BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

---

You're not commenting, because you know it is dead wrong. Why can't you just be honest instead of evasive? And what does it say about your church if you have to dodge something that was said by your highest leader?

Your comparison to Luther's quote is laughable. It's not even a complete sentence.

---

No, it isn't laughable. He said it, you agree? He is the father of what you believe. You didn't answer.

It is the same as you pulling one sentence out of a 20 minute homily and demanding only discussion on that one sentence. It is a BS way to discuss. But we know you are not interested in our responses. You continue to cherry pick and then pontificate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The point of "until she gave birth" is to show that Joseph couldn't have been the father. It has no necessary implication beyond that.

---

No necessary implication, but natural. If it was a fact that Mary was a virgin her whole life even during her marriage to Joseph, you'd think such an unusual circumstance would have been mentioned or alluded to in Scripture, especially if it's a required belief by God as the Roman Catholic Church maintains.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

---

You're not commenting, because you know it is dead wrong. Why can't you just be honest instead of evasive? And what does it say about your church if you have to dodge something that was said by your highest leader?

Your comparison to Luther's quote is laughable. It's not even a complete sentence.

---

No, it isn't laughable. He said it, you agree? He is the father of what you believe. You didn't answer.

It is the same as you pulling one sentence out of a 20 minute homily and demanding only discussion on that one sentence. It is a BS way to discuss. But we know you are not interested in our responses. You continue to cherry pick and then pontificate.

---

Of course it's laughable. But it's not the only thing that's laughable, if you really think that it's not. I pulled out one entire sentence (actually it was three) with a complete expression, and you think a small fragment of a sentence is comparable? Good grief. Look, no offense, but you just aren't up to the level of discussion that I'm looking for.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

---

You're not commenting, because you know it is dead wrong. Why can't you just be honest instead of evasive? And what does it say about your church if you have to dodge something that was said by your highest leader?

Your comparison to Luther's quote is laughable. It's not even a complete sentence.

---

No, it isn't laughable. He said it, you agree? He is the father of what you believe. You didn't answer.

It is the same as you pulling one sentence out of a 20 minute homily and demanding only discussion on that one sentence. It is a BS way to discuss. But we know you are not interested in our responses. You continue to cherry pick and then pontificate.

---

Of course it's laughable. But it's not the only thing that's laughable, if you really think that it's not. I pulled out one entire sentence (actually it was three) with a complete expression, and you think a small fragment of a sentence is comparable? Good grief. Look, no offense, but you just aren't up to the level of discussion that I'm looking for.

---

As you said, you are pulling out sentences from full homilies. You think I can't find three sentences that Luther said that were anti-semtic? If you think that, you don't know your Luther.

You are taking individual lines out of homilies, you do it consistently. I talked to the Franciscan Priest at my Church today about these conversations, his comment was you can't talk to people like that. He is more interested in playing "Gotcha" games than actually having a discussion. Just walk away, not worth your time.

So, I thought to at least end it with one last post.

The Catechism specifically says that the Catholic Church does not worship Mary. We have shown you in multiple locations. Yet, you take one or two lines out of a particularly liberal ex-Popes speech on using Mary as a model for our life and try to force answers. That is not a good faith discussion, that you playing "gotcha".

Same with Pope Francis's allowing Priests to bless a person that asks.
The Catechism, and the current Pope, say marriage is between a man and women. Homosexual acts are sins. However, if the sinner asks for God's Blessing it is all right to give it. It specifically says it DOES NOT bless the union, that is not recognized. Yet, you continually pull the blessing part out. Once again, that is no a good faith discussion, it is a game of "gotcha".

So, I hope you enjoyed your little game. It accomplished nothing but showing why we can't come to any common ground. People like you are that reason. Not an insult, just a fact. Go back to your little world and have enjoy life. I will no longer hear from you as you are going on ignore.

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

Not surprising….

Leo is a good guy but the Vatican bureaucracy needs a good house cleaning.

New Pope. Same as the old Pope. pic.twitter.com/vREGiIcDsr

— Angelo Plume (@poxesfoxes) June 8, 2025

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Not surprising….

Leo is a good guy but the Vatican bureaucracy needs a good house cleaning.

New Pope. Same as the old Pope. pic.twitter.com/vREGiIcDsr

— Angelo Plume (@poxesfoxes) June 8, 2025

---

Amen to his words. The Church recognizes the right and duty of nations to control their borders and also to accommodate migrants to the extent they are able.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

---

You're not commenting, because you know it is dead wrong. Why can't you just be honest instead of evasive? And what does it say about your church if you have to dodge something that was said by your highest leader?

Your comparison to Luther's quote is laughable. It's not even a complete sentence.

---

No, it isn't laughable. He said it, you agree? He is the father of what you believe. You didn't answer.

It is the same as you pulling one sentence out of a 20 minute homily and demanding only discussion on that one sentence. It is a BS way to discuss. But we know you are not interested in our responses. You continue to cherry pick and then pontificate.

---

Of course it's laughable. But it's not the only thing that's laughable, if you really think that it's not. I pulled out one entire sentence (actually it was three) with a complete expression, and you think a small fragment of a sentence is comparable? Good grief. Look, no offense, but you just aren't up to the level of discussion that I'm looking for.

---

As you said, you are pulling out sentences from full homilies. You think I can't find three sentences that Luther said that were anti-semtic? If you think that, you don't know your Luther.

You are taking individual lines out of homilies, you do it consistently. I talked to the Franciscan Priest at my Church today about these conversations, his comment was you can't talk to people like that. He is more interested in playing "Gotcha" games than actually having a discussion. Just walk away, not worth your time.

So, I thought to at least end it with one last post.

The Catechism specifically says that the Catholic Church does not worship Mary. We have shown you in multiple locations. Yet, you take one or two lines out of a particularly liberal ex-Popes speech on using Mary as a model for our life and try to force answers. That is not a good faith discussion, that you playing "gotcha".

Same with Pope Francis's allowing Priests to bless a person that asks.
The Catechism, and the current Pope, say marriage is between a man and women. Homosexual acts are sins. However, if the sinner asks for God's Blessing it is all right to give it. It specifically says it DOES NOT bless the union, that is not recognized. Yet, you continually pull the blessing part out. Once again, that is no a good faith discussion, it is a game of "gotcha".

So, I hope you enjoyed your little game. It accomplished nothing but showing why we can't come to any common ground. People like you are that reason. Not an insult, just a fact. Go back to your little world and have enjoy life. I will no longer hear from you as you are going on ignore.

---

I am SHOCKED that your priest says that his religion and belief system that he's totally vested in isn't wrong. Shocked, I tell ya'. Probably just as shocked by the fact that the sources that say Mary isn't being worshiped are Roman Catholic sources.

Your priest isn't in the truth. He, like your religion, is leading you into deception. It doesn't even make sense that he said that I "shouldn't talk to people like that" Talk to them like what? Telling them the truth? Showing them their obvious, egregious, and undeniable heresy and idolatry?

The "gotcha" game is with you personally. I called you out with same-sex marriage, and you dodged giving your belief. We know what that means.

If you can't see that those sentences by Pope Francis are evil, and that there is NO context in which they could be justified, it shows either that you are incredibly deceived, or you are incredibly stupid. There's just no other way to say it. And your comparison of it with a tiny sentence fragment of Luther's pretty much sums the level of your logical thinking. If you have a whole Luther quote that you want me to react to, why not give it? Why resort to your ridiculous games?

As long as Roman Catholics refuse to see the idolatry of Mary and repent from it, there isn't any common ground between us. As it should be, because darkness has no place in the light. Truth divides, as Jesus said.

Hail mary. Full of grace. The Lord is with thee

Blessed art though amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray For us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters."

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

---

Woman behold your son and your explanation of what and why is what we here call:

Game. Set. Match.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters."

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

---

Woman behold your son and your explanation of what and why is what we here call:

Game. Set. Match.

---

I agree with you. But the guy you are talking to is not interested in explanations, definitions or what Catholics believe. He is interested in playing "Gotcha" using obscure comments. He does not talk in good faith. I wasted too much time on him. Just warning...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

Every bureaucracy needs a good house cleaning. If not every year, at least in a very frequent basis. The larger one gets the more this is needed.

historian said:

---

Every bureaucracy needs a good house cleaning. If not every year, at least in a very frequent basis. The larger one gets the more this is needed.

---

Agree with that. No question

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters."

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

---

Woman behold your son and your explanation of what and why is what we here call:

Game. Set. Match.

---

Not at all. Even if you assume that Jesus was Mary's only child, that does not necessarily indicate Mary stayed a virgin throughout her marriage with Joseph. There are many one-child families all over the world where that isn't the case. That what we logical people here call a non sequitur.

You still have to deal with the fact that Jesus had "adelphos", the natural meaning of which was real brothers and sisters, not cousins or kinsmen. Jesus' declaration to John could have easily been a case where Jesus wanted his mother to be taken care of by someone who believed in him, and someone who he had full trust (John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved", so what better choice?) At the time of Jesus' crucifixion, none of his siblings believed in him. And regarding the custom that Jesus' siblings had the responsibility to take care of her, certainly Jesus had the authority to assign the responsibility to someone of his choosing.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters."

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

---

Woman behold your son and your explanation of what and why is what we here call:

Game. Set. Match.

---

I agree with you. But the guy you are talking to is not interested in explanations, definitions or what Catholics believe. He is interested in playing "Gotcha" using obscure comments. He does not talk in good faith. I wasted too much time on him. Just warning...

---

I'm the one who has to tell YOU what Catholics believe. You think you've made effective arguments against what I've said, but you're just fooling yourself. Your "explanations" and "answers" are anything but. You ignore or dodge pertinent questions. Your argument is that Catholics don't worship Mary because Catholics say so. You argued that the Marian dogmas (her sinlessness, perpetual virginity, and bodily ascension) trace back to Jesus because "Mary was honored in the Bible". You just can't have an intelligent discussion with someone like this folks, sorry to say.

You think you can divert attention away from it with all your ad hominems, but you can't: the Marian apparitions that command Catholics to build shrines for her and to spread devotion to HER all over the world; the Marian prayers which give her the qualities of the divine and which have her usurp the role and characteristics of Jesus; and the statements from popes which say Mary is the road to God - ALL these being fully endorsed and promoted by your Roman Catholic leaders - are the clearest examples of rank heresy and idolatry in existence. If you really are a Christian and you deny this, it would mean that either you are completely deceived, or you're a liar, or you're just plain stupid.

I think all you Roman Catholics who truly love Jesus and seek him know in your heart that it's idolatry and very, very wrong. You are the ones I'm trying to speak to, not people like FlBear who willfully chooses to remain in darkness.

Quote:

---

..... But the guy you are talking to is not interested in explanations, definitions or what Catholics believe. He is interested in playing "Gotcha" using obscure comments.

---

If official quotes from the pope, the highest ranked person in Roman Catholic Catholicism who Catholics call "Holy Father" and the "Vicar of Christ", have to be marginalized as "obscure" comments by Catholics trying to defend their views, then there is obviously a HUGE problem in Roman Catholicism.

Titus 2:10

Avoid a man who is a heretic, after the first and second correction,knowing that one who is like this has been 11 subverted, and that he offends; for he has been condemned by his own judgment.

There may be times when this Biblical guidance is appropriate

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters."

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

---

Woman behold your son and your explanation of what and why is what we here call:

Game. Set. Match.

---

I agree with you. But the guy you are talking to is not interested in explanations, definitions or what Catholics believe. He is interested in playing "Gotcha" using obscure comments. He does not talk in good faith. I wasted too much time on him. Just warning...

---

Yes. Youll probably remember discussing that about him / her. I appreciated your time sharing your thoughts and knowledge. Some people on this topic are like saving someone drowning or punching a tar baby. I learned long ago that it wasnt worth the effort and i got zero ROI so Landed where you did a few months back.

More proof that Roman Catholicism teaches that one must go THROUGH Mary to reach God, not "with":

Pope Pius IX, in his Ubi Primum encyclical (1849):

"And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God's anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary."


Are the eyes and minds of Roman Catholics open? THROUGH Mary are obtained EVERY hope, EVERY grace, and ALL SALVATION?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

---

I think its fairly simple. Francis was an infiltrator and was part if a decadesnold attempt to smear the Catholic church (which her own himan lesdership does olenty of on theirnown).

For some reason homosexuality is talked of differently (if it's talkedof at all - ive rarely heard that preached from the alter explocitpy other than when the gospel of a couple weeks ago was preached) than say adultery or fornication or adultery etc etc.

We all know what Mary told the children in Fatima.

Is there a more difficult sin to control for most than sins of the flesh? Goes way beyond homosexuality.

There is fear of lack of donations if you explicitly tell people divorce is wrong. Fornication is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. These are sins. Grave sins. With consequences. Maybe if OSAS one has no fear of all those college hook ups etc etc. but hopefully most realize they must repent and do penance.

And you have several great examples as well. I suspect many priests will be punished for not speaking truth to these sins. And francis could have corrected the record explocitly before he died.

Hopefully Leo is better and more clear.

We should all do our best to go and sin no more

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

---

I think its fairly simple. Francis was an infiltrator and was part if a decadesnold attempt to smear the Catholic church (which her own himan lesdership does olenty of on theirnown).

For some reason homosexuality is talked of differently (if it's talkedof at all - ive rarely heard that preached from the alter explocitpy other than when the gospel of a couple weeks ago was preached) than say adultery or fornication or adultery etc etc.

We all know what Mary told the children in Fatima.

Is there a more difficult sin to control for most than sins of the flesh? Goes way beyond homosexuality.

There is fear of lack of donations if you explicitly tell people divorce is wrong. Fornication is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. These are sins. Grave sins. With consequences. Maybe if OSAS one has no fear of all those college hook ups etc etc. but hopefully most realize they must repent and do penance.

And you have several great examples as well. I suspect many priests will be punished for not speaking truth to these sins. And francis could have corrected the record explocitly before he died.

Hopefully Leo is better and more clear.

We should all do our best to go and sin no more

---

What you say is interesting because they knew who Francis was well before his elevation. In typical fashion the pendulum swings too far to one side before coming to a sustainable rate. Going from Benedict a German conservative to Francis a South American Liberal was a big swing. Leo seems more in the middle.

As for the other stuff, I have watched my Brother who is divorced struggle as his former trainwreck wife destroyed his life. Sacramentally, he is welcome but really that is about it. He was divorced at a relatively young age, but the Church still views the marriage as valid. He has really struggled with how to move forward and stay in the Church.

Also, know of some gays, cooked my way through college before the Army. Many in the hospitality industry. Their complaint is that the Church gives more support to alcoholics. There is little for them in terms of support to stay on the path and their careers have many temptations. I thought Francis may help these people. There is a Catholic population that miss Francis. I know conservatives discount them. But they are there. Hopefully, Leo is better at actually moving the Church forward together.

Much more practical things that impact religion than what Francis said about Mary. The Catechism is clear. Seems waste of time and misdirected with the worlds problems to argue over whether Mary had sex or not. But that is just my view. Obviously not agreed on here!!! : )

I agree we all should do our best to go and sin no more.

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

---

I think its fairly simple. Francis was an infiltrator and was part if a decadesnold attempt to smear the Catholic church (which her own himan lesdership does olenty of on theirnown).

For some reason homosexuality is talked of differently (if it's talkedof at all - ive rarely heard that preached from the alter explocitpy other than when the gospel of a couple weeks ago was preached) than say adultery or fornication or adultery etc etc.

We all know what Mary told the children in Fatima.

Is there a more difficult sin to control for most than sins of the flesh? Goes way beyond homosexuality.

There is fear of lack of donations if you explicitly tell people divorce is wrong. Fornication is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. These are sins. Grave sins. With consequences. Maybe if OSAS one has no fear of all those college hook ups etc etc. but hopefully most realize they must repent and do penance.

And you have several great examples as well. I suspect many priests will be punished for not speaking truth to these sins. And francis could have corrected the record explocitly before he died.

Hopefully Leo is better and more clear.

We should all do our best to go and sin no more

---

Much more practical things that impact religion than what Francis said about Mary. The Catechism is clear. Seems waste of time and misdirected with the worlds problems to argue over whether Mary had sex or not. But that is just my view. Obviously not agreed on here!!! : )

I agree we all should do our best to go and sin no more.

---

Roman Catholicism makes whether Mary had sex or not a REQUIRED BELIEF thus binding it to one's conscience, and ultimately binding it to one's salvation. You seem to have much difficulty or unwillingness to incorporate that fact into your understanding of the significance. Obviously, the eternal destination of people's souls is a very valid thing to argue over. Downplaying that in favor of the world's social problems is putting the temporary world over God's eternal kingdom.

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I respect the Orthodox guys because they reject the papacy. They're very spiritual and they take faith seriously with deep conviction. They pray and fast consistently.

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

Part of me sees the schism as a means for Christianity to reach many different types of people. Another part of me questions what the true church is. There's a lot of insane Protestants pushing radical and sinful beliefs.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I respect the Orthodox guys because they reject the papacy. They're very spiritual and they take faith seriously with deep conviction. They pray and fast consistently.

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

Part of me sees the schism as a means for Christianity to reach many different types of people. Another part of me questions what the true church is. There's a lot of insane Protestants pushing radical and sinful beliefs.

---

At 70 years of age, when considering religion, have finally reached the conclusion.....to each his own and God will decide everything when the time comes.

When you come across a zealot ( of any Faith ).......they are usually attempting to bandaid their own issues in attacking others.

Best just to smile; pat them on the head and walk away.

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I'd highly recommend E.R. Chamberlin's book "The Bad Popes". It details the history of the Roman Patriarchate from a few hundred years before the great schism and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D through the Lutheran Reformation and the sack of Rome.

200 pages in, I am at 1494 A.D., the time of Pope Alexandar VI, a man who had four children by his first mistress before replacing her with a sixteen year old girl. He also schemed with Sultan Bajazet against the Christian King of France.

---

Really? We are talking about the 1400's? I am sure it is very relevant to Pope Leo and right now.

There were no bad Protestants, huh? There are bad people in every walk of life, even Protestants. What happened in the 1400's has no bearing on today. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.

---

Protestants and Orthodox do not make the claims about its leaders that the Roman Catholic Church makes about the office of the Papacy. Notice I say the "office of the Papacy", not Leo, Frances, or Alexander specifically. The issue that began in the Roman Patriarchate a few hundred years before the schism and found its fulfillment beginning in 1054 was the quest of this office for earthly power. As you observe, there are better and worse people in every walk of life but with regards to the office of the Papacy the individual occupant of the office is almost irrelevant. This book chronicles that problem over a span of around 700 years.

You see this sort of issue in modernity as a variety of heretical protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians, United Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians seek to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the political left.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

The stance of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to its popes can never be reconciled with the words of Christ.

---

I respect the Orthodox guys because they reject the papacy. They're very spiritual and they take faith seriously with deep conviction. They pray and fast consistently.

I was very close to visiting an Orthodox Church. I was legitimately attacked by a demon and protestants don't take it seriously.

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

Part of me sees the schism as a means for Christianity to reach many different types of people. Another part of me questions what the true church is. There's a lot of insane Protestants pushing radical and sinful beliefs.

---

At 70 years of age, when considering religion, have finally reached the conclusion.....to each his own and God will decide everything when the time comes.

When you come across a zealot ( of any Faith ).......they are usually attempting to bandaid their own issues in attacking others.

Best just to smile; pat them on the head and walk away.

---

You have convinced me...

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

---

I think its fairly simple. Francis was an infiltrator and was part if a decadesnold attempt to smear the Catholic church (which her own himan lesdership does olenty of on theirnown).

For some reason homosexuality is talked of differently (if it's talkedof at all - ive rarely heard that preached from the alter explocitpy other than when the gospel of a couple weeks ago was preached) than say adultery or fornication or adultery etc etc.

We all know what Mary told the children in Fatima.

Is there a more difficult sin to control for most than sins of the flesh? Goes way beyond homosexuality.

There is fear of lack of donations if you explicitly tell people divorce is wrong. Fornication is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. These are sins. Grave sins. With consequences. Maybe if OSAS one has no fear of all those college hook ups etc etc. but hopefully most realize they must repent and do penance.

And you have several great examples as well. I suspect many priests will be punished for not speaking truth to these sins. And francis could have corrected the record explocitly before he died.

Hopefully Leo is better and more clear.

We should all do our best to go and sin no more

---

What you say is interesting because they knew who Francis was well before his elevation. In typical fashion the pendulum swings too far to one side before coming to a sustainable rate. Going from Benedict a German conservative to Francis a South American Liberal was a big swing. Leo seems more in the middle.

As for the other stuff, I have watched my Brother who is divorced struggle as his former trainwreck wife destroyed his life. Sacramentally, he is welcome but really that is about it. He was divorced at a relatively young age, but the Church still views the marriage as valid. He has really struggled with how to move forward and stay in the Church.

Also, know of some gays, cooked my way through college before the Army. Many in the hospitality industry. Their complaint is that the Church gives more support to alcoholics. There is little for them in terms of support to stay on the path and their careers have many temptations. I thought Francis may help these people. There is a Catholic population that miss Francis. I know conservatives discount them. But they are there. Hopefully, Leo is better at actually moving the Church forward together.

Much more practical things that impact religion than what Francis said about Mary. The Catechism is clear. Seems waste of time and misdirected with the worlds problems to argue over whether Mary had sex or not. But that is just my view. Obviously not agreed on here!!! : )

I agree we all should do our best to go and sin no more.

---

Yep agreed. But the game if "gotcha" never ends for some i guess.

Maybe the homosexual question regarding christianity is akin to the porn addiction problem. The numbers and ages there are disgusting and shocking.

Agreed some loved Francis. He had good qualities. I didnt align with his not being clear what a sin is and go and sin no more.

How to effectively do that and save souls is the question. I know churches have support for porn addiction for example . Given how many priests are gay it would seem theres some suggestions that could be at least tried.

It also should he put into appropriate context for size of the problem s air time.

Regarding divorce, thats also so tricky given nothing is a simple math equation. Ill leave the judging to God and work my way through this world full of temptations and pit falls hopefully with as little damage as possible.

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is not wrong to bless the penitent sinner.

Blessing the unrepentent sinner is another matter entirely.

---

If someone comes to a Priest asking for a blessing you have to take them at their word. There is no benefit to lying or getting one over on the Priest. Why go through the trouble, no one is required to go to a church.

Making a lot over nothing.

---

You may consider the subtle normalization of the homosexual lifestyle as making a lot over nothing, but God clearly doesn't. These deviants go through the trouble because they have a pathological need to demand the normalization of their deviancy. The blessing they can never get from God, they then seek from Government. After they get that, they seek to have government order the church at sword point to give them its blessing. Unless of course heretics put a finger up in the wind and try and get out ahead of this process by volunteering it.

That's why. Mainline protestantism was at the front of the line in this heresy. Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are slowly following along.

---

So, how do you bring these people back to the light? By not including them? By telling them to come back when you have your **** together? The Holy Spirit, Scriptures, Church Community and for Catholics the Sacraments are healing. People coming and taking part in the service is not an unusual ask, the only difference between them and us is that their sin is more visible. But according to Scripture their sin is no different in God's eyes as yours. Do you have sins that you confess over and over? I do not see how shutting them out or worse ostracizing someone will bring them closer to God or in the fold of the Church.

Keep in mind we are not talking Public Policy here, we are talking people coming to the Church, attending service and asking for a blessing. At what point do you not take people at their word in that context?

And, if you are going to play "police" on determining who is allowed to come and ask for blessings where does it stop? Should the Pastor ask you to leave because he saw you checking out the good looking women in your aisle, should not covet we saw you watching her walk up to Communion? Or, worse sins that are perceived? You and that women talk an awful lot, must be an affair. Slippery slope. Take all and lot God sort us out.

---

I think its fairly simple. Francis was an infiltrator and was part if a decadesnold attempt to smear the Catholic church (which her own himan lesdership does olenty of on theirnown).

For some reason homosexuality is talked of differently (if it's talkedof at all - ive rarely heard that preached from the alter explocitpy other than when the gospel of a couple weeks ago was preached) than say adultery or fornication or adultery etc etc.

We all know what Mary told the children in Fatima.

Is there a more difficult sin to control for most than sins of the flesh? Goes way beyond homosexuality.

There is fear of lack of donations if you explicitly tell people divorce is wrong. Fornication is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. These are sins. Grave sins. With consequences. Maybe if OSAS one has no fear of all those college hook ups etc etc. but hopefully most realize they must repent and do penance.

And you have several great examples as well. I suspect many priests will be punished for not speaking truth to these sins. And francis could have corrected the record explocitly before he died.

Hopefully Leo is better and more clear.

We should all do our best to go and sin no more

---

What you say is interesting because they knew who Francis was well before his elevation. In typical fashion the pendulum swings too far to one side before coming to a sustainable rate. Going from Benedict a German conservative to Francis a South American Liberal was a big swing. Leo seems more in the middle.

As for the other stuff, I have watched my Brother who is divorced struggle as his former trainwreck wife destroyed his life. Sacramentally, he is welcome but really that is about it. He was divorced at a relatively young age, but the Church still views the marriage as valid. He has really struggled with how to move forward and stay in the Church.

Also, know of some gays, cooked my way through college before the Army. Many in the hospitality industry. Their complaint is that the Church gives more support to alcoholics. There is little for them in terms of support to stay on the path and their careers have many temptations. I thought Francis may help these people. There is a Catholic population that miss Francis. I know conservatives discount them. But they are there. Hopefully, Leo is better at actually moving the Church forward together.

Much more practical things that impact religion than what Francis said about Mary. The Catechism is clear. Seems waste of time and misdirected with the worlds problems to argue over whether Mary had sex or not. But that is just my view. Obviously not agreed on here!!! : )

I agree we all should do our best to go and sin no more.

---

Yep agreed. But the game if "gotcha" never ends for some i guess.

Maybe the homosexual question regarding christianity is akin to the porn addiction problem. The numbers and ages there are disgusting and shocking.

Agreed some loved Francis. He had good qualities. I didnt align with his not being clear what a sin is and go and sin no more.

How to effectively do that and save souls is the question. I know churches have support for porn addiction for example . Given how many priests are gay it would seem theres some suggestions that could be at least tried.

It also should he put into appropriate context for size of the problem s air time.

Regarding divorce, thats also so tricky given nothing is a simple math equation. Ill leave the judging to God and work my way through this world full of temptations and pit falls hopefully with as little damage as possible.

---

Leave the judging to God

Best comment of thread.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?