Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist

Religions > Atheism > Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 4 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	08 Jun 2007 06:44:57 AM
Object:	Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1842528/posts
DEVIL ESPECIALLY HATES PRAYERS IN LATIN, SAYS A PRIEST KNOWN AS
'ROME'S EXORCIST'
SpiritDaily ^ | May 30, 2007
Posted on 05/31/2007 8:43:12 AM PDT by NYer
A secular book about exorcism says that one thing rankles demons.
"The devil doesn't like Latin," writes Tracy Wilkinson in The
Vatican's Exorcists. "That is one of the first things I learned from
Father Gabriele Amorth, long known as Rome's chief exorcist, even
though that has never been his formal title.
"Now past the age of eighty, Father Amorth has dedicated the last
decades of his life to regaining a measure of respectability for
exorcism. Despite his advancing age, he continues to perform the rite
several times a week at his office in Rome.
"Scores of people seek him out. He prefers to use Latin when he
conducts exorcisms, he says, because it is most effective in
challenging the devil."
That tidbit comes to us at a time when Benedict XVI is ready to loosen
restrictions on Latin Mass. It's in the new book -- a secular and
sometimes skeptical but fascinating glimpse into the world of Italian
priests who see their job as casting out demons.
While the numbers dwindle in countries like the Canada, France, and
the U.S., exorcists are on the rise on the Vatican's home turf --
thanks largely to priests such as Father Amorth.
In Italy the number of exorcists has grown tenfold in the past decade,
according to the priest (who is himself author of two bestsellers, An
Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories). Credit is
also due to the legacy of John Paul II -- who made the notion of
exorcism, which was founded by Jesus Himself, respectable again.
Father Amorth was born in Modena in northern Italy and has been a
priest since 1954. In 1986 he began performing exorcisms under the
tutelage of the vicar for Rome.
According to Wilkinson, Father Amorth accepted the task "after praying
to the Virgin Mary for her steadfast guidance and protection."
"On the walls of Amorth's exorcism chamber, eight Crucifixes and
pictures of the Madonna are hanging, plus a picture of Saint Michael
the Archangel," says the book. "A two-foot-high statue of the Virgin
Mary, the Madonna of Fatima, sits on a corner table.
"There are also pictures of the late Pope John Paul II; the popular
saint Padre Pio; Amorth's mentor, Father Candido; and Father Giacomo
Alberione, the founder of the Society of Saint Paul Congregation."
Father Amorth calls them "my protectors," adding that "the more recent
addition of John Paul's has been especially effective and helpful."
"The demons become very agitated at his presence," Father Amorth says
of the late Pope -- who himself performed several exorcisms during his
pontificate and warned of the rise of dark forces both in 1977 and
then in 2005 just days before he lapsed in his final bout with
illness.
How is exorcism done? There is the Crucifix. There is the Holy Water.
There are the ritual prayers. Many times, those afflicted have to come
back on a regular basis -- the process a gradual one.
In Father Amorth's appointment book, women outnumber men by three to
one. That is perhaps because they are more in tune with the spiritual,
says the exorcist, or because they are special targets as the
descendants of Eve.
The very word "hysteria" -- so often seen in the possessed -- comes
from the Greek word hyster for womb. Greeks believed it was caused by
abnormalities in the uterus.
"I maintain that in part, the reason is because women are the ones who
do the most praying," says the priest. "Another reason is women are
more inclined to approach a priest than are men, in case of need."
In some cases, say other exorcists, the devil attempts to mask
possession as insanity. This sets up conflict with the far newer
practice of psychology -- which looks down on exorcism as the
psychiatrist's couch has replaced the confessional.
"An exorcism is the residue of a medieval practice completely devoid
of any foundation in reason," the book quotes Sergio Moravia, a
philosopher at the University of Florence, as saying. "I don't think
it's crazy. It's worse."
Exorcists counter that psychological diagnoses such as "multiple
personality" and "schizophrenia" are clinical covers for an
infestation.
That opinion is shared by the many who have sought the services of
Father Amorth -- finding relief when the devil was cast away after
years of frustration at the hands of psychiatrists who saw their
problems so differently.
Blessed salt and Holy Water are often used not just by the exorcists
themselves, but by those who have been exorcised -- to stave off
further disturbances.
Extraordinary strength, preternatural knowledge, speaking in foreign
tongues unknown to the victim, vomiting of strange objects, and
violent aversion to holy objects make pure psychological explanations
suspect in strong cases.
Prayer, of course, also chases the devil and his manifestations away
-- apparently, Latin in particular.
Bishop Andrea Gemma of Isernia -- who himself performs exorcisms --
ascribes the Church's move from Latin as part of a global plot to
undermine Christianity.
"The devil is happy with the near-disappearance of Latin," said the
bishop.
Does exorcism mask psychological illness with the supernatural, or is
psychology itself a ruse, at least in certain instances, to prevent
deliverance?
We have only to study the ministry of Jesus to know the answer.
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 03:18:20 AM

CE wrote:

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

I sould have qualified this with "and was the Son of God".

In addition to the bible, which records His life and teachings

And as historical evidence is completely wanting. Hey, guess what. I read in
the Koran that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. That must be true
too.

there
are also the references to Him in historical documents

Oh yeah...where exactly that hasn't been completely refuted as historical
evidence.

the evidence
of the existence of the church He founded

Jesus didn't found a new church. Jesus considered himself a Jew.

and the divine revelations
and miracles that have been witnessed by saints for centuries.

Get the fawk outta heah. You mean like the image of Jesus in the grilled
cheese sandwich? No. Then what?

Why is Christianity supposed to
be monotheistic when Catholics pray to hundreds of gods?

Catholics do not pray to hundreds of gods.

Obviously you didn't grow up in South Buffalo. They prayed to a dead priest
among hundreds of others.

We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

Three persons...one god. Don't you see what a mindbending mental contortion
that is? How is that different from saying that all of the Greek Pantheon
was but a single god with many persons?

The saints in heaven, which would seem to be the only group to
which you might be referring, are not to be worshipped as gods. Since
the saints are alive in heaven as we hope one day to be, be only ask
them to intervene for us and to pray for us.

If statues, coins, jewelry, hospitals etc. are made for them, named for
them, and in their image...this is worship. What you do in prayer is
irrelevent, though I can assure that many, if not most, Catholics pray to
saints to help them directly.

Why has God been so

silent the past 2000 years?

God has not been silent for the past 2000 years. There have been
revelations given to saints and God also always talks to us through
our circumstances, including our friends and even our enemies.

Oh yeah. When? Where?
If your God is so powerful, don't you think he would have a more efficient
method of communicating with his loyal subjects and members of the loyal
opposition like me?

Why didn't Jesus
come back when he said he would?

Jesus said He would come back before the race to which He was speaking
would pass away. Those were the jews. And against amazing opposition,
the jews have survived now for 2,000 years since Jesus left.

More rationilization. He said he would return before some of those to whom
he was speaking had "tasted death".

Is an immaculate conception really the most
parsimonous explanation for Jesis' birth?

The immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus' birth at all. The
virgin birth is the term used to explain how Jesus was conceived and
born. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's birth.

Whoops! Right you are. OK...is the virgin birth still the most parsimonous
explanation?

I could go on and on. But moreso, I feel that the general curiosity
of the world that is science suits me better than the intellectually
stunting of religious dogma.

Haha...there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 05:28:51 PM

Geoff wrote:

CE wrote:

We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

Three persons...one god. Don't you see what a mindbending mental
contortion that is? How is that different from saying that all of the
Greek Pantheon was but a single god with many persons?

Ask him to explain it.
<TRICK QUESTION>
Please explain how there can be three "persons" in one one god?
</TRICK QUESTION>
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 07:26:30 PM

On Jun 10, 7:28 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Geoff wrote:

CE wrote:

We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

Three persons...one god. Don't you see what a mindbending mental
contortion that is? How is that different from saying that all of the
Greek Pantheon was but a single god with many persons?

Ask him to explain it.
<TRICK QUESTION>
Please explain how there can be three "persons" in one one god?
</TRICK QUESTION>

I already did explain it. You may want to scroll up in the thread.
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 09:10:17 AM

On Jun 10, 5:18 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

I sould have qualified this with "and was the Son of God".

In addition to Jesus' own statements and actions in the bible in which
He identifies Himself with God, and the statements made by His
apostles, there is also evidence from sources outside the bible that
support the biblical concept of Jesus as the Christ. Here is a little
something about sources outside the bible which support the divinity
of Jesus Christ.
_______________________________________________
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Contributed by Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an
accurate and trustworthy historical document,
many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there
is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that
corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books,
F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who
was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in
Josephus and the like," there was no historical
evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to
Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little
upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking,
"Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there
reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes,
such collateral proof is available," and we will be
looking at some of it in this article.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi
calls "probably the most important reference to
Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's
decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had
destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations,
called Christians by the populace. Christus, from
whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the
reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first
source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic)
reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice,
first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a
historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ.
He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding
to the Roman method of execution known as
crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of
Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This
confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that
Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous
superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also
in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is
here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early
church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen
from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly
speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre
occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man
who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How
else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early
Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger
to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia
Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112,
he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal
proceedings against those accused of being
Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about
this issue because a great multitude of every age,
class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he
has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was
light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to
Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any
wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud,
theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when
they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which
it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of
food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into
the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we
see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship.
Second, their worship was directed to Christ,
demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore,
one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns
were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather
distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were
worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this
interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that
Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of
course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament
doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians
believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the
high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny
notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn
oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source
in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's
reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely
alludes to their observance of communion and the
"love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian
claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and
innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes
made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual
cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such
slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must
sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can
be found in the writings of Josephus, a first
century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities,
he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing,
reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish
Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the
brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how
this agrees with Paul's description of James in
Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs
us that "few scholars have questioned" that
Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one,
which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium
Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to
call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats.
.. . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be
crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give
up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . .
restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . .
not
disappeared.{17}
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the
passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later
altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth
century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered?
Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that
anyone but a Christian would have made some of these
statements.{19}
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but
the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to
call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than
human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have
said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly
asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later
refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on
the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored
to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely
to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we
are still left with a good deal of corroborating
information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man
who performed surprising feats. And although He
was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship
and became known as Christians. When we
combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as
"the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture
emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It
increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the
"historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian
Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings
compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it
is naturally supposed that earlier references to
Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In
the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of
compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant
reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the
execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is
going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed
Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to
someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is
Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is
pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean
by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he
was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term
"hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance,
Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and
Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with
Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was
crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald
that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate
what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman
involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He
practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since
this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be
too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat
differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for
this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical
gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is
similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by
Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice
this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim
that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently
Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative
was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge
of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish
leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation
with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New
Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching
ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud
confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the
New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his
works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was
crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their
original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the
moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and
worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make
some significant comments about their founder. For
instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced
their novel rites." And though this man's followers
clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His
contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified
on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to
Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such
wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from
the moment of their conversion. That's harmless
enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the
Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living
according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone
being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't
say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with
their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was
more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him,
they apparently thought Jesus a greater God
than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination
of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both
Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second,
Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a
powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud
indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth,
Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was
crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred
under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve
of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references
to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and
Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers
believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and
Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as
God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian
sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from
the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of
information about Jesus as well. But since the
historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well
established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of
Jesus!"
__________________________________________________________

In addition to the bible, which records His life and teachings

And as historical evidence is completely wanting. Hey, guess what. I read in
the Koran that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse. That must be true
too.

A better example for your purposes would have been the Walt Disney
story of Dumbo the Elephant who flew through the air with his big
ears. It would have been more evidently ridiculous and modern.

there
are also the references to Him in historical documents

Oh yeah...where exactly that hasn't been completely refuted as historical
evidence.

Actually, scholars have written that there is by far more historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than any other figure from
antiquity.
You have to realize that when people do research into historical
figures from antiquity, there is often only scant evidence for the
person's existence and usually that is not direct evidence. Often, the
evidence is a reference made by someone at a later time to something
someone else said about the person being researched. In one case, the
only evidence for the person's existence was a single coin.
If we were to dismiss all the historical evidence for the existence of
Jesus, we would be left with little choice if we were intellectually
honest but to also dismiss the evidence for the existence of most - if
not all - of the other figures from antiquity.

the evidence
of the existence of the church He founded

Jesus didn't found a new church. Jesus considered himself a Jew.

Since Christian means a "follower of Christ," it only stands to reason
that Jesus, as the Christ, could not be a Christian. He wouldn't be
"following" Himself.
So, yes, Jesus was a Jew. He did, however, found a new church. In
Matthew 16:18, we are told He said: "And I say to you: That you are
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"

and the divine revelations
and miracles that have been witnessed by saints for centuries.

Get the fawk outta heah. You mean like the image of Jesus in the grilled
cheese sandwich? No. Then what?

I'm not familiar with the image of Jesus in the grilled cheese
sandwhich. Quite frankly, I don't see why an image made by butter
during the frying of a grilled cheese sandwhich should be considered a
divine revelation. Seems like more of a coincidence to me.
I was referring to divine revelations over the centuries such as the
apparitions of Jesus to Sister Faustina from 1931 to 1935.

Why is Christianity supposed to
be monotheistic when Catholics pray to hundreds of gods?

Catholics do not pray to hundreds of gods.

Obviously you didn't grow up in South Buffalo. They prayed to a dead priest
among hundreds of others.

When Catholics pray to saints, all they are supposed to be doing is
asking for that saint to intervene for them to the throne of God
through prayer. Perhaps the best known prayer to the saints is the
Hail Mary in which Catholics ask Mary, the mother of God, to "pray for
us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."
The reason Catholics pray for one another is because Jesus asked us to
and He also prayed for us, thereby giving us that example. We are also
shown in the bible that the saints are still alive in heaven and can
therefore pray unceasingly.

We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

Three persons...one god. Don't you see what a mindbending mental contortion
that is?

Not really. When two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of
oxygen, they form a new compound. In it's solid state, we call it ice.
In its liquid state, it is called water. As a gas, well, we usually
think of it as steam, although that's not strictly speaking accurate.
But there you have one compound, H2O, with three states: ice, water,
and steam.
Catholics have only one God. One God, three persons: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.

If statues, coins, jewelry, hospitals etc. are made for them, named for
them, and in their image...this is worship.

Well, first of all, the statues, coins, jewelry and hospitals are not
made for them. What does a saint need with a hospital? He or she is
never going to get sick again because he or she is in heaven for
eternity. We don't make those things for the saints, we make them for
ourselves.
So, the question then becomes: Why do we make these things? And the
answer is: To help us remember.
The saints recognized by the church are cannonized only to provide us
with examples of some people who answered God's call for their lives
with heroic virtue. That's what a saint is. A saint is someone who
answers God's call for their life with heroic virtue. We like to
remember these people because they provide examples to us of ways we
too can answer God's call for our lives in similar situations.
The statues and so forth are only there to help us remember these
people. In that sense, they are like the photograph of a good friend
you might carry in your wallet or jacket pocket. You don't worship
that person. You just don't want to forget them. The photograph helps
you remember and when you look at it you feel better because the
photograph helps you remember and feel closer to them.
In no way or at any time are Catholics supposed to worship the saints
as gods.

What you do in prayer is
irrelevent, though I can assure that many, if not most, Catholics pray to
saints to help them directly.

If so, then they should only be asking the saint to intervene for
them. The saint is just another person without special powers or
"godliness" and can do nothing other than a normal human being could.

Why has God been so

silent the past 2000 years?

God has not been silent for the past 2000 years. There have been
revelations given to saints and God also always talks to us through
our circumstances, including our friends and even our enemies.

Oh yeah. When? Where?

Well, I've already mentionned Sister Faustina, for example. There have
been many others.

If your God is so powerful, don't you think he would have a more efficient
method of communicating with his loyal subjects and members of the loyal
opposition like me?

:-) You're not a member of God's loyal opposition. You still care
enough about God to write about Him on the internet and spend a
considerable amount of time doing so. If you were really opposed to
God, you'd turn away from Him and stop paying any attention to Him.
You'd ignore Him.
As for the efficiency of God's method of communication, it seems
pretty effective to me. There are now one billion Catholics on the
planet and about as many, something like 900,000,000 non-Catholic
Christians. And there are many, many more people who have heard this
message of salvation and have simply rejected it. So, how many people
have had the message delivered to them? I think the precise number is:
a lot.
What's more amazing is that this all started with a single God-made-
man in what was then considered a backwater province of the Roman
Empire 2000 years ago. As far as messages go, this has to be one of
the most widely disseminated and popular messages of all time.

Why didn't Jesus
come back when he said he would?

More rationilization. He said he would return before some of those to whom
he was speaking had "tasted death".

Is an immaculate conception really the most
parsimonous explanation for Jesis' birth?

The immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus' birth at all. The
virgin birth is the term used to explain how Jesus was conceived and
born. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's birth.

Whoops! Right you are. OK...is the virgin birth still the most parsimonous
explanation?

If by that you are asking if the Virgin Birth is the best explanation,
then I'd have to say, yes, it is.

I could go on and on. But moreso, I feel that the general curiosity
of the world that is science suits me better than the intellectually
stunting of religious dogma.

Haha...there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

As someone who respects the scientific method, I'm sure you accept
that good science looks at the evidence and tests it without bias. If
you do that, you can't always be sure of the outcome of your
experimentation. Indeed, many discoveries were made by accident when
researchers found something else, something they didn't expect.
One day, you too may find that your quest for knowledge will lead you
back to the faith.
Besides, I'm not so sure there aren't any snowballs in hell. Every
winter, I hear my fellow Canadians say, "Man, it's cold as hell, eh?"
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 05:04:11 PM

CE wrote:
I will address the other part of your post some other time.

In addition to the bible, which records His life and teachings

And as historical evidence is completely wanting. Hey, guess what. I
read in the Koran that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse.
That must be true too.

A better example for your purposes would have been the Walt Disney
story of Dumbo the Elephant who flew through the air with his big
ears. It would have been more evidently ridiculous and modern.

Why? Disney doesn't try to ply it off as fact like Christians and Muslims do
their ridiculous stories.

there
are also the references to Him in historical documents

Oh yeah...where exactly that hasn't been completely refuted as
historical evidence.

Actually, scholars have written that there is by far more historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than any other figure from
antiquity.

Complete utter nonsense. All we have are second-hand (and worse) accounts.
On the other hand, for Julius Caesar, we have his own writings as well as
the writings of his enemies and allies in battle. There are laws and rulings
given directly by him when he became the big cheese.

You have to realize that when people do research into historical
figures from antiquity, there is often only scant evidence for the
person's existence and usually that is not direct evidence.

That's fine. I personally have no beef that a person named Jesus actually
existed. I'm not convinced of it, but it doesn't present a problem. But when
claims are made for miracles, etc. the paucity of evidence becomes a hurdle
that no Christian can clear. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.
Just so some ancient rulers. The evidence that they existed is pretty good
and isn't generally contested vigorously. But if they claim that they were a
god, we can pretty much dismiss that out of hand. No one would object.

Often, the
evidence is a reference made by someone at a later time to something
someone else said about the person being researched. In one case, the
only evidence for the person's existence was a single coin.

Like whom?

If we were to dismiss all the historical evidence for the existence of
Jesus, we would be left with little choice if we were intellectually
honest but to also dismiss the evidence for the existence of most - if
not all - of the other figures from antiquity.

I beg to differ. Your historical evidence is all questionable or ancillary.
The entries in Josephus were almost certainly entered afterwards by
Christian apologeticists. Tacitus' remarks are merely an account of Nero's
blaming Christians for the Great Fire. His only comment with regard to Jesus
was:
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty
during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,
again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even
in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world
find their centre and become popular."
This is not evidence that Jesus existed so much as a record of the claims of
the Christians, the wide majority of whom were not even alive when Jesus
was, much less ever heard of him before he died. Much less, this isn't
evidence of Jesus' divinity. Rather Tacitus seems more than a bit dismissive
of Christianity.

the evidence
of the existence of the church He founded

Jesus didn't found a new church. Jesus considered himself a Jew.

Since Christian means a "follower of Christ," it only stands to reason
that Jesus, as the Christ, could not be a Christian. He wouldn't be
"following" Himself.

It is your claim that he is "the Christ".

So, yes, Jesus was a Jew. He did, however, found a new church.

This is complete *****. Even after Jesus died, the apostles still
considered themselves to be Jews and ealy Christian converts still attended
temple. It wasn't until after the completion of the New Testament
(~100-140CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 CE that Christians really
began cutting ties to Judaism. Traditional observance of Sabbath on Saturday
continued until the Council of Laodicea in 363 CE.

In
Matthew 16:18, we are told He said: "And I say to you: That you are
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"

This is your evidence that Jesus did not condider himself a Jew and was
founding a new religion, is it? That's a pretty low bar.

and the divine revelations
and miracles that have been witnessed by saints for centuries.

Get the fawk outta heah. You mean like the image of Jesus in the
grilled cheese sandwich? No. Then what?

I'm not familiar with the image of Jesus in the grilled cheese
sandwhich. Quite frankly, I don't see why an image made by butter
during the frying of a grilled cheese sandwhich should be considered a
divine revelation. Seems like more of a coincidence to me.

I was referring to divine revelations over the centuries such as the
apparitions of Jesus to Sister Faustina from 1931 to 1935.

Oh really! You mean Faustina Kowalska? The gal that claimed she visited
Purgatory? The gal that painted a picture to which people prayed? Yeah,
Catholicism isn't too superstitious.

Why is Christianity supposed to
be monotheistic when Catholics pray to hundreds of gods?

Catholics do not pray to hundreds of gods.

Obviously you didn't grow up in South Buffalo. They prayed to a dead
priest among hundreds of others.

I understand the Holy See's rationalization of praying to saints, statues,
and stained glass. Surely, you know that rank-and-file Catholics pray
directly to saints, etc. to help them find jobs, have safe trips, and to
find lost articles. The rationalization is not very convincing. It just
backhandedly condones the practice of common superstition and cloaks it with
a veil aof acceptability.

The reason Catholics pray for one another is because Jesus asked us to
and He also prayed for us, thereby giving us that example. We are also
shown in the bible that the saints are still alive in heaven and can
therefore pray unceasingly.

All this praying and you would think that there would at least be some
evidence of its efficacy. But no. Not a bit.

We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

Three persons...one god. Don't you see what a mindbending mental
contortion that is?

Not really. When two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of
oxygen, they form a new compound. In it's solid state, we call it ice.
In its liquid state, it is called water. As a gas, well, we usually
think of it as steam, although that's not strictly speaking accurate.
But there you have one compound, H2O, with three states: ice, water,
and steam.

Catholics have only one God. One God, three persons: Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.

Wow great analogy! Sorry, bit it's a logical fallacy to have your entire
argument based on a metaphor.
So if we split God in two, how much energy is released? What is God's
ionization energy? When God and Jesus separated, what was the energy of
dissociation? Was it exothermic or endothermic? Where did the energy come
from and where did it go?

The saints in heaven, which would seem to be the only group to
which you might be referring, are not to be worshipped as gods.
Since the saints are alive in heaven as we hope one day to be, be
only ask them to intervene for us and to pray for us.

If statues, coins, jewelry, hospitals etc. are made for them, named
for them, and in their image...this is worship.

Well, first of all, the statues, coins, jewelry and hospitals are not
made for them.

Oh JTFC..."named for them" OK? Either you are being argumentative or just
plain stupid. My meaning was clear. I did not actually think that St. Jude
was in the cancer ward in Memphis.

What does a saint need with a hospital? He or she is
never going to get sick again because he or she is in heaven for
eternity. We don't make those things for the saints, we make them for
ourselves.

By naming them for the saints, that is worship. You can dance around that
all you like, but a spade is a spade.

So, the question then becomes: Why do we make these things? And the
answer is: To help us remember.

The saints recognized by the church are cannonized

If only.

only to provide us
with examples of some people who answered God's call for their lives
with heroic virtue. That's what a saint is. A saint is someone who
answers God's call for their life with heroic virtue. We like to
remember these people because they provide examples to us of ways we
too can answer God's call for our lives in similar situations.

What about the miracles. They have to have miracles. Even Mother Teresa,
that evil *****, has someone saying that she cured her after she died. Of
course, no rigorous examination of this claim was made and the Catholic
Church, true to it's superstitious core, accepts the claim out of hand.

The statues and so forth are only there to help us remember these
people. In that sense, they are like the photograph of a good friend
you might carry in your wallet or jacket pocket. You don't worship
that person. You just don't want to forget them. The photograph helps
you remember and when you look at it you feel better because the
photograph helps you remember and feel closer to them.

In no way or at any time are Catholics supposed to worship the saints
as gods.

Yet they do...all the time.

What you do in prayer is
irrelevent, though I can assure that many, if not most, Catholics
pray to saints to help them directly.

Rationalization of superstition.

Why has God been so

silent the past 2000 years?

God has not been silent for the past 2000 years. There have been
revelations given to saints and God also always talks to us through
our circumstances, including our friends and even our enemies.

Oh yeah. When? Where?

Well, I've already mentionned Sister Faustina, for example. There have
been many others.

And you think that's evidence of God talking to people? LOL, that's rich.

If your God is so powerful, don't you think he would have a more
efficient method of communicating with his loyal subjects and
members of the loyal opposition like me?

God doesn't exist. I'm only talking about him in a manner that you will
accept. How the ***** can any atheist ignore God when the very notion of God,
Allah, and Yahweh are constantly jammed down our throats. The damn Catholics
here in Cobb County are as bad as the Baptists and want to have Creationism
taught in public school. Fortunately, we and the Constitution beat them back
for now.

As for the efficiency of God's method of communication, it seems
pretty effective to me. There are now one billion Catholics on the
planet and about as many, something like 900,000,000 non-Catholic
Christians. And there are many, many more people who have heard this
message of salvation and have simply rejected it. So, how many people
have had the message delivered to them? I think the precise number is:
a lot.

So does that mean that Allah is second best? There are by most accounts
about 1.3 billion Muzzies and their numbers are growing faster than
Christians. Scientology and Mormons (I can't call them Christians) are
growing faster yet and have only been around for a fraction of the time.

What's more amazing is that this all started with a single God-made-
man in what was then considered a backwater province of the Roman
Empire 2000 years ago. As far as messages go, this has to be one of
the most widely disseminated and popular messages of all time.

No argument there.

Why didn't Jesus
come back when he said he would?

Jesus said He would come back before the race to which He was
speaking would pass away. Those were the jews. And against amazing
opposition, the jews have survived now for 2,000 years since Jesus
left.

More rationilization. He said he would return before some of those
to whom he was speaking had "tasted death".

Is an immaculate conception really the most
parsimonous explanation for Jesis' birth?

The immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus' birth at all. The
virgin birth is the term used to explain how Jesus was conceived and
born. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's birth.

Whoops! Right you are. OK...is the virgin birth still the most
parsimonous explanation?

If by that you are asking if the Virgin Birth is the best explanation,
then I'd have to say, yes, it is.

No. That's not what I asked.

I could go on and on. But moreso, I feel that the general curiosity
of the world that is science suits me better than the
intellectually stunting of religious dogma.

Haha...there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

As someone who respects the scientific method, I'm sure you accept
that good science looks at the evidence and tests it without bias. If
you do that, you can't always be sure of the outcome of your
experimentation. Indeed, many discoveries were made by accident when
researchers found something else, something they didn't expect.

One day, you too may find that your quest for knowledge will lead you
back to the faith.

You know what, one day Angelina Jolie might leave Brad Pitt to have a
weekend fling with me on her yacht in the Mediterranean. I'm not holding my
breath. See how we deal with probabilities?

Besides, I'm not so sure there aren't any snowballs in hell. Every
winter, I hear my fellow Canadians say, "Man, it's cold as hell, eh?"

If you think Canada is hell, you oughta go to Texas.
--
Geoff O'Furman
Head Coach, Varsity Hockey
University of Ediacara
AA #22??
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 05:30:05 PM

On Jun 10, 7:04 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

If you think Canada is hell, you oughta go to Texas.

Canada is wonderful. It's the greatest country on earth. But I would
like to see Texas. What sights would you recommend?
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	11 Jun 2007 09:16:43 AM

CE wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:04 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

If you think Canada is hell, you oughta go to Texas.

Canada is wonderful. It's the greatest country on earth. But I would
like to see Texas. What sights would you recommend?

The sign that says, "Leaving Texas, Now Entering America"
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 11:21:52 AM

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:10:17 -0000, CE <jlrisdon@gmail.com>
spoke thusly:

On Jun 10, 5:18 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

I sould have qualified this with "and was the Son of God".

What is funny, is that the writings were not originally
"the Bible". They were ancient writings that were
found and therefore, just because they're _now_
assembled together between a set of covers, they
claim that they can just dismiss them. Hmmm... :)
Do they do the same thing with all documents that
are combined together between a set of covers?
The truth is that these documents are about a historical
person, who was born within the same life time as those
people and anyone could easily have checked it out,
especially since they preached and wrote to many Jews
and these Jews were required to come to Jerusalem
every year for Passover and certainly would have
checked this out.
In other words, this was not about some guy who
is a fantasy, that is said to have been created by
some mystical force without a date being assigned
to him. This is a person who lived and walked
with those very same people! And there were
witnesses to His appearances after resurrection!
No Jew could have gotten away with this, within
days of His death, in Jerusalem, if it weren't true!
Nor would any Jew look o be shunned by the
Sanhedrin and the Temple, which was their whole
way of life, if what they said weren't true!
Amen!!! :)
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 05:13:21 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

Conversely, just because they are between two covers, idiots like you say
that it is the inspired word of God.

Do they do the same thing with all documents that
are combined together between a set of covers?

When such documents make claims even half as extraordinary as the New
Testament, you can be sure they will encounter plenty of skepticism.

The truth is that these documents are about a historical
person, who was born within the same life time as those
people and anyone could easily have checked it out,

The New Testament books were not completed in the lifetime of the apostles
and their authorship is not even a matter of controversy.

especially since they preached and wrote to many Jews
and these Jews were required to come to Jerusalem
every year for Passover and certainly would have
checked this out.

Hmmm..why do you say that? If a couple nutcases were passing out leaflets in
front of your church that said there was a guy that was executed in Texas 20
years ago because he could cure the lame and the lepers, would you pay it
much attention? Get real, man.

In other words, this was not about some guy who
is a fantasy, that is said to have been created by
some mystical force without a date being assigned
to him. This is a person who lived and walked
with those very same people! And there were
witnesses to His appearances after resurrection!

Funny how they don't agree on what happened. The most important thing that
happens in their shittly lives and they can't even remember who went to the
tomb first and if they saw Jesus.

No Jew could have gotten away with this, within
days of His death, in Jerusalem, if it weren't true!

Gotten away with what?

Nor would any Jew look o be shunned by the
Sanhedrin and the Temple, which was their whole
way of life, if what they said weren't true!

Early Christians were considered to be a marginal sect like the Essenes and
still attended Temple for at least a hundred years after Jesus bit the worm.
.

User: "cormac"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	10 Jun 2007 12:45:10 AM

On Jun 10, 1:18 am, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 9, 6:38 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:03 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

But may I ask why you left the church?

Because I grew up and realized that it was a bunch of hocus pocus,
that no religion is any more valid than the next, thus no religion
has any validity whatsoever.

Are you, then, a scholar of religious thought who has examined all the
religions of the world and determined that none of them are valid?

I don't need to do that. When I see a continuous pattern without exception
among religions that they are based on myth and arcane mystery, I can then
assume that they all are.

Rocks taste like *****. Trust me. And you don't have to taste every rock in
the world to believe that.

I went to Jesuit high school and they said by questioning my
faith it would make it stronger. Seems that backfired.

Yes, it would seem it has indeed had that effect in your case. What
particular questions led to your leaving the faith?

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

In addition to the bible, which records His life and teachings, there
are also the references to Him in historical documents, the evidence
of the existence of the church He founded, and the divine revelations
and miracles that have been witnessed by saints for centuries.

Why is Christianity supposed to
be monotheistic when Catholics pray to hundreds of gods?

Catholics do not pray to hundreds of gods.

So the idolaters who pray to walking, talking, crying and bleeding
statues are all good catholics?
Cormac.
We pray to the one true God

which includes the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. The saints in heaven, which would seem to be the only group to
which you might be referring, are not to be worshipped as gods. Since
the saints are alive in heaven as we hope one day to be, be only ask
them to intervene for us and to pray for us.

Why has God been so

silent the past 2000 years?

God has not been silent for the past 2000 years. There have been
revelations given to saints and God also always talks to us through
our circumstances, including our friends and even our enemies.

Why is he getting more and more quiet as we

advance in reason?

He isn't.

Why does he only speak to the insane?

He doesn't.

Why didn't Jesus
come back when he said he would?

Is an immaculate conception really the most
parsimonous explanation for Jesis' birth?

The immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus' birth at all. The
virgin birth is the term used to explain how Jesus was conceived and
born. The immaculate conception refers to Mary's birth.

I could go on and on. But moreso, I feel that the general curiosity of the
world that is science suits me better than the intellectually stunting of
religious dogma.

The scientific method is great. It allows people to explore the world
and to ask questions. I do encourage you to continue with your
interest in science. I agree with the Jesuits. I think that once
you've asked even more questions, you may indeed consider returning to
the church.

We'll be here, ready to welcome you back, and enriched by the learning
you will have undertaken in the meantime.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: "jc"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	11 Jun 2007 03:02:19 PM

On Jun 9, 7:18 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 9, 6:38 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:03 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

But may I ask why you left the church?

Because I grew up and realized that it was a bunch of hocus pocus,
that no religion is any more valid than the next, thus no religion
has any validity whatsoever.

Are you, then, a scholar of religious thought who has examined all the
religions of the world and determined that none of them are valid?

I don't need to do that. When I see a continuous pattern without exception
among religions that they are based on myth and arcane mystery, I can then
assume that they all are.

Rocks taste like *****. Trust me. And you don't have to taste every rock in
the world to believe that.

I went to Jesuit high school and they said by questioning my
faith it would make it stronger. Seems that backfired.

Yes, it would seem it has indeed had that effect in your case. What
particular questions led to your leaving the faith?

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

Why is Christianity supposed to
be monotheistic when Catholics pray to hundreds of gods?

Catholics do not pray to hundreds of gods. We pray to the one true God
which includes the three persons

You asked the poster why he left the Church. At the risk of
answering for him, I would hazard that "to get out of a place
where someone could make a statement like that as if it
made sense" might be one of the reasons.

of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. The saints in heaven, which would seem to be the only group to
which you might be referring, are not to be worshipped as gods. Since
the saints are alive in heaven as we hope one day to be, be only ask
them to intervene for us and to pray for us.

Anyone you can pray to with the hope of a positive result
can legitimately be referred to as a "god" in every reasonable
sense of the word. The particular "org chart" in Heaven
doesn't change that.
-jc
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	11 Jun 2007 04:59:58 PM

On Jun 11, 5:02 pm, jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anyone you can pray to with the hope of a positive result
can legitimately be referred to as a "god" in every reasonable
sense of the word.

Actually, no.
The word saint and god mean two very different things.
A god is "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part
of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
force."
A saint, on the other hand, is merely: " a person officially
recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public
veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth."
The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.
.

User: "cormac"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	12 Jun 2007 01:02:34 AM

On Jun 11, 10:59 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 5:02 pm, jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anyone you can pray to with the hope of a positive result
can legitimately be referred to as a "god" in every reasonable
sense of the word.

Actually, no.

The word saint and god mean two very different things.

A god is "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part
of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
force."

A saint, on the other hand, is merely: " a person officially
recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public
veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth."

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?
Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.
Cormac.
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	12 Jun 2007 07:51:10 AM

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	12 Jun 2007 08:53:11 AM

CE wrote:

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.

They are and have been for millions of Catholics for 140 years.
How about the Shroud of Turin. Fake. How about the hundreds of tons of
pieces of the True Cross? How about the myriad pieces of the Ark? How about
the Veil of Veronica. Fake, fake, fake.
*****, you can buy "splinters of the bones of St. John the Baptist" on eBay.
I ***** you not! ROFLMAO...what a bunch of maroons!
The Catholic Church and its believers, while they don't have a corner on the
market for superstition, are a leading manufacturer of it.
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	12 Jun 2007 02:59:40 PM

On Jun 12, 10:53 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.

They are and have been for millions of Catholics for 140 years.

How about the Shroud of Turin.

Nope. I've never revered the shroud.

Fake. How about the hundreds of tons of
pieces of the True Cross?

Never seen one. Don't care if I ever do. Not important to my faith.

How about the myriad pieces of the Ark?

Again. Never seen one, never revered one.

How about the Veil of Veronica. Fake, fake, fake.

Never even heard of the veil of Veronica.

*****, you can buy "splinters of the bones of St. John the Baptist" on eBay.

Fascinating. But I've never seen them, never looked for them, and,
unless I get curious and want to waste a few minutes, probably never
will.
None of these things are central to my faith.
While it may be inspiring for a Catholic to gaze upon a relic and
think of the life of that saint and how they answered God's call for
their life with heroic virtue, none of these relics are any more
important than the statues or stained glass we have in many of our
Catholic churches. They serve only as reminders of how some people led
holy lives and were most useful in North America prior to the arrival
of widespread literacy. In those days, stained glass windows and
statues served as reminders of the stories of the saints or Jesus that
the faithful had heard in church.
If every stained glass window were shattered, every statue broken,
every relic stolen or destroyed and none of this was ever replaced,
the Catholic church would continue as it has for centuries without any
of the central elements of the faith changed in any way.
.

User: "cormac"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	13 Jun 2007 12:12:03 PM

On Jun 12, 8:59 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 10:53 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.

They are and have been for millions of Catholics for 140 years.

How about the Shroud of Turin.

Nope. I've never revered the shroud.

Fake. How about the hundreds of tons of
pieces of the True Cross?

Never seen one. Don't care if I ever do. Not important to my faith.

How about the myriad pieces of the Ark?

Again. Never seen one, never revered one.

How about the Veil of Veronica. Fake, fake, fake.

Never even heard of the veil of Veronica.

In the myth, Veronica ( she of the True Image) was alleged to have
been a spectator as Jesus carried the cross to Calvary. She pitied him
and wiped his face with a towel or handkerchief.
It carries the image of a bearded face. But if she wiped his face
tenderly, the towel would simply have smears marks.
So either it is a miracle or a fake. Take your pick.
Cormac.

*****, you can buy "splinters of the bones of St. John the Baptist" on eBay.

Fascinating. But I've never seen them, never looked for them, and,
unless I get curious and want to waste a few minutes, probably never
will.

None of these things are central to my faith.

While it may be inspiring for a Catholic to gaze upon a relic and
think of the life of that saint and how they answered God's call for
their life with heroic virtue, none of these relics are any more
important than the statues or stained glass we have in many of our
Catholic churches. They serve only as reminders of how some people led
holy lives and were most useful in North America prior to the arrival
of widespread literacy. In those days, stained glass windows and
statues served as reminders of the stories of the saints or Jesus that
the faithful had heard in church.

If every stained glass window were shattered, every statue broken,
every relic stolen or destroyed and none of this was ever replaced,
the Catholic church would continue as it has for centuries without any
of the central elements of the faith changed in any way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: "cormac"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	13 Jun 2007 12:17:46 PM

On Jun 12, 8:59 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 10:53 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.

They are and have been for millions of Catholics for 140 years.

How about the Shroud of Turin.

Nope. I've never revered the shroud.

Fake. How about the hundreds of tons of
pieces of the True Cross?

Never seen one. Don't care if I ever do. Not important to my faith.

How about the myriad pieces of the Ark?

Again. Never seen one, never revered one.

Relics were very valuable but the most valuable of all was a relic of
Jesus.
As he ascended bodily into heaven, the only relic was his foreskin
removed at his circumcision.
It disappeared from an Italian monastery about 30-40 years ago. Watch
out for it on eBay.
Cormac.

How about the Veil of Veronica. Fake, fake, fake.

Never even heard of the veil of Veronica.

*****, you can buy "splinters of the bones of St. John the Baptist" on eBay.

Fascinating. But I've never seen them, never looked for them, and,
unless I get curious and want to waste a few minutes, probably never
will.

None of these things are central to my faith.

While it may be inspiring for a Catholic to gaze upon a relic and
think of the life of that saint and how they answered God's call for
their life with heroic virtue, none of these relics are any more
important than the statues or stained glass we have in many of our
Catholic churches. They serve only as reminders of how some people led
holy lives and were most useful in North America prior to the arrival
of widespread literacy. In those days, stained glass windows and
statues served as reminders of the stories of the saints or Jesus that
the faithful had heard in church.

If every stained glass window were shattered, every statue broken,
every relic stolen or destroyed and none of this was ever replaced,
the Catholic church would continue as it has for centuries without any
of the central elements of the faith changed in any way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	14 Jun 2007 05:42:47 PM

"cormac" <cormac.bradaigh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181755066.406161.265860@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 12, 8:59 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 10:53 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 12, 3:02 am, cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The saints do not control the world or work miracles of their own
power. All a saint can do is intervene for someone by prayers in
heaven.

Do you revere the relics of St Joan?

Well, I have news for you. They consist of scraps of an Egyptian
mummy.

I can't say I've ever revered or even seen the relics of St. Joan.
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them and they're not really
important to my faith.

They are and have been for millions of Catholics for 140 years.

How about the Shroud of Turin.

Nope. I've never revered the shroud.

Fake. How about the hundreds of tons of
pieces of the True Cross?

Never seen one. Don't care if I ever do. Not important to my faith.

How about the myriad pieces of the Ark?

Again. Never seen one, never revered one.

Relics were very valuable but the most valuable of all was a relic of
Jesus.

As he ascended bodily into heaven, the only relic was his foreskin
removed at his circumcision.

It disappeared from an Italian monastery about 30-40 years ago. Watch
out for it on eBay.

I've mentioned this before, but if it turns up, we might be able to check
out God's DNA?
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	09 Jun 2007 04:57:14 PM

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:30:56 -0000, CE <jlrisdon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 9, 11:03 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

CE wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

It's
hard to believe I once was a Catholic too.

When you're ready, the church will still be there to welcome you back.

Don't wait up.

I won't. There's no rush.

But may I ask why you left the church?

Maybe because one of his brain cells started working?
.

User: "Ben Kaufman"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	11 Jun 2007 02:29:43 PM

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:27:24 -0000, CE <jlrisdon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

It's
hard to believe I once was a Catholic too.

When you're ready, the church will still be there to welcome you back.

You don't understand, he's already come to his senses.
Ben
.

User: "CE"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	11 Jun 2007 02:47:30 PM

On Jun 11, 4:29 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:27:24 -0000, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

It's
hard to believe I once was a Catholic too.

When you're ready, the church will still be there to welcome you back.

You don't understand, he's already come to his senses.

Great! That should help him a lot during his spiritual journey.
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Devil Especially Hates Prayers In Latin, Says Rome's Chief Exorcist	09 Jun 2007 12:30:16 AM

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1842528/posts
DEVIL ESPECIALLY HATES PRAYERS IN LATIN, SAYS A PRIEST KNOWN AS
'ROME'S EXORCIST'

As Giles admonished Xander, Don't speak Latin in front of the book.
Buffy Rules!
--
Hodie quinto Idus Iunias MMVII est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.