SabbathBlessings said:

How can one separate God's saving faith from the authority of what God says, is not found in our Bibles. This is saying faith leads one away from the authority of God's Word or law, which is the opposite of faith Rom3:31. We are told it is unbelief, sin and rebellion Heb3:7-19

Jesus addressed traditions verses the commandments of God. Mark 7:7-13 Mat15:3-14. He said those who keep their traditions over the commandments of God makes the word of God no effect, worships Him in vain and those who teach and follow these teachings ends up in a ditch.

Considering Sunday is not a commandment of God, it does not come with the power of God's blessings Isa59:2 Exo20:11 and sanctification Eze20:12 Gen2:3, it is a tradition of man that leads many people away from staying faithful to what God said to Remember Exo20:8-11 I think Jesus addressed this scenario plainly.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on an essential point: saving faith never leads away from the authority of God’s Word. The question, however, is how God’s Word says the law functions in relation to saving faith under the new covenant.

Romans 3:31 does not teach that faith re-establishes the law as the basis of righteousness or covenant identity. In the flow of Romans, Paul has just concluded that “by works of the law no human being will be justified” (Rom 3:20) and that righteousness comes “apart from the law” through faith in Christ (Rom 3:21–28). When Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law,” he means that the law’s true purpose is fulfilled, not reinstated as a standard by which believers are justified. This is exactly how Paul later explains it: “Christ is the end (telos—goal/fulfillment) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4). Faith upholds the law by affirming its verdict—that all have sinned—and by receiving the righteousness the law itself could never provide (Rom 8:3–4).

Regarding tradition, Jesus indeed condemned elevating human traditions over God’s commands (Mark 7:7–13). But this warning cuts both ways. The Pharisees were the most rigorous Sabbath-keepers in Israel, and yet they repeatedly condemned Jesus for not keeping the Sabbath according to their interpretation (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6; John 5:16–18; 9:14–16). Their error was not ignoring the Sabbath, but turning it into a legal boundary marker that obscured mercy, life, and ultimately Christ Himself. Jesus’ response was not to tighten Sabbath rules, but to assert His authority over it: “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

This shows an important reality: even Sabbath observance can become a commandment of men when its meaning, limits, and application are defined in ways Scripture itself does not require. The New Testament repeatedly warns against binding consciences where God has not (Rom 14:4–6; Gal 5:1; Col 2:16–23). Paul’s concern is not that people rest or worship, but that such observances are used to judge faithfulness or secure righteousness—something Scripture reserves for Christ alone.

Finally, the issue is not whether Sunday is a commandment, but whether any day is permitted to function as a test of saving faith. The New Testament answer is clear: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). This freedom does not negate obedience; it locates obedience where the gospel does—in union with Christ. The true blessing and sanctification promised by God are found not in a calendar observance, but in the One to whom the Sabbath itself points (Heb 4:9–10; Matt 11:28–30).

In short, faith does not overthrow God’s law—but neither does it place believers back under it as a covenant of righteousness. The law bears witness to Christ; Christ fulfills the law; and believers rest in Him. That is not unbelief or rebellion—it is the very heart of the gospel (Gal 2:21; Phil 3:8–9; 2 Cor 5:21).

Dave... said:

I'll Quote Macarthur for context. on these passages in Acts. If you can give me your thoughts on this.


" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him. The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one"....

"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...

By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body....

Today, believers receive the Spirit at salvation (cf.1 Cor. 12:13). There was no need for delay after Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Old Testament saints were already included in the church. (Macarthur)


Today...

"Being filled with the spirit must be distinguished from being baptized with the spirit. The apostle Paul carefully defines the baptism with the spirit as that act of Christ by which He places believers into His body (Romans 6:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27). In contrast to much errant teaching today, the New Testament nowhere commands believers to seek the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It is a sovereign, single, unrepeatable act on Gods part, and is no more an experience than are its companions justification and adoption. Although some wrongly view the baptism with the Spirit as the initiation into the ranks of the spiritual elite, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the baptism with the spirit is not to divide the body of Christ, but to unify it. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, through the baptism with the Spirit "we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13; cf. Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4:4-6)

Unlike the baptism with the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit is an experience and should be continuous. Although filled initially on the day of Pentecost, Peter was filled again in Acts 4:8. Many of the same people filled with the Spirit in Acts 2 were filled again in Acts 4:31. Acts 6:5 describes Stephen as a man "full of faith and the Holy Spirit," yet Acts 7:55 records his being filled again. Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 9:17 and again in Acts 13:9.

While there is no command in scripture to be baptized with the Spirit, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18 ). The grammatical construction of that passage indicates believers are to be continuously being filled with the Spirit. Those who would be filled with the Spirit must first empty themselves. That involves confession of sin and dying to selfishness and self will. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to consciously practice the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and to have a mind saturated with the Word of God. Colossians 3:16-25 delineates the results of "letting the word of Christ richly dwell" in us. They are the same ones that result from the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:19-33). As believers yield the moment by moment decisions of life to His control, they "walk by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16). The baptism of the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes." (Macarthur)

Click to expand...

Macarthur said: " the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and laid hands on the converts.

But wait! The Bibles says prior to the apostles coming they were baptized: Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

So, why was that not Christian water baptism?

Look again since Macarthur does not address this: Acts 8: 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

The Bibles does not say John and Peter baptized them, but prayed over them and laid hands on them, there is nothing about a “rebaptism”?

The example is still for us to baptize “someway?” in the name of Jesus and then some other way (this being by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands), receive miraculous powers of the Spirit.

They are also called “converts” prior to obtaining the miraculous powers of the Spirit.

Macarthur comes up with quite a story, but why would it not also apply to the Ethiopian Eunuch?

I do not agree with Macarthur’s “logic” concerning the Samarians.

Please go on and read further in Acts 8: 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” … 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing

This certainly sounds like water immersion baptism, so why do we not follow this example?

"due to the anger he caused others"

Apparently Rob Reiner is the real monster here, and the real victim in all this is Trump's reputation. But now his honor has been avenged.

But now the president's followers know which column to place this free speech murder into.

Apple Sky said:

God stopped the sun & the moon from circuiting the skies - Amen.

Click to expand...

It is exactly what Joshua saw, but we don’t know how God actually did it. It is a truthful eyewitness account of a human being.

Maybe you guys could petition for a new section that is exclusive to link sharing, with no comments allowed. All facts. Nothing but the facts. You might love it.

Hentenza said:

In other words your argument is from silence. Got it.

Click to expand...

NO sir, LOL, you have not "Got it".

Your argument sir, is built on silence.

For me God isn't Silent at all. He said, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

For men to preach that God gave Abraham's Children in Egypt, different Judgments, definition of Justice and the "Way of the Lord" God knew Abraham would command to his children when he was alive, is absurd, and based on nothing that is written in Scriptures at all. In fact it is the opposite of what is known of God through the Holy Scriptures. I posted God's Own Words on the matter for review and discussion, but you refused to even acknowledge them.

While it is true that God Added a Priesthood Law that Abraham didn't have as it is written, God's Definition of Good, Holy and Just has never changed, as is also written. This is why Jesus said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

I have not been silent, my argument is not based on silence but be considering "every Word" of God, as the Jesus "of the Bible" instructs.. Just because a man refuses to hear or consider God's Word given to him, doesn't mean God is silent.

My guess is that their are others reading this thread, that understand the point the Scriptures are making here.

SuperCow said:

Actually your (C) answer is actually choice (B), which makes sense because we established your belief that God causes sin, and you admit again I choose because I must, cannot avoid it, and God knows what I will choose, which negates (A).

Click to expand...

Nope. Your insistence that you choosing what God knows you will choose means that you do not actually choose, is insistence on vapid notions. God knowing (and causing) what you choose is the only way you even CAN choose. I wish you would find anywhere in the Bible that teaches that human choosing is a result of plain chance, or even, that human choosing is pure spontaneity on the part of the chooser. You cannot do it. Nor can you show it logically. All you can do is reiterate your thesis based on circular thinking. You keep trying to prove I am wrong by assertion alone.

Go back to the beginning. God. God is first cause, and, btw, the ONLY first cause. There can be only one first cause, and that is God. EVERYTHING else, therefore, is result. You don't even engage me on this —you only keep asserting that choice by definition means uncaused choice (in various different words) and that therefore my claim is false.

There's a reason you don't engage me on this. You are insisting on self-determination.

MarkSB said:

Do you have evidence of child deaths occurring from the COVID vaccine?

Click to expand...

Not definitively.

MarkSB said:

Or just an article that says it "may" have happened?

Click to expand...

Yes, "may" have happened.

MarkSB said:

I can't read the full article, because apparently I've read too many free articles from The Atlantic - but every other source says that no evidence of deaths was presented.

Click to expand...

From the article:
The article concludes:

There is evidence that the mRNA vaccines can cause myocarditis in young men, but at far lower rates than the infection does. There is new research on the mechanism at play and how it might be mitigated or even prevented.

Billions of doses of mRNA vaccine have been administered worldwide against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in countries with large, centralized health systems, such as Canada, England, South Korea, and Israel. Data from those countries and the U.S. allowed researchers to spot cases of chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations in some recently vaccinated people. These symptoms, which were mostly mild, appear after about 7 out of every million first vaccine doses. The frequency rises to 31 cases out of every million second doses, and 60 out of every million doses among men under 30.


SARS-CoV-2 infection causes myocarditis at much higher rates than immunization, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting 1,500 cases per million Covid-19 patients. Cases caused by infection also tend to be more severe than those induced by immunization.


While researchers initially hypothesized that vaccine-induced myocarditis might be caused by an allergic response to the shots or autoimmunity, more recent research has pointed to inflammatory proteins.[/url]

I don't know of any deaths caused by mRNA induced myocarditis, but I didn't search for it.

This looks very strange. I would like to see what happens in practice.

The Church of England made history on October 3 by naming Sarah Mullally, 63, as the first woman to hold the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, a landmark decision in the Church’s 1,400-year history. A former Bishop of London and nurse by profession, Archbishop-designate Mullally’s elevation to the highest seat in the Anglican Communion has sparked both celebration and reflection, not least among scholars of media and politics.

The announcement has not only marked a historic moment for the Anglican Church but also revealed how different media institutions frame the intersection of faith, gender, and modernity. The varying portrayals of Mullally’s appointment across global outlets, from The Guardian and BBC to CNN, Associated Press, and Deutsche Welle (DW) demonstrate how the same event can be interpreted through distinct ideological and cultural lenses.

Breaking the “Stained-Glass Ceiling”

The Associated Press (AP) chose to frame Mullally’s appointment as a moment of rupture with ecclesiastical tradition, describing it as “shattering a stained-glass ceiling.” Quoting George Gross, an expert on monarchy and religion at King’s College London, AP noted, “If you can have a female prime minister and a female monarch, why can’t you have a female archbishop?” Yet this framing, while rhetorically effective, reveals an implicit conflation between the secular and the sacred spheres, a logical fallacy from the perspective of political theology, which upholds the distinction between church and state.

The AP’s additional portrayal of Mullally as “first among equals” subtly reinforces the notion of measured progress within a hierarchical institution, acknowledging both the historic nature of the decision and the ongoing resistance within traditionalist circles.

“Renewal and Hope” or “Bitterly Contested Equality”?

Continued below.

The fact Gentiles think they are the only Church is telling in itself. They did their best to weed out the Jews but there is absolutely no reason why said Jews cannot maintain their heritage and religion, while also following Jesus. Universal means all, not one group. That is how it was done in the beginning, and so it shall be in the end. The Church is truth from the Father, not Jew or Gentile.

Wolseley said:

Now there are reports coming out that Nick Reiner was attempting a "transgender conversion" and was pumped full of synthetic hormones in preparation for a sex change. Whether the hormones had anything to do with driving him over the edge is unknown.

Click to expand...

Really? I have not ran across that yet.

The last quarter century in Western cultural life has been wasted. Everything is a little bit mid, as the kids say. There have been impressive individual works of art and entertainment. But taken as a whole, the picture is bleak: our artistic output is derivative and cheaply didactic, either moralizing or starved for moral judgment and ideas. Now, as cultural criticism confronts this epochal failure, it’s easy to cast partisan blame, with a still-dominant Left critical establishment training its sights on the Right.
Easy — but inaccurate.

Cultural life in the 21st century doesn’t feel tortured or ecstatic so much as muted. We aren’t truly bored anymore; boredom has been technologically abolished. Every stray second can be plastered over with a feed, a notification, a video “For You,” an algorithmic recommendation tuned precisely to prevent mental calm. But neither are we animated. There are widespread predictions of a coming civil war and calls for a political uprising, yet neither is remotely on the horizon — because we aren’t passionate enough. Instead, we drift in a gray zone between stimulation and stupor, provoked but under-engaged, surrounded by infinite novelty that no longer feels all that novel.

Our clothes arrive in two days and fall apart in three. Travel is cheaper, but cities blur into one another, interchangeable landscapes of chain restaurants, and “authentically curated” coffee shops identical from Denver to Dublin. The internet, once a wild frontier, now feels like a series of endlessly recycled aesthetics: girl dinner, cottagecore, blokecore, everything a core, everything a remix.

It’s precisely this sense of living in a stagnant wasteland that Blank Space, W. David Marx’s wide-ranging survey of 21st century-culture, tries to map. In his previous polemic, 2022’s Status and Culture, the Tokyo-based culture-vulture took a sanguine approach to contemporary life, arguing that the omnivorous approach to cultural consumption in the West — where there is no more snobbery, and where elites enjoy “not just high culture, but pop and indie, niche and mass, new and old, domestic and foreign, primitive and sophisticated” — is by and large a good thing for the sake of flattening the class distinctions of old. We were slouching toward equality.

Now, Marx worries that the lack of pretense in contemporary culture is no utopia, that it might mean we’re all eating from the same trough of slop. Across nearly 400 increasingly exasperated pages, Marx convincingly argues that art, entertainment, and fashion since the year 2000 have been some combination of uninspired, recycled, soulless, corporatized, or plainly dumb — so much so that there is a blank space where a distinct cultural imprint should be.

Continued below.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ah yes, that'll go over well.

I can see the articles and conversations now.

"Trump fires ASL interpreter because he felt he was being overshadowed or not the center of attention due to his massive ego" will be how that conversation would likely go.

Click to expand...

That's literally the excuse you just made for getting rid of ASL translation altogether.

Archaeologists in Turkey have discovered a fresco of a Roman-looking Jesus as the "Good Shepherd," which is being hailed as one of the most important finds from Anatolia's early Christian era.

The work of art was found in August in an underground tomb near the town of Iznik, where the Nicene Creed, a foundational statement of Christian belief, was adopted in A.D. 325. The tomb itself is believed to date back to the third century, when the area was still under the Roman Empire and Christians faced persecution.



Archaeologists clean and restore frescoes inside a 3rd-century tomb where a rare early Christian depiction of Jesus as the "Good Shepherd" was discovered, in Iznik, Turkey, Friday, Dec. 12, 2025.(Khalil Hamra/AP Photo)

Continued below.

Oompa Loompa said:

I think immigrants should be asked, "If war broke out between the United States and your home country, which side would you support?" It the answer isn't immediately "The United States," they should leave.

Click to expand...

I am an American citizen by birth and a born-again Christian. If there were ever a war between Israel and the USA, I'm unsure which side I would support. Does this uncertainty mean I should lose my citizenship?

"I personally very much hope that such a process will be opened": Archbishop Georg Gänswein desires a beatification process for Benedict XVI. In an interview, he also commented on the pope's theology and the Traditional Latin Mass.​

Archbishop Georg Gänswein hopes that a beatification process will be opened for the late Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013). "I personally very much hope that such a process will be opened," said the former private secretary of Benedict and current Apostolic Nuncio to the Baltic States in an interview with the television station K-TV.

According to the station, Gänswein also emphasized the central element of Benedict's understanding of faith in the interview. A key word in this regard is "joy." For the German pope, faith was both the source and the measure of joy. If faith doesn't lead to joy, "something is still not quite right with the life of faith. Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, is a theologian of joy," said Gänswein, who also reaffirmed the importance of continuity in faith: "We mustn't cut into the substance; rather, we must allow ourselves to be shaped by the Lord, by the faith of the Church."

Extraordinary Rite: Back to Benedict's "wise arrangement"

Continued below.

This image making also includes a nude Pieta. Their website has more.

And if you thought that was shocking, the exhibition has been praised by the Artists' Bishop Glettler, the Parish Priest of the Cathedral Parish and a Jesuit even writes in its praise in the programme.

"'Du sollst Dir ein Bild machen' exhibition at the Vienna Künstlerhaus – well-deserved rating: a must-see! [...] The exhibition is evidence of the endless struggle to somehow do justice to the mystery of God, who has inscribed himself into a wounded world." – Bishop Hermann Glettler, Innsbruck (on Instagram)



Bishop Glettler who was thought in the running for Vienna

samaus123456789 said:

Didascalia Apostolorum

Didascalia on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

This text internally is written by the apostles in Jerusalem. It contains phrases like I Peter, me Peter, I Mathew , we apostles.
Epiphanius Salamis 300s AD said it was written by the apostles like it said. So I believe it was written pre 70 AD, and is inspired scripture. It is a lot like the Didache which also internally dates to before 70 AD but Didascalia is a lot longer. It is on audiobook here

Login to view embedded media
Here is chat GPT summary of the teachings of the text

The Didascalia Apostolorum presents itself as apostolic instruction, spoken in the collective voice of the apostles with Peter as chief spokesman, addressing how Christian communities are to live faithfully before God; it teaches that believers are no longer bound to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, emphasizing instead moral obedience, repentance, mercy, and care for the poor, while portraying the bishop as a shepherd and physician who must govern gently, restore sinners, and guard the community from injustice; the text regulates church order, family life, sexual conduct, the roles of women and widows, almsgiving, and discipline, consistently stressing that authority exists for healing and salvation rather than punishment, and that Christian life replaces temple sacrifice with prayer, charity, and faithful endurance amid opposition.

It uses the word Catholic which means universal. There is no Mary worship in the text. It says Peter was buried in the Vatican

Chat GPT

In the first century, there was no “Vatican” as an institution and no St. Peter’s Basilica. The area now called the Vatican was simply Vatican Hill (Mons Vaticanus)—a low hill outside Rome’s sacred boundary (pomerium) on the west bank of the Tiber. It was largely non-urban, used for gardens, cemeteries (necropolis), and imperial leisure. Under Caligula and Nero, a large chariot-racing stadium—the Circus of Nero (or Circus of Caligula)—stood there. According to early Christian memory, Nero executed Christians in this area, and Peter was martyred nearby, traditionally buried in the adjacent necropolis. That grave became the focal point for later veneration, which—centuries later—led Constantine to build the first basilica over it (4th century).

Summary: In the first century, the “Vatican” was a geographic location tied to imperial Rome and early Christian martyrdom, not a church state or headquarters; its later significance grew because of Peter’s burial, not because it already held authority.

Click to expand...

This is not part of the canon of Scripture, so whatever merits it may have, even however 'inspired' it may be, it does not belong in a Bible.

As to your ChatGPT, well, ai;dr

BPPLEE said:

I didn’t say anything about 20 million. If you believe that is the total amount of illegal immigrants in the country I believe that the number is higher than that. I wouldn’t try to guess what the actual number is

Click to expand...

Oh okay. I misunderstood when you said you suspected that the actual number [of what? total or recent arrivals?] was "higher rather than lower" without specifically saying higher or lower than what. I just assumed you were referring to the number mentioned rather than some unspoken, unknown. My bad.

So this thread goes to show how many are actually focusing on the Nativity versus divisive political messaging. People often put their politics ahead of the Faith.

Michie said:

Some Protestant scholars who spoke with CNA welcomed a Vatican document that clarified titles for the Blessed Virgin Mary that discouraged the use of Co-Redemptrix/Co-Redeemer and put limits on the use of Mediatrix/Mediator.

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) issued the doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis on Nov. 4. It was approved by Pope Leo XIV and signed by DDF Prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández on Oct. 7.

According to the document, using “Co-Redemptrix” to explain Mary’s role in salvation “would not be appropriate.” The document is less harsh about using “Mediatrix” and says “if misunderstood, it could easily obscure or even contradict” Mary’s role in mediation.

The document affirms Mary plays a role in both redemption and mediation because she freely cooperates with Jesus Christ. That role, it explains, is always “subordinate” to Christ, and it warned against using titles in a way that could be misconstrued to mitigate Christ as the sole Redeemer and sole Mediator.

Catholic reactions have been mixed, with some seeing the clarification as helpful and others defending the titles as consistent with the understanding of Mary’s role as subordinate and asking the Vatican to formally define the doctrines themselves rather than simply issue a note on the titles.

Positive reactions from Protestants​

Continued below.

Some Protestant scholars welcome Vatican document clarifying Marian titles

Some Protestant scholars welcomed a Vatican document that clarified titles for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

The 'clarification' muddied the waters considerably AND actually backfired in raising interest in a very tiny aspect of Marian devotion. Sure, some Protestants will be excited. But it is not an 'advance' as much as a confusion from a very confused and confusing prelate. Diane Montagna asked Fernandez about this in an interview and he retreated to say that we can believe what we want about Mary but for Vatican purposes they just won't say it. It would have been far better to do exactly what pope Benedict did, to rather quietly say that nothing new could yet be defined. OR to have the balls to say that it was just wrong to even think Mary was a co-redemptrix if they thought that to be the case. What we got was weaselly doublespeak confusion. Not an advance. One of the worst sorts of retreats.

“It’s never too late to fulfill a dream.”​

Photo credit: Caldas Newspaper

A century of waiting finally came to an end—wrapped in emotion, deep faith, and even a few tears.

100-year-old José Francisco recently received Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation all on the same day!

The ceremony took place at the Church of A-dos-Francos in Portugal and was celebrated by Father João de Brito with support from the Parish of Caldas da Rainha.

José was born in the same town and spent his entire life working in agriculture. A father of seven—six daughters and one son—he made sure all his children were baptized, even though he himself never was. The desire, however, remained quietly alive in his heart for decades.

How did it all begin?​

The dream began to take shape thanks to an initiative of the Rotary Community Development Center (NRDC) of Caldas da Rainha and the Academy of Dreams. This past July, José participated in an activity that offered seniors immersive experiences through 360-degree virtual-reality glasses.

He “attended” a dance through virtual reality and, deeply moved, symbolically stepped out of the isolation of the room where he spends most of his time.

During a conversation with the team, he opened up about an old regret: never having been baptized.

He explained that the hardships of rural life—long days, exhaustion, and lack of time—kept him from receiving the sacraments. Now at 100, he felt it was “no longer worth it.” But the team encouraged him, insisting,

“It’s never too late to fulfill a dream.”

Click to expand...

Spiritual Preparation​

Continued below.

André Rieu - Out standing.

Login to view embedded media

Please pray that my son Jakeb will have a good day mind and body and get to his Doctor appointment. Please pray that he can handle the stress and come home happy. Please pray that he even has the courage to go. I also ask that the Doctor can help him and God shows us what to do and that there is nothing seriously wrong with him and that Jesus will put his healing hands upon my son. I pray that him and his dad get there and home safely. Dear God, please let this go well and heal my son. Please Dear God. I love You Dear GOd and I love You Dear Jesus. In Jesus name I pray. Thank you for prayers and God bless you.