bible out to the entire Roman empire, this was the done by Catholic Church Council under Pope Damasus in Rome after first deciding the table of contents, then commissioning St Jerome to translate the Canon into Latin from the Greek. "Vulgate" means vulgar or common latin that everyone new in the known world. So keep bearing false witness pjerwin. I bet none of your pastors told you about the 10 German translations, 6 italian,10 French,6 Dutch,4 Spanish,62 Hebrew and 22 Greek translations well before the protestant reformation even started. And what about the English Ango Saxon edtion in 600 AD, Anglo Saxon editions in the 7th and 8th century, St Bede edition in 731AD, King Alfred 901 AD, Wessex Gospels in 10th century, Lindisfarne Gospels 950 AD etc etc etc.

So do you want to change your sad fictional history pjerwin?

Tydale made over 2000 errors in his english translation and Martin Luther made over 3000 errors in German translation which is recognised by many scholars today as very poor translations indeed.

As for John Bockhold and his violant"Anabapists" followers it was the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church that dealt with him. He mislead his followers with false prophesies and killed any follower who doubted him including one of his wives who he beheaded personally, and then in a frenzy danced around her twitching body with his other wives. Yes a great start to the Baptist traditions of man, you must be so proud.

tarsus wrote:

The latin [sic] vulgate was the first Latin bible out to the entire Roman empire this was the done by Catholic Church Council under Pope Damasus in Rome after first deciding the table of contents, then commissioning St Jerome to translate the Canon into Latin from the Greek...

Actually, the story is a little more complex than that. Damasus I commissioned Jerome in 382 to revise Old Latin text of the four Gospels using the best Greek texts, which he completed in the 5th century. It didn’t become the versio vulgata until the 13th century.

The Vulgate is actually a compound work, only some parts of which are due to Jerome. The Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees wholly unrevised Old Latin; Baruch, 3 Esdras,[2]Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse were more or less revised by persons unknown from Old Latin. Tobias and Judith were a free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version; the Psalter, the Rest of Esther were translated by Jerome from the Septuagint; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon were translated by Jerome from the Greek of Theodotion; the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Psalter, were independently translated by Jerome from the Hebrew.

Jerome was forced out of Rome and settled in Bethlehem 3 years after being commissioned by Damasus I. He appears to have undertaken further new translations of other Septuagint books into Latin, but these are not found in the Vulgate. He translated all 39 books in the Hebrew, 38 of which were used in the Vulgate; his translation of the Psalms, which he labeled iuxta Hebraeos (close to the Hebrews) survives in only a very few Vulgate manuscripts.

tarsus wrote:

"Vulgate" means vulgar or common latin that everyone new [sic] in the known world.

Did everyone in the known world know Latin? Uh, no; but then again, it wasn't intended for everyone in the known world, was it? It was intended for the clergy alone; many of the priests didn’t even know Latin -- or at least couldn’t read Latin -- and so relied on oral transmission of the texts. General reading of the Bible by the laity wasn’t encouraged and by the middle ages, when people wanted the Bible in languages they could read it was increasingly discouraged. In 1080, George VII ordained that Latin should be the universal language of Catholic worship and excluded all vernacular readings of Scripture in public assemblies. In 1199, Innocent III prohibited private possession and reading of Scripture. These prohibitions were repeated in Toulouse in 1229: at Beziers in 1233, and at the Synod of Oxford in 1383.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

The Synod of Taragona in 1234 declared that no one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language and denounced as heretics anyone who refused to surrender any in their possession within eight days so they could be burned. This was continued by Pope Pius IX in his 1866 encyclical “Quanta Cura” and by Pope Leo XIII in the 1897 “Apostolic Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum.” So, based on historical fact, your argument falls flat.

tarsus wrote:

As for John Bockhold...

Ah, yes, as for Jan van Leiden (a.k.a. Jan Bockelson van Leiden, Jan Beukelsz, Jan Beukelszoon, John Bockelson, or John Bockold). It was long popular to simply lump-in all Anabaptists with radicals like Jan van Leiden, Thomas Müntzer, Jan Matthys, and the Zwickau Prophets, but since the publication in 1855 of Die Geschichte des Münsterischen Aufruhrs by Roman Catholic scholar Carl Adolf Cornelius, a deeper understanding of the Anabaptists has ensued. From Albert Henry Newman’s A History of Anti-Pedobaptism to William R. Estep’s The Anabaptist Story and beyond, knowledge of Anabaptist history has been clarified. It turns out that there were many more folks like Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, Jörg vom Haus Jacob (a.k.a. Georg Cajacob [George of the House of Jacob], and George Blaurock), Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Menno Simons -- pacifists all. It’s interesting that the movements led by violent radicals soon perished, but many of those initiated by the pacifists above continue to this day in the form of “the violent sects” known as the Amish, the various Brethren groups, the Hutterites, the Mennonites, and the Quakers. It was through the influence especially of the Mennonites that English Religious Separatists developed into today’s Baptists.

tarsus wrote:

...it was the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church that dealt with him.

Of course, this is reference to Jan van Leiden/John Bockold. Many more Anabaptists, including the pacifists, were “dealt with.” But how were they “dealt with?” It is convenient to say that it was the civil authorities who did so, even as there are claims that it was the Romans who crucified Christ. But who was responsible? Who passed judgment and required the state to do the dirty deed of execution? Execution was done not by the Church proper, which was forbidden to kill, but by Catholic secular officials.

Take, for example, the Franciscan Inquisitor Friar Cornelis, who took Anabaptist elder Jacob de Roore prisoner. Two Flemish government officials observed the Inquisition of Roore and when the good Friar condemned him to death they were required by the Catholic Church to execute him. In fact, one of the reasons for the rise of Anabaptism was opposition to the Roman Catholic union between Church and State.

We’re all aware of the Holy Roman Empire and the way it worked. It encompassed Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, significant parts of modern France, and present-day Poland. The papacy and the princes of the Empire worked hard to maintain their joint power. The Empire was comprised of territories governed by secular rulers and feudal territories led by clerical dignitaries who were considered princes of the Church. There were “prince-bishoprics” in which civil territories overlapped with often-larger ecclesiastical diocese, giving the bishops both temporal and clerical powers. One could only claim the title of “Emperor” only after being crowned by the Pope. Frequently he first had to resolve conflicts with the Pope. The last Emperor to be crowned by the Pope was Charles V.

Charles V issued a general mandate against the Anabaptists in 1528, which was read from the pulpits of all cities, towns, and villages, decreeing that not only those who had received baptism, but all parents who did not have their children baptized in good time were guilty of a criminal offense deserving death. In the first week of Lent that same year, King Ferdinand of Austria commissioned a company of executioners to root out the Anabaptist faith in his lands. And the story went on and on.

It is historical fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the Catholics opposed, persecuted, and had Anabaptists executed.

As far as the Jewish-ness of the Catholic Church, why were Jewish Christians shut-out of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus at which Maty was confirmed "Theotokos?" And why did the Catholic Church develop and adopt a liturgical calendar when there is a much better, wonderful, built-in Jewish liturgical calendar in the OT that perfectly teaches the Gospel, including Jesus' teaching that the first shall be last and the last shall be first?

And as for Mary herself, I think we would agree with Anabaptist Michael Sattler who said:

We never reviled the mother of God and the saints, but the mother of Christ should be esteemed above all women, for she had the favor of giving birth to the Savior of the world. But that she shall be an intercessor is not known in Scripture...

Tarsus wrote:

Look at our Catechism it clearly states on the front cover “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. It has never said Roman Catholic ever!

I took your challenge and you are right... sort of. But note the following: ¶ 194

The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is “the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith”.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say have the phrase “Roman Catholic Church,” but it does refer to it as “the Roman Church” (¶194, ¶1291, ¶1383) and “The holy Roman Church” (¶1059). In addition, the Catechism uses the designations: “the Roman catechism” (¶9, ¶25, ¶196, ¶987); “The Roman Pontiff” (¶882, ¶2034); “the Roman Rite” (¶1299); “the Roman liturgy” (¶2777); “Roman Missal” (¶380); and “Roman law” (¶2298).

Clearly, writers of the Catechism]/i] had no qualm with “Roman,” but I do understand the disdain you have for “Roman” Catholic Church. Our forebears experienced similar feelings when Catholics labeled them “Anabaptists” (Re-Baptizers) and “Dunkards” ...and worse.

pjerwin, no "Rome Catholic Church" hey, well well well! Thats because protestants made it up to help associate the Catholic Church with Roman paganism. Only Catholics were ever killed by the pagan Romans, not a single protestant was killed by them. Remember that!!!

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

Ignatius and Polycarp were both Catholic Bishops of Antioch and Smyrna these ancient quotes prove that. Plus they were also disciples of John the Apostle and personal friends. That is why we are the Catholic and Apostolic Church. They were also killed by the Roman pagans.

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).


“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).

Augustine refering to the True Religion and the unique name of the Catholic Church. When I call myself catholic everyone understands what I mean, I am a member of the Catholic Church.

pjerwin, you may not revile the mother of God, but remember her prophesy "All generations will call me blessed" has only been fulfilled in the Catholic Church. Only all generations of Catholics have called Her blessed. Protestants can`t claim that!

Because we are the Catholic Apostolic Church we have total Authority to teach and reprove and even punish. Remember the binding and loosing powers granted by Jesus, these are rabbinical expressions. Protestants have no such authority that is why no two protestants can`t agree on scripture`s meanings, even for things as critical as salvation.

The point is not so much “Roman Catholic” as it is “Roman,” and there is ample evidence directly from your own Catechism in your own Fathers’ words that yours considers itself Roman: “the Roman Church,” “the holy Roman Church,” “the Roman catechism,” “the Roman Pontiff,” “the Roman Rite,” “the Roman liturgy,” the “Roman Missal,” and “Roman law” referring to Catholic Church law. In your own words, yours is the Roman Church. The writers of the Catechism]/i] had no qualm with the term, why do you? What’s the big deal? Can you answer that simple question?

And let me ask you this: the phrase “Catholic Church” (της εκκλησιας του καθολου; tés ekklésias tou katholou) is not known in the Bible. We find the word καθολου in 8 places, so the word is not unknown. Why no “Catholic Church,” if it’s that important?

Tarsus wrote:

Because we are the Catholic Apostolic Church we have total Authority to teach and reprove and even punish... Protestants have no such authority that is why no two protestants can`t [sic] agree on scripture`s meanings, even for things as critical as salvation.

Yes, yes, I realize you’re much superior to us. The Catholic Church conferred these rights exclusively on themselves in the First Vatican Council. The Papacy has never been divided. There never was a problem between Rome and Avignon, never a split between the Eastern Church (Orthodox) and Western Church (Catholic), never had Catholic clerics disagree with the Papacy to the point of splitting, no schism with Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or thousands of others. You agree so well that the Brothers can’t even belong to the same order: Jesuit, Franciscan, Benedictine, Augustinian, yadda, yadda -- even divisions with the orders. There is no division between Catholics in Rome and in America over issues of abortion, homosexuality, ordination of women to the priesthood, or even basic issues regarding the Sacraments. It’s all sunshine, puppies, and rainbows in the Roman Church.

Yes, the Roman Church has authority to teach and reprove and punish, and there is ample historical evidence that it has exercised its authority to punish. Papal authorities have ordered the execution of Protestants of various stripes along with other “heretics.” You can deny it all you want, but historical fact is just that.

Tarsus wrote:

Remember the binding and loosing powers granted by Jesus, these are rabbinical expressions.

So answer the basic questions regarding the Jewish-ness of the Catholic Church. If the OT must be fulfilled in the manner you suggest, why has the Catholic Church replaced God’s Jewish calendar that clearly teaches the Gospel of Christ with a calendar of its own device? Why doesn’t the Catholic Church observe the Solemn Assemblies as described in the OT and the Talmud?

Of course, the whole thrust of this discussion demonstrates that there is much more that divides Catholics and Protestants than the veneration of Mary. Why should we bother when the “anathemas” of the Council of Trent still stand?

Protestants have murdered more Catholics than grains of sand down the generations for 100`s years in Britain and Ireland. Luther killed 100,000 Catholics in 1 year, and he and his powerful aristocratic friends stole all the Catholic Church`s property for themselves.

"We concede, as we must, that so much of what they (the Catholic Church)say is true:that the papacy has Gods word and the office of the apostles, and that we have recieved Holy Scriptures,Baptism,the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Martin Luther Session IV, April 8, 1546

He admits that he has broken from the Office of the Apostles, and taken the Catholic Church`s most Sacred Book amongst every other important thing. Common theif in other words.

pjerwin, what does all Authority mean?

The Catholic Church has All Authority on earth and in heaven, it is Christs Body, so what is the problem with changing the calander, the Catholic Church changed the sabbath to Sunday for example.

You protestants have no authority to turn to. If there is a problem your churches split division builds upon division.

"There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads, this one will not allow Baptism, that one rejects the Sacrament of the alter, another places another world between the present and the day of judgement, some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he maybe, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth his ravings and dreams." Martin Luther

"It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation at issue amongst ourselves." John Calvin

Just as the people of Babel tried to transend the Divine by building a tower to heaven, so to protestants tried to transend the divine by claiming to understand the "Eternal Word" without the Holy Spirit guided Catholic Church. As a result they too were scattered, from the One Flock and One Shepherd. Private interpretation is the surest way to hell, because the Truth of the Gospel becomes a matter of cheap personal opinion, scarey if you are talking matters of salvation.

Okay, one thing we know about you is that you won’t -- or, perhaps, can’t -- answer basic questions about your faith when presented with undeniable biblical and historical facts, so let’s just deal with the only things you appear to be willing to discuss.

The Catholic Church has all the authority, you say. Okay, say we accept that. Given the “remarkable unity” of those who call themselves “Catholic,” we should have and easy go at following the Catholic faith. However, we have to ask ourselves, “Which Church claiming to be Catholic -- the true and faithful Catholic Church -- and claiming to have that authority should we follow?” Do we accept the Western Church (Catholic), the Eastern Church (Orthodox) -- or one of the various other Catholic Churches? It should be an easy choice, given that only Protestants are given to schismatic division. The only choice should be the holy Roman Church, as it is referred to in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and which you, disdaining the term “Roman” for some unknown reason, will refer to only as “the Catholic Church.” But our choices also include the following, each of which is fully autonomous of the Vatican and of one another:

• The True Catholic Church
• The Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church
• The Dutch Roman Catholic Church of the Old Episcopal Order
• The Traditionalist Roman Catholic Society of St. Pius X
• The Roman Catholic Womenpriests
• The Eastern Catholic Churches
• The Ancient Catholic Church
• The Old Catholic Church
• The Italian Old Catholic Church
• The Evangelical Old Catholic Communion
• Old Catholics for Christ
• The Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch – Malabar Rite
• The Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch – Young Rite
• The Catholic Apostolic Charismatic Church of “Jesus the King”
• The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
• The Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches
• The Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada
• The Antiochian Catholic Church in America
• The Polish National Catholic Church
• The Liberal Catholic Church
• The Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches
• The Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat in Ukraine
• The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association
• The Mariavite Church
• The Community of the Lady of All Nations
• Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen
• The Free Catholic Church
• The Free Church of Antioch
• Anglo-Catholicism
• The Kakure Kirishitan
• The Liberal Catholic Church International
• The Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States of America
• The Mariavite Church
• Married Priests Now!
• The Mercersburg Theology
• The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God
• The Obispo Maximo
• The Order of Corporate Reunion
• The Primitive Catholic Church
• The Reformed Society of Jesus
• The Scottish Church Society
• The Synod of Saint Timothy
• The Ultrajectine Church
• The Hochkirchliche St.-Johannes-Bruderschaft
• The Hochkirchliche Vereinigung Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses
• The Valid but illicit
• The Breakaway Catholic Churches (Sand Box)
• The Jansenist Church of Holland
• The Orthodox Church in America
• The Catholic Diocese of the Old Catholics in Germany
• The Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland
• The Philippine Independent Church
• The Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands
• The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
• The Palmarian Catholic Church
• The Oriental Orthodox Church
• The African Orthodox Church
• The Lusitanian Orthodox Church
• The Evangelical Orthodox Church
• The Antiochan Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
• The Philippine Independent Church
• The Nordic Catholic Church
• The Old Calendar Eastern Orthodox
• The Ecumenical Catholic Communion the Free Church of Antioch
• The Coptic Church
• The Carmelite Order of the Holy Face
• The Sedevacantists
• The Conclavists
• The Followers of Pope Michael (David Bawden)
• Eastern Rite Catholics
• The Universal Catholic Church

I’m kind of drawn to that last one because they believe they’re really, REALLY catholic.

This is particularly important because salvation is apparently tied to the Catholic Church -- so we really need to know WHICH ONE.

Tarsus wrote:

You protestants have no authority to turn to. If there is a problem your churches split division builds upon division.

That seems to be the way for Catholics as well. The original Church was found in Jerusalem, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles, but then the Church at Rome claimed superiority and, not just ultimate, but sole authority. From there, divisions have arisen over so many things, not the least of which includes:

• Papal infallibility and the authority of the Vatican
• the Immaculate Conception
• transubstantiation
• using the filioque and deum de deo clauses in the Nicene Creed
• support of the Nazis
• ordaination of women to the priesthood
• individual primacy of conscience in ethical matters
• private confession
• artificial contraception
• ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians
• acceptability and blessing of same-sex marital unions
• abortion
• contraception
• divorce
• theosophy
• New Age orientation
• use of pagan rites in masses and other services
• the character understanding of holy orders
• ecumenism
• the interpretation of Second Vatican Council
• the “dignity of man" v. “original sin” and the need for supernatural grace

There indeed is remarkable unity in the Catholic faith. I wonder why your argument isn't more convincing.

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house." Augustine 397 AD.

pjerwin, for all your bluster, all I still have to say is, Where is the Catholic Church? in any city or country and I`m well understood and everyone knows there is only one Catholic Church.

As Augustine says all heretics wish to be called Catholic but they are not and never will be.

Thanks for making the point. Facts mean nothing to you and you're incapable of engaging in a discussion on any level. I have close fellowship and good discussions with my collegues, Father Todd and Father Scott. They have no problem asnwering the questions I've posed without resorting to the "because you're not Catholic" argument.

Tarsus wrote:

...I still have to say is, [sic] Where is the Catholic Church? [sic] in any city or country and I`m well understood and everyone knows there is only one Catholic Church.

That's a great reason to be Catholic because everybody knows there's one Catholic Church. I actually tried that in my city tonight. There were as many who didn't know as there were who weren't sure or didn know. Here's the answer I got from my Catholic friend, Jean (a former nun, BTW, who now lives with here lesbian partner): "Well, it depends on what kind of "Catholic" church you're lookig for. My church is Agape of Jesus Catholic Altenative Church. We've got married priests, women priests, and open communion, but we're not Catholic-Catholic, if you know what I mean. I used to attend Incarnation Catholic Church, but they're not really that "Catholic" either -- you know, kind of contemporary... no confession, no "Hail, Mary, full of grace," and it's not really like a "mass," you know? It's all really positive. But if you want something a little more traditional -- like Roman (her emphasis, not mine) Catholic -- then there's St. Clement, Our Lady of the Pillar (kind of cool), St. Lawrence, and St. A's -- you know, where they had the fish fry? St. Mark's Old Roman Catholic Church isn't too far away, either, and Sarah goes there. They're kind of different. You could try St. Michael Antiochian Orthodox Church, it's not Roman Catholic, but it's pretty similar in some ways. And there's that Greek Orthodox Church... I can't remember what it's called. Anyway, why do ask?" When I explained the exchange on the forum and Tarsus' opinion, she said, "Oooh, yeah. Well, in a sence that's true, but you know, we're all different. Even in the traditional Roman Catholic Churches, they don't always do what the Vatican tells them. American Catholics are pretty independent."

Now, if I ask someone in the city about Southern Baptists, they know what I'm talking about and they know they can find one anytime they want. They have a pretty good idea about what we believe and how we operate. Some don't know much about us, but they know they don't like us. (Not us personally, but our churches.)

I like Augustine. I use some of his stuff, along with the other Church Fathers, and folks like Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton (Brother Louis), in my devotions. Here's one of Augustine's prayers:

O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen.

For Baptists, enough said.

Probably the best answer to the veneration of Mary comes from Jesus Himself:

He [Jesus] came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." ...His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him. A crowd seated around him told him, "Your mother and your brothers (and your sisters) are outside asking for you." But he said to them in reply, "Who are my mother and (my) brothers?" And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. (For) whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:20-35; c.f. Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21 NAB)

And if Mary should be venerated as our Catholic brothers and sisters say, what of Jerusalem?

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise. Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother. For it is written: "Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband." (Galatians 4:22-27 NAB)

Given what Paul wrote to the Galatians, shouldn't the Catholics revere Jerusalem more than Rome?

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8)

"Even if we," meaning the Apostles, "or an angel from heaven," and I would say, "or a Bishop from Rome."

The Catholic Church that puts out the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the one you should look to, there is only one of those!

What you need to realize is the Catholic Church has never ever taught a Gospel contrary to the Apostles. Thats the a job of protestants to teach false gospels, and remain in division.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

That's the Gospel and that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that there is another mediator, the woman Mary. Bottom line: that's a different gospel, "which is no gospel at all."

If you cannot see that, your mind has been blinded by the god of this world so that you "might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ[/b[, Who is the image of God. (II Cor. 4:4)

(poor formatting, sorry)

If you cannot see that, your mind has been blinded by the god of this world so that you "might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God. (II Cor. 4:4)

pjerwin, don`t you understand, you would not know the Gospel,grace, faith and you would not even have a bible without the Catholic Church. Luther even admits this much!

I have established that the Catholic Church is Jewish in origin, this alone should indicate you are not in the true church. There is no global Roman Catholic Church, there is only the one Catholic Church which is headed by the Vatican, you even proved it yourself!

Thousands upon thousands of protestants are pouring back into the Catholic Church, because they find that there is no protestant authority which can resolve doctrinal and moral disputes. Classic sheep without a shepherd. The Archbishop of Cantabury tried to state a doctrine once, that all were to adhere, then fellow protestants said, "Who do you think you are the Pope?", and nothing got resovled.

There is only one mediator between God and man, for the eternal salvation of man, Jesus Christ, you would not even know that without the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had exclusive ownership of the NT scripture for 1500 years before protestants even existed. To have protestants try to tell the Catholic Church about the Bible is like a small child trying tell his grandfather how to wittle a stick.

Look, in reality, I feel very charitable toward the Catholic Church. I enjoy my fellowship with the Priests in our local parish, Father Todd and Father Scott. I take retreats to the Abbey south of here and receive spiritual direction from Brother Matthew at the Catholic Seminary to the west. One of my favorite commentary sets is The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series and I read Catholic authors for devotion and spiritual formation. I appreciate much about the Catholic faith and am aware of how much we owe to her.

One of the things we -- my fellow Protestant ministers -- talked about with Father Todd when he arrived at the Parish was our ecumenical Bible study group. He always attended and participated, but he always confessed, "I really don't know much about the Bible." He admits that while we might not have the Bible if it were not for the Catholic Church, if it had been left to the Catholic Church, laypeople probably never would have had access to any more than appears in the missals.

I also know that what Luther wanted was to help reform the Catholic Church, as did other early reformers. Bernard and others recognized the excesses of various areas of the Catholic Church long before the Protestant Reformers and were more fortunate in the response they received. The Catholic Church refused to seriously reform until faced with the Protestants.

You didn't need to establish that the Church is Jewish in origin -- it's common knowledge. But using its authority, it jettisoned much that is important to the Christian faith because of the antisemitism of folks like Augustine.

While you continue to protest, I have actually proven that the Catholic Church is as fractured and divided as any Christian denomination. There are so many bodies claiming the moniker "Catholic" that aren't in fellowship with the Roman Pontiff (as he is designated in The Catechism of the Catholic Church) and have nothing to do with the Vatican that it's difficult to keep track of. I only provided a partial list.

Thousands upon thousands of Catholics are leaving the Catholic Church because, though it claims to have authority which can resolve doctrinal disputes, it increasingly lacks moral authority. Classic sheep who have been abused by shepherds. Why do you think all those Catholic Bishops and Priests and theologians left during the Reformation? Abuses from the Vatican.

If you believe Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man, why rely on Mary? Augustine's own prayer to Mary reveals that Catholics rely on Mary for the remission of sins: "O blessed Virgin Mary... who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world... it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration... obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee... for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward...

Clearly, Jesus Christ is not the only mediator for the remission of sin for Catholics.

Had you not so vociferously argued against reason and history and fact, let alone biblical evidence, based solely on the self-proclaimed authority of the Roman Church (as it is referred to in your Catechism of the Catholic Church), I would have engaged you in a more charitable manner.

The Catholic Church cannot teach against its own Bible. You have simply privately interpreted scripture to believe what you want to believe. The bible does not come from your church, it comes from the Catholic Church.

I have quoted the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and scripture how reasonable and historical can you get. I notice you have bought into the Catholic Church helped the nazis, lie, don`t do it you will only embarass yourself. Pius XII as cardinal did 44 speeches in Germany denouncing the nazis and anti-semitism and numerous official protests and letters on behalf of the Jews. As Pope he wrote an encyclical "summi pontificatus" denouncing anti-semitism, while surrounded by 70,000 German troops, and harboring 7000 Jews in Vatican City and a further 3000 Jews in Castel Gondolfo (Popes summer residence). The Pope nearly matched the total number of Jewish refugees into America with the tiny Vatican City and his summer residence. The Jews were clothed, bedded and fed kosha food the Pope gave 100,000 dollars (his total family inheritance) to help keep and feed the Jews. Did any protestant do any one of these things. Not even a political leader did anything like Pius XII. Infact research the ship of shame where an enormous boat load of Jewish refugees arrived in America by ship and were turned back to Germany and every single one of them died in the gas chambers. Politicians were anti-semitic and didn`t want Jews into America and this was the case in Britain aswell.

As a result of the Catholic Church protecting the Jews more than 3 million Catholics were thrown into gas chambers with the Jews. So it was a Catholic Holochaust aswell as a Jewish Holochaust. So as far as moral authority pjerwin the Catholic Church has plenty. The Catholic Church saved 860 000 Jews throughout occupied Europe.

The Protestant Reich Church would be a good start to see what protestants were up to during WWII.

Tarsus wrote:

I have quoted the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and scripture how reasonable and historical can you get.

As have I and you have rejected or ignored the evidence from your own sources.

Tarsus wrote:

I notice you have bought into the Catholic Church helped the nazis, lie...

Once again, you failed to read what I actually wrote. I wrote that it is an issue that has caused division in the Catholic Church. I know that the nature of the Roman Church’s relations with the Nazi Party's is complex, as is true with the Lutheran Church. But Hans Küng, a Vatican advisor during Vatican II, wrote, “Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years’ pre-history of ‘Christian’ anti-Judaism.” The foundation of anti-Semitism laid by the Roman Church and built upon by Luther may have made it possible for Naziism to rise, but Hitler felt that religious anti-Semitism was insufficient and would never by itself lead to the final, permanent solution he wanted.

The Church Fathers often emphasized what came to be called “Supersessionism,” which believes that Israel has been superseded by the Church. Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria advocated physical violence or murder of Jews and Augustine believed that Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Aquinas wrote:

...as the laws say, the Jews by reason of their fault, are sentenced to perpetual servitude, and thus the lords of the lands in which they dwell may take things from them as though they were their own, with, nonetheless, this restraint observed: that the necessary subsidies of life in no way be taken from them...

Even Pope Clement VIII wrote:

All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.

While Pius XII was speaking out strongly against Naziism, a good number of “Brown Priests” actively supported the Nazis (Kevin Spicer wrote about that just a couple of years ago in a book titled Hitler's Priests: Catholic Clergy and National Socialism) and Franciscan Priests in Yugoslavia were involved in the Ustaša, whose symbol was a cross atop a capital “U” and who served as a puppet regime of the Nazi Party. Father Bernhard Stempfle, a fellows prisoner with Hitler at Landsberg am Lech, is credited as an editor of Mein Kampf. And Archbishop of Slovakia in 1942, Karol Kmetko, responded to the Jewish plea for assistance, saying, “You shall not merely be deported. You shall be killed. And this will be your punishment for your killing of our Saviour.”

Even though I had not written about it previously, I must say that Catholic anti-Semitism made the Nazi question more complex for the Roman Church. The picture is no better, perhaps worse, for the Lutheran Church. But all of that aside, what I previously wrote is that the issue of Naziism created divisions and factions in the Roman Church that will never be healed, creating Catholic Churches of various stripes with no relationship with the Roman Pontiff or the Vatican. For instance, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, founded by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa in the 40s, split from Rome in protest over the perceived support of the Roman Church for fleeing Nazis.

About 6 million Jews are believed to have been killed during the Holocaust along with about 7 million Christians -- 3 million of them Catholic and 4 million Protestant. Once again, your reading of history falls short. The Roman Church’s moral authority is as tainted as that of Protestants. The Protestant Reich Church (aka, Reichskirche; Deutsche Evangelische Kirche; German Evangelical Church) was established by Hitler himself in the early 30s. It was initially supported by the regime, but they lost interest when it failed to absorb traditional Christian churches and after 1937, relations between the Reich Church and the Nazi government soured, about the same time Pope Pius XI published the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, which listed breaches of an agreement between the Nazi’s and the Roman Church and included criticism of the Party’s racism and other aspects of Nazi ideology.

As far as “private interpretation” goes:

...we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

That’s why I prefer to let Scripture interpret itself and take anything any human being has to say about it with a grain of salt. If it agrees with the testimony of the Prophets and the Apostles as it has been passed down through the Bible, I’ll accept it. But interpretation of Scripture isn’t the private purview of the Roman Church.

I'm beginning to believe that Tarsus is a Protestant, perhaps a Baptist, playing "Devil's Advocate."

the correction says:

Alluding to the relationship of Hispanic American Protestants with culture, Lozano stressed the need of evaluating, under the light of Jesus, what is life giving in the culture, and rejecting what is oppressive. She continued by affirming that reevaluating and embracing the biblical Mary can be both healthy for all women and a bridge between Latin American Protestants and Catholics.

Does this fix the article?

I reread the article with the correction, trying not to let the prior wording prejudice me. Editorially, paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 seem oddly out of place, abruptly interrupting the flow of thought. They should more logically followed paragraph 15 (though 15 should not have constituted a paragraph separate from 14).

That aside, I still have a question for Lozano (and I may send her an inquiry). Noting the cultish elevation of Mary to the status of “demigoddess” in Latin American countries, why does Lozano blame the barrier between Catholics and Baptists on overreaction by Baptists? What are these Latin American Baptists reacting to? In their minds, whether consciously or subconsciously, they’re responding to a gross overemphasis, at best, and near-idolatry, at worst. If devotion wasn’t given to such excess as mass veneration of weeping statues, weeping paintings, apparitions in windows of a finance building in Ohio, apparitions on a rock in Ghana, apparitions on an underpass in Chicago, etc., the response wouldn’t be as “extreme” as ambivalence toward Mary.

At the same time, Lozano posits that the veneration of Mary presents a problem for women. It shouldn’t present a problem for Baptists on doctrinal grounds, but it does present a problem for women based on self-image.