Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Man,
Does Jesus Love His Mother!
You would want the best for your Mother.
God created the Mother of Christ, perfect.
EWTN.com
Souls fall in love and Marry. Only God can give you
a Wife, in time or in Eternity. Revelation ch. 12
The Woman is Mother Mary!
Those who pray in union with the Saints become Saints.
Like Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Mary and Joseph,
Grandma and Grandpa. Love songs are Heavenly. Even
Heavy Metal Love Songs. Rock N' Roll never dies!
We love Our Lady.
A Lady we all know, who shines white light and wants
to show, how everything still turns to gold...
Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven. Give me Heaven or nothing.

led zeppelin is purely satanic

bee_rad wrote:

The papacy has little if any connection to the apostolic church.

Here's a little fun trivia: do you., or anyone else, know which two Popes (or at least bishops in thge Roman church--I don't want to get into a debater about when Rome became a monoespicopacy)
may well have been mentioned (prior to their papacy) in the NT--that is, at least early Church historians identify two Popes with people named in the NT. Does anyone know who these are (other than Mark?)


graybeardheadbanger

Mark wrote:

Kan-o-sushi wrote:

If someone holds to a heretical doctrine they may rightly be named a heretic. However, the posters in this thread need to avoid using it as an insult. Perhaps it would be better to say "that is a heretical belief", etc. than saying "you're a heretic" because some people may take it as an insult.

I'm using heretic to expose heretical beliefs, not as an insult, that would be ridiculous.

The point is, you think what we believe and what we stand for is heretical, thus labeling us heretic, THUS offending us as we do not believe we are and KNOW we are not heretical.

We have no idea what someones heart is like, what their walk in Faith is like.... That is what counts most.
The people I know are preaching and living for God, getting out in the community and building relationships with people and by how they behave and speak show Christ in them.

Jesus is alive in us, He works in us and through us. What do you do to further the Kingdom?

I wanna know how to live for God, how to bring others to Him, follow Him with all my heart and soul, be focused on Him and do things according to His will. It is good to obtain knowledge, know your scriptures, pray, attend church and receive good teaching.

I do respect you Mark to an extent, although at times you are careless with what you say and your age gives you away. None of the other Catholic posters have thrown the heretic label around so naively or thoughtlessly. I am strong in my walk with Christ and my convictions, but I am not going to throw any labels on anyone that can be harmful.

What is our purpose as believers?

I know what it is. Do you?

Broc, it seems by now that by and large your biggest obstacles to considering Catholicism as true have to do with the moral track record of the leaders of the Church at certain times, and less about theology. It is certainly understandable that one would have these reactions (though many qualifications need to be made---hisotrical accounts often tell only part of the story, choose to arbitrarily focus on the negative and ignore the positive, in an effort to create a preponderant sense of badness, neglect to consider the ways in which contemporary values influence our understanding of religious reactions, etc.) , but it does seem to me that a church could essentially hold to truth theologically, contributing to the production of many stellar Christ like examples, while also being subjected to many who failed, or even perverted, her highest ideals. One could list all the incredible humanitarian achievements done in the name of Catholicism, and then say, see, how could one not follow a Church who has done all this?

Let's look at a counterexcample. Like all analogies it is not perfect, but captrues important aspects of a point. Suppose someone were a person who was starving, looking to have a life with decent opportunities, etc. and was thinking of immigrating to the United States. Suppose that person said, "I've read the declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and the writings of some of
the Founders of that nation, and I'm convinced that this system is the one best suited to protect human liberty, recognize human dignity, etc. [MY NOTE: we may or mayu not agree with this ourtselves, but many Americans would say these things]. Also, I know many people who came to this country and went on to have good lives, and I want that for me and my family." Now, suppose someone said, "NO way you want to go there---it definitely is not the country with the best laws, Constitutional principles, etc. What's my proof? Well, they had slaves, they used to note let women vote, they slaughtered many Native Americans, they partitioned off their own citizens because they happened to be of Japanese descent [MY NOTE: I think someone needs to do a grind song about THAT---hardly anyone talks about that civil rights atrocity anymore---Funeral Oath, I'm sure you could find Seattlites of Japanese descent from whom you could learn much], the fought in wars that were not just, etc. etc."

Now, such a retort would certainly not be ridiculous--we could sympathize with a person from one of these mistreated groups, etc. making this claim. On the other handm, the person wishing to move to the US could also truthfully point out that much of the good seems to be genuine, as he really does knbow people whose lives were made better by coming to the US, could cite other examples where the US has acted more nobly, etc.

What we'd have to say is that within any large group of people which has been around long enough, one can find plenty of negatives, even in many cases among leadership. Those groups that have more truth to them, also, one can find among the more notewirthy examples of huyman excellence. You can see that there is not necessarily (or even likely) a clear connection between the ideals of the Constiution, and these atrocities--in fact, many people reacvt as strongly as they do to these atrocities precisely because they seem to distort the very ideals these documents embrace. I submit to you that it is entirely possible a similar thing goes on within Catholicism (bearing in mind that even these negative examples may be less simple affairs than first meets the eye--but I don't deny that genuine sinfulness was involved in some cases either--I just thuink it al;ways health yto extend skepticism to purely skeptical accounts of things).




I woulkd encourage you, Broc, to spend as much time (maybe more at this point, just for balance) readiung the lives of Catholic saints, or heroes not formally canonized, many martyred for their faith, many of whom cite the support they received from Catholic practices, etc. to get a sense of what I am saying. I would also ask you to remember that Satanic forces tend to work the hardest against that which provides the greatest threat to them. If you read stories about, say, martyrs in Viet Nam, or those who endured years of torture (some of them bishops, BTW) and survived, who speak of the joy they felt at bits of bread and wine being smuggled in to their prisoon, where they were given 2 tablespoons of rice a day and had to find ways to eat bugs from the walls to which htey were shackled in order to get enough protein to survive, I would think there might be something to the idea of the Eucharist sustaining someone spiritually (such folks will also cite the recitation of the rosary in their minds, etc.--I personally don't say the rosary much--it's not a general requirement of being Catholic--but I certainlyu recognizes the graces that can come from this, including its hewavby use of Scripture, and may well find a time in my own life when I am made humble enough to realize this more fully). There are many other such sotries--and one can find examples of Popes themselves who suffered rather than compromise human truth (but keep in mind that Peter himself could be flakier at times--but his teachings did in fact survive the gates of Hell--his own sinfulness and weakness did not prevent the truth of his teachings from winning ut in the end).


Having said all these things, I'll touch on the below points in a separate post.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

eternalmystery wrote:

I'm pretty sure the Inquisitions were Spirit led. Surely Christ let, and even commanded His church to burn, torture, and murder those who disagreed with it.

How do you expect me to embrace a system who:

1. Has killed people for translating the Bible into the vernacular.
2. Teaches things aberrant to the core of the Gospel, even contradicting it in numerous places.
3. Anathematized the very heart of Christ's Gospel.
4. Doesn't know what to do with pedophiles and perverts in their own priesthood.
5. Excommunicates and/or threatens to excommunicate people who own or read a Bible (this was, in fact, done in my area)
6. By it's own admission, has failed to instruct and teach it's members, rendering them ignorant of what it even teaches.
7. Has historically, according to scholars, forged historical documents in it's own favor to make itself look legit.
8. Claims a direct papal succession to Peter, even when the Scriptures themselves dictate that Peter was not called to pastor a Gentile congregation, but his primary ministry was to the Jews, that he was married, and from numerous other evidences, never founded the church at Rome (Paul did).
9. Proclaims apostolic succession yet at the same time anathematizes what they clearly taught, ultimately anathematizing the apostles themselves, and also the early church fathers such as Clement.
10. Uses their power for socio-political reasons instead of proclaiming the Gospel.
11. Has recognized blatantly unregenerate, unrepentant heathens as "vicars of Christ", such as Alexander VI, who ordered assassinations on people he didn't like, had tons of illegitimate children, had sex orgies in the Vatican, and in the end, died from syphillis.
12. Claims that the pope is God's representative on earth, yet at several points in time in history, there were anywhere between 2 and 4 people claiming the papal throne at the same time, even to the point of ordering each other's assassinations, in order to obtain political and religious power because Rome was important in the religious/political arena.

I'm sorry, but Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. But from the evidence shown here, the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome. Therefore, Rome is not Christ's church, and the pope is not His spokesman.

You would be blind and foolish to take one look at the history, the corruption, and the overall putridity of the Roman church system, and not see serious, inevitable problems. I'm sorry, but I cannot embrace this, and am unable to join hands with it. Knowing what I know about the history and current state of Rome, and knowing what I know about what the Scripture clearly teaches, I cannot submit to Rome, because I am unable to. I'm not unwilling, I am unable.

And "talk to a wise priest"? I talked to the one here in my town. He didn't even know the content of the Bible. But he could quote church fathers really well. Still took him a good few minutes to find the book of 1 Corinthians, and he eventually just looked in the table of contents to find it.


And by the way, to the Catholics here. I actually attended a Mass with a Catholic family I'm friends with a few Sundays ago. *shock*

I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New Orleans with them, which is the oldest RCC church in New Orleans, built in about 1834. This was one of the few RCC churches that still practices the Old Tridentine (old Latin) Mass. Let me share my experience.

99% of everything done was in Latin. I understood absolutely nothing, and of course, I learned absolutely nothing. No teaching went on whatsoever.

The only things that were said in English was a 5 minute speech on humility which told me absolutely nothing, and is something that every true christian would already know, and Scripture "reading". I put "reading" in quotes because they didn't really read it. They chanted it. And they didn't even announce what section of Scripture it was. It was out of 1 Corinthians 12, and the reason I knew was because I recognized it right off the bat. Then they did a few more things in Latin, and everyone went up to receive the Eucharist, and then we were dismissed.

I didn't learn a thing while I was in there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The place honestly felt more like a Buddhist temple than a church indwelt with the Spirit.

I also noticed that afterwards, even when we went to the back for refreshments, no one really fellowshiped with each other. It was like they came in to do their duty, eat the wafer, and then depart.


If I go to a church, I want to learn something. The RCC has, for centuries, failed to do this, and now they are paying for it. People in the hierarchy are today, lamenting over the fact that most of the membership of Rome is ignorant of what it teaches, and they should be.

Sorry, but I had to say this. My apologies, but it needed to be brought up.

Greybeard, my problems with Catholicism are both the history/current actions (or lack thereof) and the doctrine. Mostly the doctrine though. Their claim that we have to add our works to Christ is bad enough for me to utterly reject it as false.

If we have to work in cooperation with God for salvation/justification, then:

1. Christ's atonement is not sufficient in itself to cleanse us from sin, when the Bible makes it more than clear that it was sufficient.
2. Christ failed to redeem His own people.
3. Christ died needlessly.

The RCC claims that we have to be righteous first before God declares us righteous, which is what the whole idea of purgatory is for, when you are in a state of grace in this life and pass on to the next, you go there to get purged of venial sins committed after baptism that didn't get purged in the current life. But think about this:

1. This means that God only justifies those who are already righteous. If you are already righteous, then why do you need to be justified? That is like me going to the courthouse and saying "I didn't break any laws, federal or local, but can you just clear my name for me anyway?" It makes no sense.

2. The RCC doesn't outwardly claim that God justifies those who are already righteous, but when they say that you have to have purged away all your sins first before you obtain justification, then the logical conclusion is that God only justifies those who are already righteous. This is in absolute contradiction of Scripture, which claims that God justifies the ungodly. There is a huge difference here.

I wonder how Rome exegetes and explains all of Romans 4 and Galatians 3. I don't believe they are able to because it clearly contradicts the Roman church's self-proclaimed "Sacred Tradition".

It's really wonderful to know that Rome does not believe that the death of God in the Flesh is enough though. It's heart-warming to know that God failed on the cross according to Rome.

vandor wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

the monks are good essay topic

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

I was watching the Guiness Book of World Records, And they had a Monk on
there, Don't try this at home. He opened his mouth and they put melted metal
on his tongue for 30 seconds. He spit out the lead out on a peice of wood, and
it burned some wood. The Monk opend his mouth and I kid you not, there were no
burns or Blisters. You Tube offers the Movie "Kung Fu." And don't forget the
Master Bruce Lee. Strong man stunts. It's on there. The Desert Fathers wrote and prayed to Our Christ!
Who is the strongest? Jesus said "Of those born of woman, there is none greater than John the Baptist." Vigilance Saints Arise

eternalmystery wrote:

Greybeard, my problems with Catholicism are both the history/current actions (or lack thereof) and the doctrine. Mostly the doctrine though. Their claim that we have to add our works to Christ is bad enough for me to utterly reject it as false.

I am glad that we can get back to focusing on doctrine. It does seem, though, that even if one can respond to your doctrinal objections, you fall back on "but the Church has done so much evil, so we don';t need to get into the doctrinal stuff," but when responses are given to the immorality arguments (which have never really been rebutted, it seems), it then goes back to doctrine.
But, I guess I'll have to respond to whichever kind of objection comes up. I DO think it is best to return to doctrinal claims, as you have done here, in that 1) it is always possible that a group could teach truth and at times fail to live up to it--but this would of course not create a reason to deny the truth, but only to claim it and hold it accountable for living up to it (i.e. it does not rebut anything), 2) there is always the problem of selectivity (we'll count negatives as evidence agains,mt but won't acknowledge positives as evidence for), and 3) failure to acknowledge that the alternatives often have led to similarly disturbing problems (for example, the day after I read your las tpost, I had a text from my Lutheran friend telling me the ELCA had just approved pracitcing gay clerfy. I realize you would denounce this, but the point is, the "unity" of doctrine and morals that has been abstractly retained via sola Scriptura has become increasingly narrow over the centuires, and even those fewer churches who have towed the moral line--more or less, as many have compromised on issues like birth control and the like, which virtually all Christians disapproved of a half century ago, and which the Catholic church alone has remained a staunch proclaimer of how this issues relates to various other social ills) generally disagree on points of doctrine which are at least significant enough to warrant the emergence of new denominations, or the rejection of all denominations in favor of yet more "non denominational" churches.

In any case, I am confident that Catholic teaching can stand up well to the doctrinal objections. Whether or not one can make arguments which are totally convincing, one can at least make strong cases that these views have not been convincgly refuted. With this, I'll proceed (another question: IF Catholic doctirne were shown to be the most defensible, would you still continue to reject it for the other reasons? If so, it seems then that these other reasons matter more to you than doctrine, OR you have to make sure to continue to reject the doctrines, no matter what the argument and evidence, to avoid this conclusion. Just something to consider. The alternative that NO one has proper doctrine would be a problem, I think--and of coruse would raise the problem that one cannot make even THAT judgment unless he or she thinks proper doctrine can be known to make the judgment that no one else has it. But if one finds proiper doctirne only in his or her own view--in addition to opposig Scriptural teachings against private interpretations--this would mean that true doctrine lived and died with this individual--unless of coruse, they manage to convince some others about every single point of view at some point).

Anyway, here goes:

Quote :

If we have to work in cooperation with God for salvation/justification, then:

1. Christ's atonement is not sufficient in itself to cleanse us from sin, when the Bible makes it more than clear that it was sufficient.
2. Christ failed to redeem His own people.
3. Christ died needlessly.

Okay, let's look at things right here. I believe you are not a hard-core Calvinist, but unless you are a hard-core Calvinist, you run into this same problem yourself. IF you believe that we must FREELY accept the grace to be justified, then there is something WE must DO--in which case, on your reasoning, Christ's grace would not be sufficient. I would say it still is, IF sufficiency is understood differently--BUT the way I would understand it would also be entirely compatible with the Catholic view. (BTW, please be clear that the idea that works cooperate with saving grace
is not jusat a Catholic view, but the view of ALL ancient Chjristian churches--Copt, Orthodox, etc. Therefore, one must hold that they all got it wrong, and that false doctirne prevailed among Christendom for centuries before tshe Reformaiton straightened things out--BUT even then, it would be only a certain branch of the Reformation).

Anyway, I'd like to know your position on htis: do you hold to Calvinism, which holds that ourt "free acceptance" is itself predestined (as well as our lack of acceptance), or is it really in OUR power (albeit with the aid of grace) to freely accept or reject saving grace? If you hold to the latter, then your view is basically the same as Catholicism's.

Here's a quote from the catechism, sections on grace following those on justification (sec. 1996ff):

1996 Justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is the favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to His call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers in divine nature and eternal life."

1998 The vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for He alone can reveal and give Himself. It suprasses the power of human intellect and will...

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to sustain our collab oration in justification through faith, and sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what He has begun, 'since he completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it.' --quote from Augustine--

"Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works,
for His mercy has gone before us.......

2002--God's free initiative demands man's fre response, for God has created man in His image, by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know and love Him....

Okay, that's enough, but you get the idea. One can summarize it like this: God provides prevenient grace which restores our freedom from rthe enslavement of sin so that we have the free will to accept (or reject) freely saving grace. Our choice to accept is required, BUT even this choice is only made possible by grace. Grace, however, does not necessitate it, as in Calvinism. The reason it does not necessitate is that we are created in God';s image, and since God is free, we too must be free--in other words, Calvinisitc predetermination seems to deny that we are in the image of God, because it denies our freedom and God is free.

Note that we only work to cooperate with what God has initiated, and what we do not on our own deserve, etc. This seems pretty much identical to me to what consistent, non-Calvinist Protestans would hold.

Now, does this mean that Christ's sacrifice is "not sufficient?" Well, it IS sufficient in that it provides us with everything we need to be capable of freely cooperating with saving grace. However, Christ's death does not necessitate us, because this would mean that His death does not
provide us with freedom. In other words, the view that Christ's death absolutely is sufficient so that NOTHING else is required, including our free acceptance--would mean that freedom is not involved--SO that Christ's death would NOT be suffiicent to restore us to truly being in hte image of God! If one want sot save that we can be saved IN THE IMAGE OF GOD< then it MUST be the case that our genuine freedom (made possible by grace) is needed to cooperate. So, one has a choice--either there is sense in which Chriust's death is not sufficient In that our free choice is needed, OR Christ's death is sufficient so as to determine us--BUT inb this case it is not sufficient to restore us to being in the image of God. Since the Catholic belief is that Christ is sufficient to restore us to God's imange, then it must mean that ourt cooperation (a work, if you will) is needed, and that it occurs in a non-determined (THOUGH grace-aided) way.

That's quite a bit to chew on right there, so Ill come backl to hte remaining points later.

Thanks for contnuing the discussion, graybeardheadbanger

Quote :

The RCC claims that we have to be righteous first before God declares us righteous, which is what the whole idea of purgatory is for, when you are in a state of grace in this life and pass on to the next, you go there to get purged of venial sins committed after baptism that didn't get purged in the current life. But think about this:

1. This means that God only justifies those who are already righteous. If you are already righteous, then why do you need to be justified? That is like me going to the courthouse and saying "I didn't break any laws, federal or local, but can you just clear my name for me anyway?" It makes no sense.

2. The RCC doesn't outwardly claim that God justifies those who are already righteous, but when they say that you have to have purged away all your sins first before you obtain justification, then the logical conclusion is that God only justifies those who are already righteous. This is in absolute contradiction of Scripture, which claims that God justifies the ungodly. There is a huge difference here.

I wonder how Rome exegetes and explains all of Romans 4 and Galatians 3. I don't believe they are able to because it clearly contradicts the Roman church's self-proclaimed "Sacred Tradition".

It's really wonderful to know that Rome does not believe that the death of God in the Flesh is enough though. It's heart-warming to know that God failed on the cross according to Rome.

Thank God ahead of time. God knows what you need before you ask.
To all the Ladies: She "Our Lady" is the greatest Lady that ever lives.
Single, Married, or Religious : You have these 3 to choose from.
To study "Fatima" and the apparitions, would increase your faith.
Nuns and Missionaries have a classroom of children, or a City of Children,
or a Convent and a world of children to pray for.
Because the Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest woman who ever lived,
we will go to a Catholic Book Store to read her life and times, and
read the Books of the Catholic Saints. There are "many" Woman Saints
who saved their Souls, and we may read their Life and Times in Christ.
EWTN.com Eternal Word Television Network is the single greatest
Catholic Testamony on the Planet. All are welcome!
Pray for us.

Okay, let's move on to some more points:

eternalmystery wrote:

The RCC claims that we have to be righteous first before God declares us righteous, which is what the whole idea of purgatory is for, when you are in a state of grace in this life and pass on to the next, you go there to get purged of venial sins committed after baptism that didn't get purged in the current life. But think about this:

1. This means that God only justifies those who are already righteous. If you are already righteous, then why do you need to be justified? That is like me going to the courthouse and saying "I didn't break any laws, federal or local, but can you just clear my name for me anyway?" It makes no sense.

2. The RCC doesn't outwardly claim that God justifies those who are already righteous, but when they say that you have to have purged away all your sins first before you obtain justification, then the logical conclusion is that God only justifies those who are already righteous. This is in absolute contradiction of Scripture, which claims that God justifies the ungodly. There is a huge difference here.

The Catholic (and Orhtodox, Copticc, etc.) view that one is initially fully justified and sacntified at baptism makes this a bit more complex, but leaving that point aside, we can say this: your difficulty is due to a misunderstanding of "justification." You think of "justification" as a single moment, so of course, on this definition, your assessment of the Catholic, etc. view would be right--one is only "justified" (declared actually righteous) once one is already righteous (and righteous people don't need saving!) However, Catholicism (the question of baptism aside) understands justification as a PROCESS--in the end, justification and sanctification conflate--tha tis, the completion of justification IS sanctification. I grew up in the Wesleyan tradition, and the distinction between justification a sancitfication led to all kinds of difficulties that were never answered satisfactorily for me. If one is saved without sanctification ,then what happens to one who doesn't go on to get sanctified? The answer was, "well, everyone who is REALLY justified WILL go one to become sanctitied. " But this suggests to me that there is really no practical difference between justification and sanctification--if one can only be "really" known to be "really" saved if he or she sanctified, then it seems to me that sanctification and justification amount to the same thing--and this is the Catholic view.

Anyway, Catholics would say that God is JUSTIFYING (notice process verb) toward the fullness of salvation, at which point we are declared righteous. So, God is not saving the righteous--He is saving thsoe who have begun transformation toward righteousness but have not completed the journey. These imperfections impeding the journey are venial. Aquinas uses the example of a man far away from God who turns toward God (repentance), and allows God to pull him closer and closer. The man ius not in perfect communion with God until he is right before Him, but he desires God and is moving toward Him. If he dies before completing the journey, God will help him complete it after death (purgatory). By comparsion, some may be closer to God, BUT turn their back on Him, and die in this state. They are condemned. So, these people may have less sinful actions outwardly,. BUT they do not desire to come to God fully and be perfected. This is one reason we cannot judge--some may in certain respects be further from God, but really want to come back to Him, and God gives them the grace to finish the race. Others, to our appearances, seem very close, but turn their back to God. We see them as more moral, etc. than the one far off, but God sees the one far off as desiring Him, and the other as wanting to go his own way.
(NOtice too that Paul in Romans 11, I bleieve, talks about being NEARER to salvation than when he first believed--implying a work in progress! Note other places where he talks about "working out" salvation--I know how people explain this, but it does say "working" and notmerely "demonstratign the effects over time--as well as finishing the race, etc.)

Quote :

I wonder how Rome exegetes and explains all of Romans 4 and Galatians 3. I don't believe they are able to because it clearly contradicts the Roman church's self-proclaimed "Sacred Tradition".

It's really wonderful to know that Rome does not believe that the death of God in the Flesh is enough though. It's heart-warming to know that God failed on the cross according to Rome.

I'll come back to these later. However, I can assure you that the Roman position by no means implies that God has failed on the cross. They have Christus Victor, after all! But technically, I think you'd agree death is not enough--He must also resurrect. The Catholic church would add that we must then participarte, with the help of grace, in His resurrection and death through the sacraments. God is not interested in "counting us" as righteous--He desires that we REALLY be made righteous, ion the likeness of His eternal Son ,Jesus Christ. Without His death and resurrection, this participation would not be possible, and we would all be damned. With it, all things are possible, praise be to God.

graybeardheadbanger

I disagree with 90% of everything you say (@ vigilance), but a lot more on the statement that mary was the greatest woman on earth. Jesus said that those who do His Father's Will are His true brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. He said that when His family sent people to tell Him to come home. Who? His mother, Mary, amongst others. But Jesus disagreed. He stayed and kept preaching to His true family.

Mark 3:31-35
31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.

34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."


It seems, according to this passage, that Jesus, while respecting and honoring His mother like anyone should, never gave her as much glory as today's religion does. If we do something contrary to Jesus' teaching, we are in error. The error, in this case, is giving mary too much glory simply based on the fact that she was Jesus' earthly mother. Jesus' deeds are written all over the bible (even in the OT, as prophecies). What about mary? Should a woman be given so much glory when The Holy Scriptures testify so little about her? No.

Mary isn't my spiritual mother. Never was, never will. Mary, to me, is a mere servant of God. Like us all who strive to do His Will. And even then, I'm about 99% sure that there are many many more women who truly dedicated their lives to Christ who are now greater than mary, in Heaven.

Hero wrote:

I disagree with 90% of everything you say (@ vigilance), but a lot more on the statement that mary was the greatest woman on earth. Jesus said that those who do His Father's Will are His true brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. He said that when His family sent people to tell Him to come home. Who? His mother, Mary, amongst others. But Jesus disagreed. He stayed and kept preaching to His true family.

Mark 3:31-35
31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.

34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."


It seems, according to this passage, that Jesus, while respecting and honoring His mother like anyone should, never gave her as much glory as today's religion does. If we do something contrary to Jesus' teaching, we are in error. The error, in this case, is giving mary too much glory simply based on the fact that she was Jesus' earthly mother. Jesus' deeds are written all over the bible (even in the OT, as prophecies). What about mary? Should a woman be given so much glory when The Holy Scriptures testify so little about her? No.

Mary isn't my spiritual mother. Never was, never will. Mary, to me, is a mere servant of God. Like us all who strive to do His Will. And even then, I'm about 99% sure that there are many many more women who truly dedicated their lives to Christ who are now greater than mary, in Heaven.

The fact that others can be Christ's "true mothers, brothers, etc." does not equal a claim that mary is not as great as others, does it? As Mark (here) has pointed out, the claim that Mary is full of grace uses a term for grace given by Scripture to only Mary and Christ. Also, if one makes a connection between Mary and the woman in Rev. (by no means a wild suggestion, given that the child to whom she gives birth is clearly Jesus), then we see that Rev. also refers to this woman's "other offspring.' The connotation is that Mary is the mother of all who believe.

The main objection here is that Scripture does not tell us much about Mary. Well, it doesn't tell us about many of the 12 disciples either, but they were still important enough to be among God's elite. And, it isn't as if all that little is said about mary, particularly if one does take the woman in Rev. to be an image of her. This woman wears a crown of 12 stars (signfiying the disciples and the church) and is clothed by the moon and sun. A pretty exalted status. Not to mention the parallels of purification with the temple, holy of holies, ark of the covenant, etc.

One who looks deeply at the implications of Scripture is likely more open to seeing these connections, as the early Fathers themselves often did.

graybeardheadbanger

The thing is you have assumed things from scripture, it doesn't say that it is Mary in Revelation, so why morph what is portrayed in the scriptures into something we are not sure of at all.

I truly do respect your right to have these views but highly disagree with most of them.

Time is wasted on the Mary stuff- truly how does it factor in our walk and preaching the Gospel to others?. I have never been taught to put her on any sort of pedestal, only that she was a brave, sacrificing, faithful, admiral, awesome, blessed and Godly woman and would be rewarded in heaven for doing what she did- listening to God and fulfilling His purpose.

Our focus is to be on Christ and His teachings and living according to God's will.

Not to have a thousand different theories and rituals that puts a focus on those things rather than the free and alive movement of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying you aren't doing the right thing, but for me it is just not appealing in any way to do all the things that are involved in Catholicism.

I think there is an unhealthy view of both sides, protestants aren't unruly, heretical nut jobs who desecrate every tradition. My church takes the sacrifice of Jesus very seriously, the communion is a vital part and respectful in many ways.... it is a solemn, thankful and reflective part of the service.

I find what you say is interesting, thank for being polite and tactful in how you have been responding and posting.

agreed 100% with the above.

therockismighty wrote:

The thing is you have assumed things from scripture, it doesn't say that it is Mary in Revelation, so why morph what is portrayed in the scriptures into something we are not sure of at all.

Hi again. In any case, Rev. doesn't specifically mention that the child is Jesus either, right, or that the dragon is the devil. It seems to be consistent, if one follows the rather clear imagery of these, it would make sense to carry it over to the woman. In fact, the woman clearly must represent SOMETHING. But what/who does she represent? Some would say "the church," and this is correct--but the Fathers see a dual representation--Mary is a type of the church, for all kinds of reasons.
The Church is the body of Christ; Christ and Mary share physical connections (even genetic).
The Church holds Christ "in itself" in being the place where His body and blood are made present in communion; Mary's womb holds Christ's same body and blood in her womb, etc.

Quote :

I truly do respect your right to have these views but highly disagree with most of them.

Time is wasted on the Mary stuff- truly how does it factor in our walk and preaching the Gospel to others?. I have never been taught to put her on any sort of pedestal, only that she was a brave, sacrificing, faithful, admiral, awesome, blessed and Godly woman and would be rewarded in heaven for doing what she did- listening to God and fulfilling His purpose.

And this is the point, right there. The reason Mary is "held on a pedestal" is precisely because she models these things so well. Here's where traditions who emphasize formal/canonical sainthood (remembeinfg that all who are in the kingdom are saints) have a great advantage, IMO. Christ is the ultimate example, of course, but He is also God. Those who have been transformed into Christlikeness are proof that even those who are not God can become like Him, in certain respects. How many Protestants, in all honesty, think of salvation as deification/Christification rather than being spared from Hell? The fact is, saints are regarded as the evidence that we all can become like Christ, through grace made accessible to us by Christ. Attention to them does not take away attention from Him, but actually poitns to Him. Does one love one's spouse less because one loves his or her children? Does one love one parent less by loving the other? Love, unlike physical reality, does not operate by a zero-sum game--where one grows in love toward one, one's love becomes more available to others as well. This is how it is with Christ and the saints. The more we recognize the impressiveness of the saints (including most especially Mary, without whose free consent we would not perhaps have been able to have been saved), the more we realize the glory of Christ. Indeed, did Christ's love for His mother make Him love us less? Obvuiously not. Does it seem that Christ would be threatened by one who honors His mother, even as He honors her? But in the end, Mary is not focused on to the exclusion of Christ--the more honor bestowed to her, the more the miracle of Christ is reinforced in our thinking. Sure, some people amy distort this, but consider--doesn't a relative inattention ,bordering on non-attention, to Mary also distort what our love of Christ could be? Think about how wrong it seems when we, say, love our spouse but don't particularly show love for their parents, or something like that.

Quote :

Our focus is to be on Christ and His teachings and living according to God's will.

Agreed--and this is precisely what Mary demonstrates for us!

Quote :

Not to have a thousand different theories and rituals that puts a focus on those things rather than the free and alive movement of the Holy Spirit.

But see, these rituals etc. are seen as being the work of the Holy Spirit. No offense, but this view indicates the kind of low sacramentology I too was raised with. If sacraments are really infused with God's grace, then participation in them is not "ritual," but it IS active interaction with the Holy Spirit. Christ is incarnate, so our fullest relationship with Him would involve bodily realities. Note how the sacraments all involve real bodily involvement. We are covered in water, marriuage is secually consummated, hands are laid on one in healing, etc. These are physical connections because incarnate grace is passed on in bodily connection. Other "rituals" (generally referred to as ';sacramentals") hlep prepare us for the openness and benefits of these sacramental graces. The view that sees grace as really being present in these physical activities actually emphasizes the power of the Holy Spirit more, if you think about it. The Holy Spirit can work in matter, just as He did in God being incarnate. Indeed, the intimate connection Christ had with mary would be so profound as to naturally consecrate her. In any case, all groups have "rituals"--pray is a ritual, singing hymns is a ritual, raising our hands when we sing (if one does) is a ritual, readint the Scripture is a ritual, etc. It seems the issue is more about becoming comfortable with unfamiliar rituals than a critique of ritual per se.

Quote :

I am not saying you aren't doing the right thing, but for me it is just not appealing in any way to do all the things that are involved in Catholicism.

Perhaps if you understood them differently, in time, you might have some more appreciation for what they can offer.

[quote]I think there is an unhealthy view of both sides, protestants aren't unruly, heretical nut jobs who desecrate every tradition. [quote]

The concern is not so much that they desecrate, but that they make it out to be less than it could be. I know many Protestants who exeplify Christ better than I do, but what this says to me is that they would desire to be Catholic (or Orhtodox, etc.0 even more than I if they really understood what this meant for gaining closder intimacy with the one they love. Think of the implications a real bodily union with Christ in communion, as well as a strong sense of brotherhood with those who modelled their lvies after Him, through attention to the saints. Broc mentioned awhilew back at his disdain that a priest knew much about saints but didn't know where 1 Cor. was (though I still say this doesn't match my experience), but consider, what is worse: knowing their is a first Cor, but not being sure where it is, or not being aware of the saints at all (as is the case with many, thougn not all, Protestants--though I must say, the more evangleical, the less likely they are to see relevance to the saints). At least the priest would say the Bible was important, even if he didn't know it as he should (and be aware that many knowi t quite well). I actually find it more disturibng that many have little interest in knowing about the sactifices many made, including those who suffered defending particular doctrines that might seem "obviously Biblical" to us today, but were far from obvious at the time--people tortured for holding to particular views of Christology, the divinity of the Spirit, etc. Most have almost no awareness of just how important the issues of things like Nesotrianism, monotheletism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, etc. etc. (or the refutation of these) are to their own ability to properly understand
the God they say they want to know personally. They want to know God personally, yet would have difficulty answering what have proven to be critically important questions about the anture of these Persons they seek to love with all their heart and mind. These discussions are all part of tradition--and clarity on them improves this love for the one we seek, it does not create an obstalce to it. The fact that there were obstalces are precisely why councils met in the first place--councils didn't meet until the effects of confusion showed themselves.

Quote :

My church takes the sacrifice of Jesus very seriously, the communion is a vital part and respectful in many ways.... it is a solemn, thankful and reflective part of the service.

But think of how potentially solemn (and celebrative!) it could be if we see it as a real bodily union with Christ! Think of the physical connection one has in marital consummation--and God tells us that the bond of wedding is a three-chord bond, as He is there with husband and wife. Thuis relationshji is meant to image Christ's relationship to the church, and not the otehr way around. Shouldn't the highest reality itself involve the whole of our being, including our bodies, asd much as that which images it, marriage?

Quote :

I find what you say is interesting, thank for being polite and tactful in how you have been responding and posting.

My experience is generally that people find the ancient traditions more attracitve the more they come to properly understand what they actually teach, and separate it from false information or
very fragmentary explanation. Hopefully this is occurring some for you, or at least for some others who might be reading.

I have found you polite as well, thank you. I think the conversation has been helpful and hope that it can continue.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

Quote by graybeard-

"But think of how potentially solemn (and celebrative!) it could be if we see it as a real bodily union with Christ! Think of the physical connection one has in marital consummation--and God tells us that the bond of wedding is a three-chord bond, as He is there with husband and wife. Thuis relationshji is meant to image Christ's relationship to the church, and not the otehr way around. Shouldn't the highest reality itself involve the whole of our being, including our bodies, asd much as that which images it, marriage? "


I do slash my church does :-)... what I meant was that its not just thrown in the service like some Churches do... its an important part of giving thanks and truly being intune to what sacrifice was made for us all.

Totally agree with what ya said man.

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

As with many disagreements, much confusion occurs due to a lack of clarity about certain terms, concepts, etc. This seems to be one such case. A few things to clarify:

1) first, Hero, you distinguish Christ's body from Christ's soul, presumably implying that his soul pertains to His divinity. Actually, this view IS heretical--it falls under the heresy of Sabellianism, I believe (I'll have to review). The fact is, to be human means to have a human soul, so if Christ had a truly human nature, He must have a human soul. In fact, Christ would not have a human body at all without a human soul, as matter is formed according to the kind of soul informing it.

Quick note---my memory failed me here. The heresy in question is Apollinarianism (which I believe I mention in a later post here), not Sabellianism. Sabellianism refers to the heresy of modalism, which denuies the true Tri-Perosnality of the Trinity, and regards Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as simply three ways we understand God.

graybeardheadbanger

"Heavenly Mother"

See the love that stands before you.
Feel the life that's deep inside.
Living, loving, life together.
Mother Mary Virgin Bride.
Take this heart and keep me holy.
Live in love forever more.
Never more will you be lonely.
Jesus Christ is at the door.

With a love that's in the day sky,
She wears a golden crown.
And her heart shines on forever love,
A love she has found.
Can she get me through these changes?
Yes, well one thing's for shure,
All I need is you Our lady.
You've got the keys.
You can unlock the door.

With the love of God
Eternal,
we are called by Christ the Lord.
And a new day is begining
as we praise with one accord.
Do we have eternal freedom?
Yes, our love our life's the gift.
What is Christ?
God's love is the answer.
And I found it in, I found
Him in your heart.

Let the love of God suround you.
Let is shine within your heart.
Your a Soul who lives in Heaven.
Let us love life from the start.
Can you feel their eyes apon you?
Can you hear to find your way?
Your a Soul who lives in Heaven.
And it's yours, it's yours, it's yours,
it's yours today.

My simplicity in the Truth keeps me writing.
Some would make Mary as a wash woman and house keeper, nothing more.

The Queen of Heaver and Earth:

Hail holy Queen, Mother of Mercy. Hail our life our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, morning and weeping in this vail of tears.
Turn then most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy tward us.
And after this our exile, show onto us the blessed Fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Oh clement, oh lovely, oh sweet Virgin Mary, pray for us oh Holy Mother of
God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

[/sarcasm]

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

The Queen of Heaver and Earth:

Hail holy Queen, Mother of Mercy. Hail our life our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, morning and weeping in this vail of tears.
Turn then most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy tward us.
And after this our exile, show onto us the blessed Fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Oh clement, oh lovely, oh sweet Virgin Mary, pray for us oh Holy Mother of
God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Idolatry. God is the only being we are to worship. Not any human. Mary is the mother of Jesus' human body (God incarnate), not the "Mother of God".

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.

bee_rad wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

The Queen of Heaver and Earth:

Hail holy Queen, Mother of Mercy. Hail our life our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs, morning and weeping in this vail of tears.
Turn then most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy tward us.
And after this our exile, show onto us the blessed Fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Oh clement, oh lovely, oh sweet Virgin Mary, pray for us oh Holy Mother of
God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Idolatry. God is the only being we are to worship. Not any human. Mary is the mother of Jesus' human body (God incarnate), not the "Mother of God".

Where is the worship in what he is saying? I think the key between venerating and worshipping has been explained already in a number of the posts. Among other things, the height of worship is taken to be the participation in the body and blood of Christ in communion, whereas no one speaks of participating in Mary's body and blood.

Notice too how Christ is specifically mentioned in the above.

As for mother of God, that too has been explained. It has been made very clear that no one thinks Christ's divine nature has a mother. HOwever, the MAN Christ, is God, now that God has chosen to be incarnate. If pressed, it seems your view might suggest that's Christ's body is not God's body--and if it is God's body, then it is in a sense divine. This is why Mark said some response heres smack of Nestorianism (Nestorius held that the divine Logos, the Son and second Person of the Holy Trinity, corresponded to Christ's divine nature, but there was also a human persona of Christ which corresponded to the human nature, though specially correlated to the Logos. This view was denounced at the coucnil of Ephesus, around 425 AD (which led to the first schism between Churches in Apostolic lineage, the Assyrians church ofn the East with the others--this group still exists today--it is the traditional church of Iraq, Iran, and parts of Syria and India).
It was held to be heretical because if the Logos Hi,mself did not take on a body, then He could not be the redeemer of our fallen nature (as Arthanasius I believe said, what is no assumed cannot be saved). So, Christ's body is God's body--thus, when we point to the physical Jesus, we don't say, "there is the body God is using,' but there IS God. Indeed, you slip a bit, but perhaps in a most telling way, when you say we worship God alone, but no human. Is Christ not truly human? Is He also not God? So, if we worship Christ, do we not worship a human? Would you say that we worship only Christ's divinity, and not His humanity? If you would say this, then unfrotnately htis would be the error of Nestorianism. Now, granted, Christ would be the only human we worship. However,m because this humanity was dependent upon His mother, we owe much to her indeed. Could it possibly bhe wrong to tell her this, and to ask her to pray for us, when our salvation was precisely what she agreed to cooperate with in accepting the grace to be sutiable for bringing Christ into the world? Christ honored His own mother, as the commandment calls for--thuis shows that she is worthy of honor. And if she was worthy of honor by Christ, I htink she would be worthy of honor by all of us, wouldn't she?


Of course, God is not "just" the body, since this is the body of God as Son. But now the Logos is embodied. Thus, God AS INCARNATE does have a human mother, Mary. Mary is the mother of God's incarnation--without her, there would be no incarnation. Her cooperation was needed for our salvation. I encourage you to rteally think about what that means. If she helped us before by cooperating with God's grace so as to be suitable for bringing God bodily into hte world, what objection would there be to asking her now for her help through her prayers? Indeed, if she is to be compared to the woman in Revelation (and it seems to me this is the natural way to read it--to refuse to do so is to render an inconsistent imagery to the text, as clearly the child born to the woman is Jesus), it says her that she has "other offspring." Thus, Scripture is indicaitng that in some sense we are the children of mary. Of coruse, she is not our physical mother--BUT, in a sense she can be, if we take the notion of real presence in communion strongly enough. If we are bound to the body and blood of her son in cxommunion, and if she is bound bodily to her son, then there is a sense in which when we are bound to Christ, we become joined to all to whom He is joined to. If Christ is our brother, and Mary is His motehr, then in this sense she is our mother also.

It may seem uncomfortable to ponder. However, I don't see anything wrong with the reasoning.
It may be actually rather illuminating, if one thinks about it. Christ loves Mary--Mary loves Christ. Why wouldn't Mary love us, and we love Mary? But, once again, we do not worship her. Mary's greatness is only possible through Christ.


graybeardheadbanger

Found this, what do you say about it?



Mary: Recipient of Prayer

Catholic doctrine commands members to pray to the virgin Mary:
“By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One... May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.” Pg. 644, #2677

It is imperative that you know whether these statements are from God or merely traditions of men. Therefore, we will examine each statement:

* Asking Mary to pray for us: A tradition of men, not found in the Bible.
* Mother of Mercy: Another tradition of men.
* Mary is the All Holy One: A tradition of men. We've already shown that God is the only “All Holy One.”
* Mary welcomes us at death: A tradition of men, not taught in the Bible.
* Mary leads us to Jesus: Another tradition of men, not found in God's Word.

Please understand, Catholic friend, God never said any of these things. They are all traditions that came from the minds of early Catholic leaders:
“From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of `Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs...” Pg. 253, #971

That people should pray to Mary in their times of trouble is another tradition of men concocted by Catholic leaders of the past and handed down to Catholics today. Never does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible instruct people to pray to Mary.

Who should we pray to?

The Bible directly contradicts the Catechism by directing people to pray to God alone:
“Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” Jeremiah 33:3

“And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” Psalm 50:15

When trouble comes, call upon God, not Mary:
“Give ear, O Lord, unto my prayer... In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me.” Psalm 86:6, 7

“He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.” Psalm 91:15

Literally hundreds of Scriptures teach us to flee to God when trouble comes our way. Not a single verse encourages us to pray to Mary:
“But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.” Psalm 37:39

“O LORD, be gracious unto us; we have waited for thee: be thou their arm every morning, our salvation also in the time of trouble.” Isaiah 33:2

“Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.” Psalm 41:1

Should you cast your burdens on Mary?
“Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.” Psalm 55:22

King David prayed all through the day... to God:
“Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.” Psalm 55:17

The psalmist proclaimed:
“The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.” Psalm 145:18

In the New Testament we read:
“Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.” Philippians 4:6

Who will you pray to?

God's Word says pray to God. Catholicism would rather have you pray to Mary. Again, one must wonder why the Catechism demotes Jesus and exalts Mary. It seems the Catholic church does not want its members going to Jesus for anything. Yet, Jesus issued this invitation:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28

Either the Bible is wrong, or Catholicism is keeping you away from the One who is ready and willing to meet your every need.

Conclusion

Here is another critical decision you must make. Will you follow the Catholic traditions of men and pray to Mary?

Or will you obey the Holy Scriptures and direct your prayers to God?
“As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.” Psalm 55:16

Hi, I'll be happy to respond. I'll have to deivide my response, because I got a messafge saying the reply was too big (big surprise there! LOL) I wil say two things up front: 1) this statement, as is so often the case in these discussions, is misleading because it continually refers to something as "the Catholic position" (in htis case, regarding Mary), when actually most of these statement apply to ALL non-Protestant (i.e. ancient) Christian groups. Orthodox, for example, have high devotion to Mary, as do the Copts, etc. (less so perhaps the Assyrians, which is significant, as they traditionally have been labelled "Nestorians." It was in the council of Ephesus that the expression "Theotokos" (Mother of God, or, literaly, God-bearer, was coined to emphasize Christ's equal humanity and divinity. That is, this tittle for Mary was given to explicitly defend orthodox (small o) Christology.
The Nestorians rejected this council, and this marks the first divide/schism among Christian groups in Apostolic succession (around 415 AD).

In any case, the catholics do not hold th "odd man out" position regarding Marian deovtion--in fact, this was the norm among all recognizable Christian groups until the Reformation, and even then, many Reformers held views rejected by most Protestants today (e.g. Mary's perpetual virginity).

The second point I wish vto make is that some of these points cannot be fully responded to without getting into more complex discussions re: sola Scriptura and the like. I may have to come back to thise points later.

Okay, now to begin:

therockismighty wrote:

Found this, what do you say about it?



Mary: Recipient of Prayer

Catholic doctrine commands members to pray to the virgin Mary:
“By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All-Holy One... May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.” Pg. 644, #2677

I'm assuming this is quoting from the catechism. I would say in fact the first line is misleading. It states that Catholic doctrine COMMANDS that we pray to Mary, but nothing in this statement commands anything. It merely explains why asking Mary for prayer, etc. is good (and notice the quoted passage refers to asking Mary for prayer, not praying to Mary, as the person characterizing it summarizes it. This shows overly-loose summation of things, which is revealed in some later statements as well). Certainly, a Catholic should have no objection to requesting prayer for Mary, but one is never REQUIRED to do so (exce[pt indirectly perhaps, such as if a priest aks a penitent after confession to pray for the rosary oor something like that--but that is a matter of personal pastoral care, and not a command of Catholic doctrine.

Quote :

It is imperative that you know whether these statements are from God or merely traditions of men. Therefore, we will examine each statement:

* Asking Mary to pray for us: A tradition of men, not found in the Bible.

This presupposes a certain view of sola Scriptura, which I would not accept. I do accept a qualified sense of sola Scriptura. But nothing in Scripture ever indicates that one cannot do what is not explicitly listed in the Bible. What is suggested here a bit different: what SS really holds is that no DOCTRINE can be accepted which is not SS, but this requires a much bigger discussion. Catholic teaching actually agrees that all dogma (required formal belief) must have a basis in Scripture, BUT it acknowledges implicit revelaiton (e.g. things which can be reasonably derived from Scripture, but not explicit) which the church has the authortiy to develop as needed.
Tje claim is that Scripture itself points to the Church as having such authority, and that this authority is understood in a way that is not compatible with Protestantism. This gets into a much bigger question re: Apostolic succession, etc. But in any case, be very aware if one disavows the appeal to "implict revelation' that Protestant themselves do this all the time. For example, the Bible never explicitly tells us which books are in the Bible. The decision to canonize those books that could be reasoanbly traced back to an Apostle or prophet was a decision made within the Church (and, one might add, in cchurch councils guided by Bishops, etc.) , and even then this required the judgment of church leaders to determine which documents were authentically
that of prophets and apostles. The Scripture itself does not give clear evidence of this in a number of cases--many such works later included in Scripture were disputed by many prior to these formal decisions. Likewise, one never finds the word "Trinity" in the Scripturte, not the explicit claim that God is "one God, Three persons,' or any number of points that are considered standard Christianb belief by most Protestants.

In any case, we do see, once again, evidence in Rev. that angels and deceased Christians are involved in the passage of prayers to God, that they are aware of what is going on on Earth and
asking God for intervention, and that the woman who gives b irth to the child who destroys the dragon has other children (offspring). None of this absolutely explictly mentions Mary, or that one is asking the agnels and saints to pass on the prayers, etc., but it is a huge stretch, IMO, to suggest that doing such would be prhibited--if we know that they pass on prayers, isn't it a relatively simple inference to suggest that we can acknowledge those who pass them on?

Quote :

* Mother of Mercy: Another tradition of men.

Well, the title may be a tradition of men, but I'm not sure why that matters. If Mary has us as her children in some sense (and we are said to be Christ's brothers and sisters spiritually), then wouldn't she feel mercy toward us, if she is aware of sufferings going on on Earth, as the saints are in Rev.?

Quote :

* Mary is the All Holy One: A tradition of men. We've already shown that God is the only “All Holy One.”

Scripture asks us to be holy as God is holy. Mary is said to be "full of grace," and I've stated elsewhere the evidence, Scritpurally, for why she can be viewed as conescrated (left pure) for a particular cause (parallel to Holy of holies, ark of the covenant, etc.) So, if Mary is holy, then she is simply being acknowledged to have reached the state that God has asked all of us to attain, with the aid of His grace. Scripture does not say God alone is the only "all Holy one" in every sense--He alone can MAKE is holy,. but nevertheless we can be holy as He is holy, and in fact as He has commanded us to be. God alone is God--but because He is God, it is possible for us to be holy.
So that statement is misleading.

Quote :

* Mary welcomes us at death: A tradition of men, not taught in the Bible.

Agreeed, but it certainly doesn't contradict Scripture either. And it is a reasonable inference given what we have in Scripture.

END OF PART 1

PART 2:

Quote :

* Mary leads us to Jesus: Another tradition of men, not found in God's Word.

Well, it is clear that she leads us to Jesus at least in the sense that Christ would not have been born without her (or someone like her). If she can pray for us (and certainly Scripture does not say that she doesn't, so at best it's a netural point in respect to Scripture), then she could help lead us to Christ through prayer (just as others can). This would seem especially true if wee are recognzied as her spiritual children.

Quote :

Please understand, Catholic friend, God never said any of these things. They are all traditions that came from the minds of early Catholic leaders:
“From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of `Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs...” Pg. 253, #971

Keep in mind that these same leaders are the ones who establ;ished the process by whicvh the Bible was canonized, key doctrines of orthodoxy were defined, etc. I have always foundf it odd that people trust the Holy Spirit to have guided the earlu Bishops of the church to settle these
hugely important questions, but not to lead them properly in understanding other teachings which later critics do not find to be "Scriptural." This has always struck me as quite arbitrary. (and keep in mind, Paul himself acknowledges in 2 Thessalonians that there are traditions he passes on orally that are not written down-and the Gospels tell us that many things Christ did and taught were not written down, as there would not be enough room in hte whole world to record all that Jesus did. This doesn't mean that one can accept just any old practice. It does inciate, however, that Christ, thropugh His Apostles, established a means for discerning legitimate teachings of this type from illegitimate. If Christians from early on held Mary in high esteem (and not without some Biblicaal warrant), I htink we should be extremely reticent to cxonclude that they were misguided, particularly when these same people are trusted with so many other tasks, including the discernment of the Biblical canon itself.

Quote :

That people should pray to Mary in their times of trouble is another tradition of men concocted by Catholic leaders of the past and handed down to Catholics today. Never does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible instruct people to pray to Mary.

True, but nothing in Scripture forbids it, either. And Scripture does tell us that are prayers are delivered to God (at least some of them)( by angels and deceased believers, and that a woamn, who seems to fit rhe description of Mary, is queen-like and has other children, etc.

Indeed, it is especially itneresting to consider that Rev. is the last book in the Bible. Could it be that the last of the Apostles, John, was given the vision to help the church know how to continue
on after his death=--perhaps with the help of the saints and angels in heaven, who bring prayers to God, etc.?

Quote :

Who should we pray to?

The Bible directly contradicts the Catechism by directing people to pray to God alone:

This unfortunatley is a hige example of overly loose interpretation ,as I mentioend before. Look at each of therse verses--NONE of them say anything about prayin g to God ALONE< as the summarizer suggests. They all say "call on God for help," and Catholics agree on that. To take thios to mean "call on God alone for help" is to add something to Scripoture that isn't there. In any case, as I have said, it is misleading to speak of "praying" to Mary and others--we are asking them for prayer, much as one would a person on Earth. AND, we know, from SCRIPTURE, that the deceased are aware of what goes on on Earht, deliver prayers to God, etc. The more I htin kabout it, the stranger it seems to me that someone who see a Scriptural PROHIBITION on acknowledging those who are involved in this role--we know they are doing it, they know they are doing it, how can it would be wrong to let them know that we know that they are doing it?

Quote :

“Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” Jeremiah 33:3

“And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” Psalm 50:15

When trouble comes, call upon God, not Mary:
“Give ear, O Lord, unto my prayer... In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me.” Psalm 86:6, 7

“He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.” Psalm 91:15

Literally hundreds of Scriptures teach us to flee to God when trouble comes our way. Not a single verse encourages us to pray to Mary:
“But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.” Psalm 37:39

“O LORD, be gracious unto us; we have waited for thee: be thou their arm every morning, our salvation also in the time of trouble.” Isaiah 33:2

“Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.” Psalm 41:1

Should you cast your burdens on Mary?
“Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.” Psalm 55:22

King David prayed all through the day... to God:
“Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.” Psalm 55:17

The psalmist proclaimed:
“The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.” Psalm 145:18

In the New Testament we read:
“Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.” Philippians 4:6

Who will you pray to?

God's Word says pray to God. Catholicism would rather have you pray to Mary.

Once again, notice there is a hige difference between saying we are to pray to God, and we are to pray ONLY to God. In fact, this shows a very misleading, bordering on the verge of either incredible carelesseness or outright dishoensty, to say that Cathoklics (AND Orhtodox, Cotps, etc.)
say we should pray to Mary INSTEAD of God. Every Mass there are prayers directly to God.
It is a HUGE leap in logic to say that asking someone for pray implies a complete lack of prayer to God, and the replacement of this by prayer to someone else.

Quote :

Again, one must wonder why the Catechism demotes Jesus and exalts Mary. It seems the Catholic church does not want its members going to Jesus for anything.

This is a very strange claim indeed, and is notthe kind of claim someone seriously doing scholarship would make. The catechism is replete with many references to Christ (in fact, I owuld also advise one to look at Pope Benedict's book on JESUS, which is the title as well). This characteriuzation is based on the complete muisunderstanding that praise is a zero-sum game --tha tuis,at is, someone can recognize Mary only by "demoting" Christ. But I have shown the complete emptiness of such reasoning in previous psots--one does not love one parent less by recognizign the other, nor do we "demote" Christ by acknowledging Mary., In fact, even angels and Elizxabeth acknowledged her! I read ana analogy once that really helped with this:
If I was going to speak to a king, and I was led on the way to the palace by highly educatred guards, well dressed, etc., would this someone make me think LESS of the king? NO,m just the opposite--I would think, "Wow, anyone who is able to provide these guys with htis kind of
care must be really powerful, glorious, etc." Noticing the greatness of the helpers adds to my appreciation for the king, it doesn't detract from it.

Moreover, Christ honored His own mother--and the woman in Rev. is given a corwn (David's mother, BTW, was also given a throne of honor,. bearing in mind that David is a propttype of the Messiah--something else not explicit in Scripture byut which all Protestants would acknowledge0.

Quote :

Yet, Jesus issued this invitation:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28

Either the Bible is wrong, or Catholicism is keeping you away from the One who is ready and willing to meet your every need.

I think this has been more than adequatley dealt with from the above.

Conclusion

Quote :

Here is another critical decision you must make. Will you follow the Catholic traditions of men and pray to Mary?

Or will you obey the Holy Scriptures and direct your prayers to God?
“As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.” Psalm 55:16

Catholics would agree with the Psalmist here--once again, dealt with from the above.

In general, the objections being raised are very loose in their applicaiton, misrepresent a number of points of Cahtolic teaching (AND misrepresent these as uniquly Catholic views, or at least imply such), etc. etc. These are among the kinds of thigns that made it rather easy for me, years ago, to become skeptical of much evangelical teaching against Cahtoilicism pertaining to their view of Mary--I quickly saw that much of it was misinformed, and often greatly distorted key parts of teaching, etc. IF catholic teaching is wrong (once agian, bearing in mind that it is not JUST Catholci teaching), it certainly is not shown to be wrong through arguments of this sort, IMO.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger