Catholic views

[Extra Stout]

Re: Mary.

Pope Pious IX in 1852, (that's right almost 1900 years after the birth of christ) proclaimed (infallibly) that Mary was also of "Virgin" birth. (Were her parents celibate all their lives- what about her grandmother?)

Pios XII in 1950 proclaimed Mary's assumption (that her entire body and soul were taken into heaven) - a full century after THAT.

All of this, just completely coincidentally, not so long after the Marianist movement BEGAN in France post-revolution.

What did Catholics think about Mary for the first 18 and a half centuries? (Honest question; I can only assume it is similar to what Protestants think now)
I don't think much of what you wrote there is correct. As I understand it, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was not tainted by original sin, not that she was born from a virgin.

The doctrine of Mary's Assumption as I understand it says that she did in fact die, but that her body was assumed into heaven. This doctrine is meant to explain why there are no relics of her remains.

Reading back through the patriarchs, at least some of them appear sympathetic to one or both of those positions, though I could not find anything that extended their positions to the level of doctrine.

Neither of these doctrines have support in Scripture, and doctrinally I have problems with both of them.

[101A]

I don't think much of what you wrote there is correct. As I understand it, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was not tainted by original sin, not that she was born from a virgin.

The doctrine of Mary's Assumption as I understand it says that she did in fact die, but that her body was assumed into heaven. This doctrine is meant to explain why there are no relics of her remains.

Neither of these doctrines have support in Scripture, and doctrinally I have problems with both of them.

Nope Immaculate Conception does say that Mary was of Virgin Birth - Catholics "have" to believe this.

Yes, she did die, she was "assumed" - meaning taken up by god, body and soul, into heaven. As opposed to Jesus who "Ascended" into Heaven, ostensibly of his own power.

[101A]

...
Neither of these doctrines have support in Scripture, and doctrinally I have problems with both of them.

Frankly, so does the Catholic Church.

[johnsmith]

Nope Immaculate Conception does say that Mary was of Virgin Birth - Catholics "have" to believe this.

Yes, she did die, she was "assumed" - meaning taken up by god, body and soul, into heaven. As opposed to Jesus who "Ascended" into Heaven, ostensibly of his own power.


Actually, I'm a Catholic, and I don't "have" to believe it.

[Extra Stout]

Nope Immaculate Conception does say that Mary was of Virgin Birth - Catholics "have" to believe this.
From catholic.com: (http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp)

"Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain."

(bolded mine)

[travis2]

Nope Immaculate Conception does say that Mary was of Virgin Birth - Catholics "have" to believe this.

Yes, she did die, she was "assumed" - meaning taken up by god, body and soul, into heaven. As opposed to Jesus who "Ascended" into Heaven, ostensibly of his own power.

No, that is not what it says. Mary was born free of original sin. She was NOT a virgin birth.

[travis2]

These threads always come up a few times a year. I read all the posts to get an idea of what other think but it does not effect my faith in any way, shape or form. My faith is solid as a rock and cannot be shaken. I've found that it is best to just let others believe as they wish. Now I've been accused of not being a real Catholic because I do not spread my beliefs to others but I feel that is not up to me for I believe that each person must find God on their own. Granted, it was my parents who introduced, some will say brainwashed, me to the Catholic faith and for that I am forever grateful.
I can tell you this. As God is my witness I would die before EVER denouncing my faith.

Carry on.

Not by me, big guy...

Preach the Gospel continually. If necessary, use words. -- St. Francis of Assisi

Keep carrying on... :toast

[101A]

From catholic.com: (http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp)

"Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain."

(bolded mine)

Thanks ES, (and Travis) - I was wrong about what the church teaches. I have tried to make sense of the actual pronouncement; but apparently there is some disagreement w/in the church as this link indicates:


http://www.catholicplanet.com/virgin/index.htm

...and the headmaster at my children's school (a devout Opus Dei Catholic), misrepresented the doctrine to me: mea culpa.

No original sin is doctrine; Virgin Birth of the Virgin is whether you choose to believe it; got it.

(hope I'm right about the assumption)

[johnsmith]

No, that is not what it says. Mary was born free of original sin. She was NOT a virgin birth.


I think you guys have made it clear that 101A is effectively, "talking out of his ass".

[Extra Stout]

I think you guys have made it clear that 101A is effectively, "talking out of his ass".
No, 101A made an honest mistake based upon wrong information he received. He, at least, is trying to have a serious discussion, rather than taking potshots from the sidelines.

[johnsmith]

So, JS, you let Travis & Smeagol fight your battles, then you chime in with a "yeah what he said".

Weak.

I hope Boutons takes you up on your offer one day....


See Potshots.............I didn't start this.

[JoeChalupa]

I have no problems letting others who can speak better than I, such as Travis & Smeagol, handle this topic. They do a much better job than I can. :tu

[johnsmith]

I have no problems letting others who can speak better than I, such as Travis & Smeagol, handle this topic. They do a much better job than I can. :tu


See, same thing I said. So again, what's wrong with that 101A?

[101A]

See, same thing I said. So again, what's wrong with that 101A?

Joe Chalupa didn't post this at the "end" of Travis and Pheno's (relatively respectful) discussion:


My response: Who gives a fuck? You don't like the Catholic church, we get it

That's what.

[johnsmith]

Joe Chalupa didn't post this at the "end" of Travis and Pheno's (relatively respectful) discussion:



That's what.


First of all, I was unaware that it mattered at which point you make a post on a chat board. Let me know about the rest of the rules so I'm never to make another mistake like that again. :rolleyes

Furthermore, your "that's what" thing doesn't make any sense. Jesus man, if you're going to try and insult me, at least make it somewhat logical so that a person reading it could make sense of it.

[101A]

First of all, I was unaware that it mattered at which point you make a post on a chat board. Let me know about the rest of the rules so I'm never to make another mistake like that again. :rolleyes

Furthermore, your "that's what" thing doesn't make any sense. Jesus man, if you're going to try and insult me, at least make it somewhat logical so that a person reading it could make sense of it.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was answering your question.

[johnsmith]

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was answering your question.


Ok, so my "My response: Who gives a fuck? You don't like the Catholic church, we get it" is the answer to "what's wrong with letting others that are more informed then me argue the subject"?

See, that just doesn't make sense 101A.

Man, you are a fucking retard aren't you?

[Phenomanul]

Some cherry-picking...


The Protestant position on faith vs. works is Christological. It is not saying that a "Christian" can have mental assent to the Gospel without any manifestation of that in his life. Faith is not faith if it does not beget works.

The Protestant position is that God's grace alone is sufficient to save, and that any works with come forth as a result of the believer's becoming a new creation (Galatians 5:17) were prepared by God in advance anyway (Ephesians 2:10). The point of salvation by faith alone is not to give the prospective believer a "Get Out of Hell Free" card without having to be obedient to God in everyday life, but rather to ascribe all the glory to God in the act of salvation, and none to the works of man.

In my observation, the difference can be whittled down in a nutshell: Catholics believe works are a necessary element of salvation, while Protestants believe they are necessary evidence of salvation, i.e. Matthew 7:16.


Well, it doesn't say that. Romans 1-19:20 contradicts the notion that the Bible alone presents the revelation of God.

However, the Bible does say this: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) And the words for "thoroughly equipped" in Greek are "artios exartizo," from which we are meant to understand that Scripture is sufficient.

This does not mean that Christians should not aspire to hear the teaching of others regarding Scripture, for not all of it is easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Sincere Protestants would have no interest in solid expository preaching, nor in studying the Bible together, if they thought they knew it all by themselves. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants are not required to take such instruction as binding. The example provided to us is that of the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

I believe that the Bible allows believers to disagree on certain matters of doctrine without severing fellowship (1 Corinthians 14).


Because of verse 63.

I remember going through the whole 'evidence of salavation' vs. 'element of salvation' argument in that other thread with Smeagol. Apparently though, the whole concept went by the wayside... because again, the Catholic Church never errs. And so any argument that goes against the teaching of the Catechism gets disqualified immediately.

The phrase in James 2 - "faith without works is dead" - suggests in modern day terms that one must "walk the talk" - nothing else. The Book of Ephesians is crystal clear that salvation is a 'gift from GOD' because no matter how perfect we managed to be, one blemish alone would be enough to merit death -- an eternal separation from GOD. How then can humans claim to attain salvation despite our imperfect nature? We can't. GOD has given us the Gift of Salvation through Christ Jesus -- for those who are willing to accept it... Faith in GOD is consequently manifested in our lives if our faith is authentic. Works then become 'evidence' of the change in our nature.

As an aside: Satan's minions all acknowledge Christ's Divine supremacy... yet they don't serve Christ as their LORD -- there is a big difference in knowing who is LORD and serving Christ as LORD.

[smeagol]

The fact of the matter is that no matter what I say... the Catholic Church is never wrong.

Only in matters of Faith and Morals.


It can never be questioned and if someone does question it, they are immediately branded as being anti-catholic bigots...

Only if they show signs of being one. Unfortunately, anti-Catholicism is deeply embedded in the Protestant culture here in the US. Sadly, there are hundreds of books and websites that push the anti-catholic agenda. And for many Protestants, anti-Catholic rhetoric is all they hear since birth.


Such arrogance is unbecoming of an institution that professes humility in the name of Christ... I simply seek the Truth.

I fail to see the arrogance you speak about. Is it because it claims to be infallible in matters of faith and morals? Well, as I said many times, it’s the way we Catholics interpret the Bible. At the end of the day, it’s a matter of interpretation, not arrogance. I have supported the catholic point of view in this matter with quotes from within and outside the Bible, I can do it again if you so desire.


There's really no point in keeping this discussion going.

It’s your choice. I said this before: these discussions are enriching to me and make me think deeply about my Faith. It also teaches me about other peoples’ faith.


You agreed that the Gospel's message is simple and yet you are also willing to accept the fact that the RCC has complicated the SIMPLE message of Christ.

The message is simple. What I said is that the Catholic Theology is somewhat complicated. The Catholic Church does not complicate the message.


That is why I compared the RCC to the pharisees and the sanehedrin in the first place... they did the exact same thing to the Hebrew/Judaic faith.

This is not a happy analogy. Don’t be surprised if other Catholics might think you are anti-Catholic when you give us this kind of slap in the face.


The underlying truth, if everything you claim is right, is that someone like me (or other protestants who have made a decision to follow Christ) . . .

. . . as opposed to us Catholics who do not follow Christ and simply follow what the RCC says? Again, not sure what you mean here.


cannot attain salvation because we have chosen to seek Christ outside the bounds set forth by the RCC... specifically by the catechism. I have admitted on numerous occasions that I believe that there are millions of true disciples of Christ within the Catholic laity. The RCC catechism on the other hand, suggests that people like myself can't inherit an eternal communion with GOD... without her blessing. I can't accept that.... I'm sorry, I just can't.

I cannot opine on this due to ignorance. All I know this is an issue with all religions: Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam . . . they all claim there is no salvation outside their religion.


What's 'shocking', is that I've probably committed less sin in my lifetime than several of the popes in the Church's papal lineage... but hey, I'm just an insignificant protestant nobody! Am I supposed to believe that JESUS will exalt said popes 'higher' simply because they were popes... right.

Wrong. We are all sinners. You, me and the Popes. But you know this.


Everyone will face judgement equally... and those who have redeemed themselves with the blood of Christ will enter. Of course, if I would have said this 5 or 6 centuries ago, I probably would have been murdered for such 'heretic' comments.

If your point is that the Church has been intolerant in the past, you have a point.


On a side note: I've read the Bible from cover to cover at least seven times. A communion with GOD through Christ JESUS my LORD does not require that another man or institution mediate my bond. That much is understood. Besides, I have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit and seen His mighty hand at work -- and all outside the 'blessing' of the RCC -- was I just imagining things? IS GOD only GOD to Catholics? By their rules, apparently so.

You bring good points.


It was a good discussion before Travis blew a gasket (and insulted me), so rather than continue and compromise the respect that I have for you two -- I'll just end with this post. Even his last post continued to undermine whatever semblance of logical counterpoint my posts had... as soon as the Catholic viewpoint was brought up (right, wrong or inconclusive)... that was it... end of argument! He felt that no further rebuttal was even valid - so what would be the point of submitting one?.

Your discussion was not only with Travis


Travis did offer a return to civilized debate, and I appreciate that, but frankly I'm too tired to continue... It's not a debate I ever intended on 'winning' because I understood that these matters are very personal and highly engrained in our being -- depending on our life's experience. Besides it's not your garden variety ''I was right, you were wrong'' type of debate...

-Peace out.

Peace be with you too, H.

[Guru of Nothing]

I don't hate the RC church... I simply don't tolerate its arrogance.


What a coincidence.

[Guru of Nothing]

:nope :lol :spin :dizzy :lol :lmao :idiot :td :grim:

Yeah he was blinded by the light
Cut loose like a deuce another runner in the night

-The Boss

Watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6U29S--wn8)

You will feel silly.

Seriously, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth a million words.

[Guru of Nothing]

Man, it's good that I'm unwilling to chime in on this topic.

Why are you unwilling? and why is it a good thing?

[ploto]

It has long been my perception that those in most need of attacking the faith of others do so out of their own insecurities.

I think you would actually find that many of the people dedicated to Christ in this world-- in terms of service and time spent doing his mission on earth-- are devout Catholics-- you know the ones who go to Church every day without fail and pray and pray on end about everything and for everyone. The little old ladies like my grandmother who still gave financially to her Church in her 80's out of her Social Security checks while she lived a very humble existence.

You realize that when you attack the long held faith of people- you are not only attacking them, but often times the very fabric of their family- that which has held them together in times of pain and loss. If your religious faith means so much to you then have respect for just how much other's faith means to them. I am grateful for my faith and for the Marianists who have long been enormously generous to my family and whose support meant a great deal to my family in our recent time of loss.

[smeagol]

I don't hate the RC church... I simply don't tolerate its arrogance.
:depressed

Nevertheless, I read the "other" thread one more time and there you make many more different statements such as the one above.

I assume you are getting to know the RCC better. :spin

[Phenomanul]

What a coincidence.

Don't be a hater... I've put in countless hours of study :reading and then some.

When have I been dismissive of any of your serious posts? Your 'drive-by' posts maybe... but that's just a common sense 'troll-avoidance' tactic...
Anyway :wakeup

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Don't be a hater... I've put in countless hours of study :reading and then some.



my religious credentials

[smeagol]

However, the Bible does say this: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) And the words for "thoroughly equipped" in Greek are "artios exartizo," from which we are meant to understand that Scripture is sufficient.

No.

All it says is that Scripture is useful for teaching (I've read translations that say "Scripture is profitable for teaching. . .").

How does this verse = sufficient?

Is this really what Protestants use to base one of their most important Doctrines?



Because of verse 63.

So one verse in the middle of a dozen that say otherwise is enough to set Doctrine?

Here's John 6: 50-58 which is the most explicit part on the Real Presence:

"50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."



It does not get more explicit than that. I hope ES , 101A or Pheno address this point.

One thing I don't understand: Protestants are always great at pointing out how the Bible must be read literaly (the "brothers" of Christ, Babylon is not a code word for Rome, etc) but when it comes to these verses then literaly does not work for them.

How can Jesus have been talking fuguratively when even his listeners understood perfectly well he was meant to be the bread and wine?

(John 6: 60 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?").

Why would some of his 'till then disciples leave him uttering the words found in the above quoted verse? Because they thought it should be understood figuratively?

No, it does not add up.

And Pheno, none of that tradition that bugs you so much is inolved in this one. Just the Bible.

[Extra Stout]

No.

All it says is that Scripture is useful for teaching (I've read translations that say "Scripture is profitable for teaching. . .").

How does this verse = sufficient?
No.

The word picture is of one completely and fully equipped to do a task. There is no need for anything else.


what Protestants use to base one of their most important Doctrines?
No. I selected one verse of many.

Furthermore,

1. You have not chosen to respond to the example of the Bereans, who "received the Word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

And for this they were called "noble."

2. Paul admonishes the Corinthians "not to exceed what is written" in 1 Cor. 4:6.

3. Take the example of Judaism.

Judaism in Jesus' day followed the same formula as the RCC: Scripture + tradition. The traditions of the Talmud were held as at least as authoritative as the Law and the Prophets.

But when Jesus taught, did he teach from tradition? No. He taught from Scripture (Luke 10:26, 16:29, John 5:39, Luke 24:25, among many).

And what did Jesus say about these traditions? "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8)

4. When Paul stood before Agrippa, he claimed not that he was teaching from a new tradition, but that he was testifying "nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place." (Acts 26:22)

5. When Paul speaks of the foundation of the church, God's household, it is "the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone." (Eph. 2:20) In "the apostles" we have the apostolic teaching of the New Testament. In "the prophets" we have the Old Testament.

6. In 2 Peter 1, Peter sums up the authority of his eyewitness by saying, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure." (1:19a) And is this prophetic word oral tradition? No. He continues, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (1:20-21)


So one verse in the middle of a dozen that say otherwise is enough to set Doctrine?
Since in that verse, Jesus explains the meaning of his teaching to his disciples, of course it does.

In bold, big letters:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Christ had to die.
His body had to be broken.
His blood had to be shed.
We have to partake of his sacrifice to live.
There is no life apart from the sacrifice of Christ.
We cannot live without his body.
We cannot live without his blood.
It is the Spirit that gives life.
The flesh profits nothing.
He had to die. We have to partake of his sacrifice to live. There is no life apart from it.
It has nothing to do with the elements of the Eucharist becoming his physical body and blood.

By your hermeneutic, do Christians have actual "living water" flowing out of them when filled by the Holy Spirit? (John 7:38) If I sweat while worshipping, is that sweat the actual Holy Spirit?


One thing I don't understand: Protestants are always great at pointing out how the Bible must be read literaly (the "brothers" of Christ, Babylon is not a code word for Rome, etc) but when it comes to these verses then literaly does not work for them.

How can Jesus have been talking fuguratively when even his listeners understood perfectly well he was meant to be the bread and wine?
Nice strawman there on the whole "literal" thing, since of course I am quite the fundamentalist.

Wouldn't Christ's teaching have become abundantly clear when he had the Last Supper with his disciples? So if this has to be interpreted literally, how do you explain Jesus sitting right there among them? Do you really think they understood they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood as he sat there among them?

Or would it not have become obvious that the elements were meant to represent his upcoming sacrifice? This was the time they were coming to understand that he must die.


(John 6: 60 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?").

Why would some of his 'till then disciples leave him uttering the words found in the above quoted verse? Because they thought it should be understood figuratively?

No, because they did not understand who Jesus was, where he came from, why he was there, or where he was going. As it says in verse 64, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe."

That is why Jesus said to them,

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Those who did not believe could only think in terms of actually eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood. They thought he was going to be an earthly king who overthrow the Romans and re-established Jewish rule over Israel. They did not understand that he was to sacrifice himself, and that all men had to partake of that sacrifice in order to receive eternal life. His words were incomprehensible to them.

[travis2]

No.

The word picture is of one completely and fully equipped to do a task. There is no need for anything else.

Not true. Otherwise he would not have had to write things like...

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)






2. Paul admonishes the Corinthians "not to exceed what is written" in 1 Cor. 4:6.

Except that "what {was} written" was only the Old Testament. Paul was most definitely not talking about his own letters, and the Gospels were not yet down either. The entire New Testament was non-existent at that point.



3. Take the example of Judaism.

Judaism in Jesus' day followed the same formula as the RCC: Scripture + tradition. The traditions of the Talmud were held as at least as authoritative as the Law and the Prophets.

But when Jesus taught, did he teach from tradition? No. He taught from Scripture (Luke 10:26, 16:29, John 5:39, Luke 24:25, among many).

And what did Jesus say about these traditions? "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8)

Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical...now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.



4. When Paul stood before Agrippa, he claimed not that he was teaching from a new tradition, but that he was testifying "nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place." (Acts 26:22)

5. When Paul speaks of the foundation of the church, God's household, it is "the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone." (Eph. 2:20) In "the apostles" we have the apostolic teaching of the New Testament. In "the prophets" we have the Old Testament.

OK, that's nice, but I honestly do not see what these two passages have to do with the topic.


6. In 2 Peter 1, Peter sums up the authority of his eyewitness by saying, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure." (1:19a) And is this prophetic word oral tradition? No. He continues, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (1:20-21)

Actually, here you've just proven the need for the Church to provide guidance in reading the Bible, and not just leave it to us to define on our own.



Since in that verse, Jesus explains the meaning of his teaching to his disciples, of course it does.

In bold, big letters:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Christ had to die.
His body had to be broken.
His blood had to be shed.
We have to partake of his sacrifice to live.
There is no life apart from the sacrifice of Christ.
We cannot live without his body.
We cannot live without his blood.
It is the Spirit that gives life.
The flesh profits nothing.
He had to die. We have to partake of his sacrifice to live. There is no life apart from it.
It has nothing to do with the elements of the Eucharist becoming his physical body and blood.

By your hermeneutic, do Christians have actual "living water" flowing out of them when filled by the Holy Spirit? (John 7:38) If I sweat while worshipping, is that sweat the actual Holy Spirit?

Sorry, but it has everything to do with the elements of the Eucharist. He's not retracting His words. Rather than post an entire article, just read this...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp



Nice strawman there on the whole "literal" thing, since of course I am quite the fundamentalist.

Wouldn't Christ's teaching have become abundantly clear when he had the Last Supper with his disciples? So if this has to be interpreted literally, how do you explain Jesus sitting right there among them? Do you really think they understood they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood as he sat there among them?

Or would it not have become obvious that the elements were meant to represent his upcoming sacrifice? This was the time they were coming to understand that he must die.

Are you honestly saying that Jesus was not capable of sitting there,handing them something that looked like a piece of bread, proclaiming "THIS IS MY BODY"...and not have it be so?

Go back and read the article who's link I posted.

The fact they they did understand that they were eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood is borne out in the epistles. Paul wrote "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). Not a symbol...the Body and Blood. Further, in the Greek, the words being translated as "answer for the body and the blood" do so in a literal manner, as speaking of murder or assault. You can't murder or assault a symbol. No, Paul most certainly knew from the Apostles that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ.

And, as mentioned in the article, the early Church fathers, many of whom were instructed by the Apostles, certainly knew the Eucharist was the true Body and Blood.




No, because they did not understand who Jesus was, where he came from, why he was there, or where he was going. As it says in verse 64, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe."

That is why Jesus said to them,

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing

Those who did not believe could only think in terms of actually eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood. They thought he was going to be an earthly king who overthrow the Romans and re-established Jewish rule over Israel. They did not understand that he was to sacrifice himself, and that all men had to partake of that sacrifice in order to receive eternal life. His words were incomprehensible to them.

Which is why on EVERY OTHER OCCASION, he took the time to explain Himself...except this one. Why? Because there was nothing to explain. You are completely misreading that one verse.

[101A]

Watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6U29S--wn8)

You will feel silly.

Seriously, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth a million words.

LMAO

touche.

[101A]

BTW

Travis, Smeagol, Pheno & ES

Thank you.

Very Enlightening.

I am busy today, but when I have a chance I will add my (relatively uneducated) 2 cents.

[Phenomanul]

Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical... now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.



Again, cite from scripture alone that Mary remained perpetually virgin. The fact that other sources have to be considered means that the RCC gives them equal merit and worth. Equating non-inspired literature to inspired works is just wrong.

Cite from scripture alone that we are to pray to Mary. Again, giving equal credence to tradition on this matter, despite the Bible's silence on the same suggests that tradition in fact has superceded GOD's Word in this instance.

No one refuted the post


More like when you do pray to Mary, you are relinquishing the priviledge by deferment....

We are to pray to the Father in Jesus' name. He is NOT too busy to hear our prayers.


Psalm 5:2 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

Psalm 140:6 I said unto the LORD, Thou art my God: hear the voice of my supplications, O LORD.

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

John 14:13-14 [Jesus said] "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

John 15:16 [Jesus said] Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24 [Jesus said] And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Matthew 6:6 [Jesus] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

We are not instructed to pray to Mary either.

Says to do??? In what context?.... doesn't Luke also say that Mary also recognizes that JESUS was her Savior as well (Luke 1:47)... If she needed a Savior, she needed remission of her sins just like the rest of us. She found favor in the eyes of GOD - not an easy task, no less. That doesn't mean I need to, or should feel compelled to pray to her.


Three questions then:

IS MARY OUR INTERCESSOR?

No, I don't believe so; the Bible says that Jesus is our Intercessor.


Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

The Bible also states the Holy Spirit is interceding for us:


Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.


IS MARY CO-MEDIATOR?

No. The Bible says that Jesus is our Mediator. Scripturally speaking, Jesus is the ONLY Mediator.


1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


IS MARY CO-REDEEMER?

No. The Bible clearly states that there is no Savior but the Lord. Nowhere in Scripture does it remotely suggest that Mary is co-redemptrix. God deserves all praise! There is no redeemer but the Lord. GOD will not share His glory with another....


Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Philemon 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.


And again, for re-emphasis...

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Mary, herself, acknowledged God as her Savior. Should not we do the same? We are to worship the Lord and Him only.

In the book of Revelation we have John, the Apostle, wanting to worship an angel and here is what is said:


Revelation 19:10 "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship GOD: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Note: some references were looked up online, but I believe them all to be King James Version.


This is highly important because Catholic leaders have in fact claimed that Mary is our Heavenly Co-Mediator and/or Co-redemptrix.

Here's what the late Pope John Paul II said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L'Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L'Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

"Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she 'lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth' (Lumen gentium #58) ... as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

What gives?

[Extra Stout]

Not true. Otherwise he would not have had to write things like...

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
The traditions as delivered and taught by Paul and the apostles? To my Protestant ears, those traditions are contained entirely within Scripture.

And what were the occasions of the epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians? The former hed strayed from the teachings of the apostles, and the latter were distraught and confused by the hearing of false teaching about the end times.

So what did Paul do? He reminded them of the doctrines and traditions he had taught them, which are recorded in the epistles.


=travis2]Note the difference...they neglected the scriptures. We do NOT NOT NOT hold Tradition higher than the Bible. Not one single Tradition goes against anything Biblical...now, there may be nothing explicit in the Bible to support a particular Tradition, but nothing is contradictory.

How can that be, if the Bible can only be interpreted through church tradition? If the Catholic Church is the only entity capable of interpreting Scripture for the entire Body of Christ, then what authority does Scripture have to you apart from the Church and its traditions?

[quote=travis2]Actually, here you've just proven the need for the Church to provide guidance in reading the Bible, and not just leave it to us to define on our own.

No, what I've shown is the authors of Scripture were divinely inspired, and did not interpret things on their own.


Sorry, but it has everything to do with the elements of the Eucharist. He's not retracting His words. Rather than post an entire article, just read this...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
I'm familiar with the Catholic doctrine on the subject; I just vehemently disagree with it.


Are you honestly saying that Jesus was not capable of sitting there,handing them something that looked like a piece of bread, proclaiming "THIS IS MY BODY"...and not have it be so?
I think you may have included an extra "not" in there, since I clearly believe Jesus was capable of saying that without it being literal, just as when he said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, he was not talking about Herod's temple.

Jesus taught in parables and symbols to confound those who did not believe (Matthew 13:10-18).


Paul wrote "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27). Not a symbol...the Body and Blood. Further, in the Greek, the words being translated as "answer for the body and the blood" do so in a literal manner, as speaking of murder or assault. You can't murder or assault a symbol.
If one eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily, he is still in his sins and incurs judgment. To take communion without faith is blasphemy. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

So who is it who has killed Jesus, who is guilty of his murder? What does Scripture say?

Acts 2:36 -- "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." And who is Israel? We can take this either as the church, the audience of the Gospel, or mankind in general. In any of those, the point is the same -- WE are liable for the death of Christ.

So since we are under grace, who specifically falls under this judgment?

Hebrews 6:4-6 -- "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Since here we would not think that the apostate is literally taking Jesus and nailing him to the cross again, we understand that the guilt is for Calvary.


And, as mentioned in the article, the early Church fathers, many of whom were instructed by the Apostles, certainly knew the Eucharist was the true Body and Blood.
Of these patristic writings, if one reads them from the perspective of believing in transubstantiation, one will see transubstantiation. But even a Protestant writer would refer to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, the flesh of the Word of God. That they refer to them in these terms does not make their assent to transubstantiation conclusive.

As to the refutation of the Gnostics, note that they abstained from the Eucharist because they did not believe. Their heresy was full-blown dualism, not a dispute on the nature of the elements.


Which is why on EVERY OTHER OCCASION, he took the time to explain Himself...except this one. Why? Because there was nothing to explain. You are completely misreading that one verse.
No, I would be reading verses 61-63 as his explaining Himself. "The words I have spoken to you are S(s)pirit, and they are life."

You likely read this as something along the lines of the believer's inability to comprehend the Real Presence without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. I read it as Jesus explaining that when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he spoke in the sense of the spiritual.

[Extra Stout]

Here's what the late Pope John Paul II said:

John Paul II, Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, given on Jan 31, 1985, reported in L'Osservatore Romano Supplement of Feb. 2, 1985 and in English L'Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1985, p. 7.

"Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she 'lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth' (Lumen gentium #58) ... as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

What gives?
The official position on Mary as Co-mediatrix comes from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 62. So as not to appear as contradicting Scripture, it is phrased to say that Mary's role as Mediatrix should not be construed to mean anything but that Jesus is the sole Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) To my reading, this position is incoherent, "A AND NOT A=TRUE."

[smeagol]

Again, cite from scripture alone that Mary remained perpetually virgin.

Cite from Scripture where it says that everything related to Christianity and its doctrine is included in the Bible

ES gave it a try, but he was not successful (in my view).


The fact that other sources have to be considered means that the RCC gives them equal merit and worth.

How many times have I said other sources (Tradition) complements what the Bible says? Do you do this on purpose or you simply don’t read what I post?


Equating non-inspired literature to inspired works is just wrong.

It is wrong, but the RCC does not do this so I’m not worried.


Cite from scripture alone that we are to pray to Mary.

I think I have said more than 5 times, on this and on the “other” thread, that we don’t pray to Mary. At this point, bringing up this type of lie regarding the Church is frankly insulting.

[Phenomanul]

I think I have said more than 5 times, on this and on the “other” thread, that we don’t pray to Mary. At this point, bringing up this type of lie regarding the Church is frankly insulting.


You claim that under Papal leadership Catholic views are homogenous... In fact one of your greatest knocks against the Protestant perspective is that you believe we are all over the board when it comes to doctrinal interpretation. I've never disagreed with you on that -- we are. What I'm trying to show you is that while you may believe that praying to Mary is not something sanctioned by the RCC... I'm trying to point out that millions of Mexicans do, millions of Venezuelans, and Guatemalans do, millions of Columbians do... I have seen it. I have been to their masses and witnessed it first hand.

In either case, even though the Catholic doctrine is more homogeneous than Protestant doctrine due to the structured nature of the RCC's hierarchy... it is not entirely homogenous... There is still a great degree of difference between Marian influences in the U.S. Catholic Church and the Catholic Church in Latin American countries as a whole. How is that insulting?

Furthermore, what you just wrote doesn't really refute why scriptures don't speak about Mary's alleged Co-redemptrix or co-mediator positions. Those titles were ascribed to her well after the Apostolic Age... requiring solely tradition to hold any weight.

[Phenomanul]

The following article describes it better than I ever could.... but let me guess, rather than read it; some of you will dismiss it as outright anti-catholic rhetoric. But before you do I would have you know that at least half of the quotes referenced emanate directly from Popes - not the author.


Hail, Mary, Co-Redeemer?
by James G. McCarthy

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when Mary accepted God's invitation for her to bear His Son, she ". . . was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish" (1):

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. . . . Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living," and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary." - - Second Vatican Council(2)

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary's participation in the incarnation was only the beginning of her role in salvation. The Church teaches that "it was God's design that the Blessed Virgin Mary, apparently absent from the public life of Jesus, should assist him when he was dying nailed to the Cross."(3) United with Christ, Mary offered Him as a sacrifice to God on the cross:

She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - Mystici Corporis(4)

Not only did Mary offer her Son to God, but she remained at the cross to suffer with Christ [964]:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. - - Second Vatican Council(5)

According to the Church, Mary's sufferings were so intense that they brought her to the very threshold of death. She, says the Church, "participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption"(6):

Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind. - - Inter Sodalicia(7)

Thus Mary, in a subordinate role to Christ, had a "part with him in the redemption of the human race."(8) She is, therefore, called by the Church the "the co-operatrix in man's redemption,"(9) "our coredemptor."(10) For at the cross, Mary triumphed "utterly over the ancient serpent."(11)

Following the death and resurrection of Christ, says the Church, Mary was a major force in the spread of the gospel [965]:

It is no exaggeration to say that it is due chiefly to her leadership and help that the wisdom and teachings of the Gospel spread so rapidly to all the nations of the world in spite of the most obstinate difficulties and most cruel persecutions and brought everywhere in their train a new reign of justice and peace. - - Adiutricem Populi(12)

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that when Mary's life on earth was completed, God miraculously took her into heaven. There He crowned her Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]:

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special title our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . . - - Ad Coeli Reginam(13)


There is One Redeemer, Not Two
Scripture is clear that the Lord alone is our redeemer. To Israel God proclaimed, "I, the Lord, am your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob" (Isaiah 49:26). The New Testament Scriptures reveal that it is in God's "beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:13-14). God justifies sinners "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24).

The Church's claim that Mary offered Christ "on Golgotha to the Eternal Father"(14) contradicts Scripture. The Bible says that Christ "offered Himself without blemish to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

Similarly, there is no biblical support for the Roman Catholic claim that Mary "with Christ redeemed mankind."(15) The Church says, speaking of Mary:

In her, the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakable faith but also a contribution to the Redemption of all.

. . . it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. - - Salvifici Doloris(16)

Here the Church, rather than picturing Mary as a grateful redeemed sinner at the feet of her Savior, portrays her as making "a contribution to the Redemption of all"(17) through her own sufferings. In the words of the Second Vatican Council [968]:

She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son's sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. - - Second Vatican Council(18)

Genesis 3:15

Some Catholic scholars point to Genesis 3:15 in support of the Church's teaching of Mary as the co-redeemer. In many Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, such as the Douay Rheims, the standard Roman Catholic English Bible until the middle of the twentieth century, God's curse upon Satan reads:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. - - Genesis 3:15 (Douay Rheims)

Based on this verse, many statues and paintings of Mary show her crushing a serpent under her foot--a graphic representation of her role as co-redeemer. This imagery is also found in Catholic documents:

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. - - Ineffabilis Deus(19)

This imagery, however, is based upon a faulty translation of Genesis 3:15 from the Latin texts of the Vulgate Bible, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church since the fourth century. Until recently, the Latin Vulgate served as the base text for all Roman Catholic translations, including the English Douay Rheims Bible.

In the Hebrew text, the original language of the Old Testament, the subject of Genesis 3:15 is masculine, not feminine. Therefore, rather than reading "she shall crush thy head" (Genesis 3:15, Douay Rheims), the verse should be translated "He shall bruise you on the head" (Genesis 3:15, NASB). The verse is prophetically speaking of Christ's victory over Satan, not Mary's.

Though recent Roman Catholic translations have corrected the error, Roman Catholic theology remains the same.

Luke 2:34-35

Another passage that the Church uses to support its teaching of the "union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation"(20) is Luke 2:34-35. Joseph and Mary had taken the infant Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him in the temple. Simeon, a righteous man who was looking for the coming of the Messiah, took the child into his arms and said to Mary,

Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed--and a sword will pierce even your own soul--to the end that thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. - - Luke 2:34-35

According to the Church, the sword here speaks of Mary's participation with Christ in suffering for our redemption [618]. She, wrote Pope John Paul II, made "a contribution to the Redemption of all"(21):

. . . it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. - - Salvifici Doloris(22)

The Roman Catholic claim that Mary suffered for the redemption of the world is unjustified for three reasons:

1. Mary Did Not Suffer for Sin
As Mary watched her Son hanging on the cross, she undoubtedly suffered greatly. However, the same could be said of the others present who loved the Lord and witnessed His sufferings: John, Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25-27, Mark 15:40). We might describe the nature of this kind of sorrow as the suffering of compassion.

It is also likely that Mary, even as Christ, endured the taunts and ridicule of evil men. She did so willingly, knowing that God had called her to serve as the mother of Jesus. Scripture describes this kind of persecution as "suffering for the sake of righteousness" (1 Peter 3:14).

These two kinds of suffering, however, must be distinguished from what Christ experienced on the cross. He suffered for sin. Christ, "having become a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13), became the object of God's wrath as the Father "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:6). This the Lord Jesus, "smitten of God, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:4), suffered in solitary agony:

Reproach has broken my heart, and I am so sick.
And I looked for sympathy, but there was none,
And for comforters, but I found none.
- - Psalm 69:20

Apparently, neither Mary nor any of the others at the foot of the cross were even aware that before them the Son of God was suffering for the sins of the world.

2. Mary Did Not Suffer Death for Sin
Despite the intensity of Christ's physical sufferings, the Scriptures consistently link our redemption not to his pain, but to His death. Paul writes that "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10). The writer of Hebrews reminds us that "a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions" (Hebrews 9:15). John tells us that Jesus "released us from our sins by His blood" (Revelation 1:5).

The reason, of course, is that the penalty for our sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23). A life, therefore, had to be given to redeem us. That is why Christ came: "to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Christ "died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God. . . ." (1 Peter 3:18). Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that we were redeemed by Christ's righteous life, faithful obedience, or even His sufferings at the hands of cruel men.

Here again the sufferings of Mary fall short of being redemptive. The Church claims that "Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son,"(23) that she "in her heart died with him, stabbed by the sword of sorrow."(24) But the fact of the matter is that Mary did not die on Calvary. Christ alone gave His life for our redemption.

3. Mary Was Not Qualified to Redeem Mankind
Even if Mary had died on Calvary, her death would not have redeemed anyone. As we saw in the last chapter, Mary herself was a sinner. As such, she was guilty before God and unfit to redeem anyone. The same is true of every other man or woman. Scripture teaches:

No man can by any means redeem his brother,
Or give to God a ransom for him--
For the redemption of his soul is costly,
And he should cease trying forever
- - Psalm 49:7-8

That is why God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to redeem us. He alone was qualified. Since He was the Son of God, His life was of infinite value and able to redeem all mankind. Having been made "in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), He was capable of both representing humanity before God and physically dying (Hebrews 2:14-17). Since He was without sin, His life was an acceptable sacrifice (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). Christ alone, therefore, deserves the title of Redeemer. "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain" (Revelation 5:12).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes
1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 973.
2 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 56.
3 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia. This quote and some of the others which follow can be found in a collection of statements by recent popes compiled by Francis J. Ripley, Mary, Mother of the Church (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1969).
4 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
5 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 58.
6 Pope Pius XI, Explorata Res.
7 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
8 Pope Pius XII, Ad Coeli Reginam.
9 Pope Leo XIII, Ubi Primum.
10 Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, "Indulgences," June 26, 1913, published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Also refer to Henry Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis, MO: Herder Book Co., 1957), p. 502, article 1978 a and footnote 2; A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (New York, NY: Desclee Company, 1959), vol. 2, p. 108-109; and Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1960), p. 212-213.
11 Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
12 Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi.
13 Pope Pius XII, Ad Coeli Reginam.
14 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
15 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
16 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
17 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
18 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 61.
19 Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
20 Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 57.
21 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
22 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25.
23 Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia.
24 Pope Leo XII, Jucunda Semper.

[leemajors]

there are a lot of differences between us and south american Catholic views. Many "pagan" symbols in South America were adpoted into the Church to encourage the natives to convert. i don't know the complete background of Mary and her particular influence on South American Catholics, but if it strengthens their faith and gives them comfort to pray to her for assistance, i see no harm at all with that. it's not entirely unlike Christianity in general adopting other pagan ideas and numerology - revelations is rampant with pagan numerology and symbols, and there are plenty of religions whose creators sacrificed their only son to save humanity - adopting concepts from other religions makes conversion a whole lot easier.

edit: i was raised Catholic and never heard anything about Mary being a co-redeemer, just being venerated for bringing the son of God into the world.

[smeagol]

Pheno, all your articles says is that Mary had a role in humanity's Redemption. She is not The Redeemer or a Redeemer, she simply had a role, assigned by the Father.

[Guru of Nothing]

Don't be a hater... I've put in countless hours of study :reading and then some.

When have I been dismissive of any of your serious posts? Your 'drive-by' posts maybe... but that's just a common sense 'troll-avoidance' tactic...
Anyway :wakeup

I'm not sure of much, BUT, I'm sure that faith in God does not require countless hours of study.

In fact, the more you base your beliefs in Jesus' word on scholarly endeavor, the weaker your faith becomes - because afterall, we are talking about FAITH, not facts.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not sure of much, BUT, I'm sure that faith in God does not require countless hours of study.

In fact, the more you base your beliefs in Jesus' word on scholarly endeavor, the weaker your faith becomes - because afterall, we are talking about FAITH, not facts.


While a valid point... I didn't realize that you would in any way merit the worth or relevance of any of my spiritual anecdotes. You never struck me as the 'type' who would even care to hear a faith based story. I'm surprised to say the least... I guess your mantra of satire, cynicism and facetiousness doesn't describe you entirely. :smokin

[Phenomanul]

Pheno, all your articles says is that Mary had a role in humanity's Redemption. She is not The Redeemer or a Redeemer, she simply had a role, assigned by the Father.

:huh :huh ... wait a second... the position you just stated doesn't reflect the perspectives held by multiple popes.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special title our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . . - - Ad Coeli Reginam(13)

She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and motherly love. . . . - - Mystici Corporis(4)

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. - - Ineffabilis Deus(19)



How are these three quotes not blasphemous???

The first one claims that Mary is our Queen and Mistress...

The second claims she never sinned... (remember Romans 6:23 -- ''For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD )

The last one claims it was she who defeated Satan...

All three claims were then refuted with scripture to suggest that said doctrines all run directly contrary to scripture.

[jochhejaam]

I know only the very basics regarding the RCC. What I will say, with all due respect to my Brothers, smeagol and travis2, is that I believe it's significant that there are a large number of Catholics that convert to being Evangelical Protestants, but it's extremely rare for it to be the other way around.

Would anyone care to address the reasons for this?

[leemajors]

I know only the very basics regarding the RCC. What I will say, with all due respect to my Brothers, smeagol and travis2, is that I believe it's significant that there are a large number of Catholics that convert to being Evangelical Protestants, but it's extremely rare for it to be the other way around.

Would anyone care to address the reasons for this?

a major hurdle would be the time commitment and classes it takes to be formally adopted into the Catholic Church - there is a lengthy process involved to be formally recognized - RCIA classes i believe, and it can take a year. that would definitely be a stopping point for most looking to convert. As far as i know about Protestants, there is nothing that formal or lengthy involved. here is some more information about it that is correct as far as i know - it was a topic as mass sometimes when i was in high school and in CCD:

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/education/a/RCIA03.htm

[101A]

a major hurdle would be the time commitment and classes it takes to be formally adopted into the Catholic Church - there is a lengthy process involved to be formally recognized - RCIA classes i believe, and it can take a year. that would definitely be a stopping point for most looking to convert. As far as i know about Protestants, there is nothing that formal or lengthy involved. here is some more information about it that is correct as far as i know - it was a topic as mass sometimes when i was in high school and in CCD:

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/education/a/RCIA03.htm

My wife did it, took a couple of months - I think a class a week. She learned alot: she was a graduate student @ A&M at the time, and had a very liberal priest. She's protestant again.

[johnsmith]

My wife did it, took a couple of months - I think a class a week. She learned alot: she was a graduate student @ A&M at the time, and had a very liberal priest. She's protestant again.


I took it as well, just to learn more about Catholicism in general. It is very interesting and you really do learn a lot. It's also a good opportunity in which to argue some of the Catholic views and then hear their side of the story. Even if you disagree with it still, at least you've heard their side of the story.

[ploto]

Evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that so many are much more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

[ploto]

I think this is beautiful. Maybe it's because I am a mother.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special title our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . .

[101A]

Some evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that some are more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

fixed

btw: I was never targeted.

How about the "Come Home" ad campaign the Catholic Church ran a few years back. Were you disgusted at that?

[101A]

I think this is beautiful. Maybe it's because I am a mother.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation. . . . In this work of redemption the blessed Virgin Mary was closely associated with her Christ. . . . Just as Christ, because he redeemed us, is by a special title our King and Lord, so too is Blessed Mary, our Queen and our Mistress, because of the unique way in which she co-operated in our redemption. She provided her very substance for his body, she offered him willingly for us, and she took a unique part in our salvation by desiring it, praying for it, and so obtaining it. . . .

As beutiful as that is, I would have to agee with Phenomanu that they are also, quite probably, blasphemous from a scriptual perspective.

[Samurai Jane]

Evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that so many are much more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

Hmmm.. that's interesting.. I'm thinking back over the 100+ mission trips and outreach ministries that my Evangelical church participates in every year and I can't think of a single one that was looking to convert Catholics. Granted, I know some Protestants that are concerned with some members of the Catholic church being led astray from the message of Christ by things that resemble idol worship (ie lining up to worship a relic of a saint) but I don't know of any that specifically go to known places of Catholic worship or whatever and "target" Catholics. If a Catholic wants to discuss theology with them, then they will participate, but I haven't seen anyone at my church target someone because they are Catholic. In fact, we call ourselves interdenominational because we welcome Catholics.

*checking mission statement and membership card* Nope, I don't see anything here about converting Catholics....

[ploto]

Granted, I know some Protestants that are concerned with some members of the Catholic church being led astray from the message of Christ by things that resemble idol worship (ie lining up to worship a relic of a saint) but I don't know of any that specifically go to known places of Catholic worship or whatever and "target" Catholics.
Someone told me he goes to the parts of San Antonio that he believes to be highly Hispanic and thus thought to be highly Catholic and that those are the neighborhoods he targets.

[Samurai Jane]

Someone told me he goes to the parts of San Antonio that he believes to be highly Hispanic and thus thought to be highly Catholic and that those are the neighborhoods he targets.

That's one person... there may be a few more, but it's unfair to characterize all Evangelicals that way. Just as it's unfair to characterize all Catholics as idol worshippers based on seeing them line up to worship and kiss a relic... not all Catholics behave that way and not all Evangelicals behave that way.

[leemajors]

As beutiful as that is, I would have to agee with Phenomanu that they are also, quite probably, blasphemous from a scriptual perspective.

there is nothing remotely blasphemous in that statement.

[ploto]

That's one person... there may be a few more, but it's unfair to characterize all Evangelicals that way. Just as it's unfair to characterize all Catholics as idol worshippers based on seeing them line up to worship and kiss a relic... not all Catholics behave that way and not all Evangelicals behave that way.
I was answering the question as to why more Catholics convert to Evangelical Protestantism than the other way around. My response is accurate-- more Evangelicals target Catholics than Catholics target Evangelicals. It does not mean they all do.

See, I don't think Protestants are going to hell but many have told me that I am.

[101A]

there is nothing remotely blasphemous in that statement.

IMO, it, along with the some other doctrinal statements cited in this thread, lessen Christ's importance. He alone saved us.

[ploto]

As beutiful as that is, I would have to agee with Phenomanu that they are also, quite probably, blasphemous from a scriptual perspective.
You might want to have a little more to back up your claim when you call someone blasphemous, but then again you have claimed to know the Church's teachings on many issues in this thread and been flat out wrong.

[ploto]

IMO, it, along with the some other doctrinal statements cited in this thread, lessen Christ's importance. He alone saved us.
How'd He get here to save us?

[101A]

I was answering the question as to why more Catholics convert to Evangelical Protestantism than the other way around. My response is accurate-- more Evangelicals target Catholics than Catholics target Evangelicals. It does not mean they all do.

See, I don't think Protestants are going to hell but many have told me that I am.


You need to meet more Protestants.

My mother is Catholic, a good Christian, and a great woman.

I DO NOT try to convert her; although I do discuss her theology with her - her faith is strong, and she belongs to a good, supportive church; above all: she is saved.

[leemajors]

IMO, it, along with the some other doctrinal statements cited in this thread, lessen Christ's importance. He alone saved us.

well, i think that is ridiculous. Mary should be venerated, she was chosen by God to bear his only son. it doesn't make her a co-redeember, but she is worthy of being honored for her sacrifice. pheno's posts on the matter of Mary look like nitpicking to me, inconsequential. Mary isn't the focus of Catholicism, it will always be the holy trinity.

[ploto]

You need to meet more Protestants.

Believe me I know many, many Protestants who seem to think they know more about my own Church than I do- kind of like in this thread.

I believe YOU just called me a blasphemer for my beliefs.

[Samurai Jane]

I was answering the question as to why more Catholics convert to Evangelical Protestantism than the other way around. My response is accurate-- more Evangelicals target Catholics than Catholics target Evangelicals. It does not mean they all do.

See, I don't think Protestants are going to hell but many have told me that I am.

I think everyone will have a different experience in life, because I am Protestant, I have been told by Catholics that I'm going to hell. I'm just telling you that I have never seen one of my church members deliberately target Catholics, I have never heard my pastor encourage Catholics to convert or encourage us to try and convert Catholics, and since I'm also church shopping in a new city and have visited several Protestant churches here I have never seen any inclination of doing the same here. By the way, I have several Catholic friends and I have never tried to convert them... ever. I have had theological disagreements with a couple but I have never ever told them that they were going to hell.

[Samurai Jane]

well, i think that is ridiculous. Mary should be venerated, she was chosen by God to bear his only son. it doesn't make her a co-redeember, but she is worthy of being honored for her sacrifice. pheno's posts on the matter of Mary look like nitpicking to me, inconsequential. Mary isn't the focus of Catholicism, it will always be the holy trinity.


Not that I'm disagreeing, but as a matter of curiosity, why do so many of the Catholic churches I have visited have Mary as the focal center of the shrine? I've been to a few where there is this HUGE shrine to Mary and Jesus is kind of off to the side. I just visited one recently where this was the case.

[Phenomanul]

How'd He get here to save us?

GOD planned our redemption the moment Adam and Eve committed sin.

It's GOD's glory alone.

[ploto]

Jerry Moser's little Southern Baptist church is surrounded by South Louisiana swampland -- and by Catholic parishes.

Moser, pastor of Bayou DuLarge Baptist Church in Theriot, about 80 miles southwest of New Orleans, says Baptists and Catholics have for the past few generations managed to live side by side without problems. He calls it "peaceful coexistence."

But Moser is clear that he doesn’t consider Catholics to be Christians on an equal footing. [What I said was that sacramental faith is not the biblical Gospel. Thus, since Catholicism officially teaches a sacramental system of faith, those who trust in the official teachings of Roman Catholicism are not truly Christians at all.] He said their beliefs are "diametrically opposed" to those of Southern Baptists and that there should be more evangelistic work among Catholics to convert them to an evangelical belief.

...

But the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual pre-convention door-to-door evangelistic program, called "Crossover," in heavily Catholic south Louisiana serves as a reminder that the relationship between the two largest religious groups in the United States remains distant.

http://www.cephas-library.com/baptists/baptists_want_to_convert_catholics.html

[Phenomanul]

well, i think that is ridiculous. Mary should be venerated, she was chosen by God to bear his only son. it doesn't make her a co-redeember, but she is worthy of being honored for her sacrifice. pheno's posts on the matter of Mary look like nitpicking to me, inconsequential. Mary isn't the focus of Catholicism, it will always be the holy trinity.

Nitpicking????

Remember that one instance alone of doctrinal fallability regarding supposedly infallible doctrines renders the whole allegation null.

The unduly 'veneration' of Mary is significant in that the RCC claims doctrinal perfection... when I don't see it as even attainable. Its supposed doctrinal perfection, in turn, is what has given the Roman Catholic Institution the authority to outright dismiss doctrines engendered outside of its Catechism. But if that 'perfection' doesn't exist, it means that we are all -- from an access to GOD standpoint -- on a level playing field. GOD has extended His gift of Salvation to all who wish to accept it... sounds like a level playing field to me.

The RCC contends that only through her humanity can attain salvation.
Without the imaginary leverage that they held for centuries on interpretative matters the RCC would not have been able to wield or exert its massive power. It's no wonder that the advent of the printing press was a key factor in the rise of Protestanism. People began to see for themselves that Christ's evangelical message was plain and simple and not complicated or ritualistic.

Per their doctrine, the RCC has claimed that exclusivity to Heaven goes through her. The bible on the other hand clearly denotes that access to Heaven goes exclusively through our Mediator JESUS Christ our LORD and Savior. That is a significant difference.

I've never claimed that all catholics go to hell... In fact, I believe that millions of catholics have truly understood GOD's grace through Christ. That they go through other catholic rites, though unnecessary IMO, does not strip them of their salvation. The Roman Catholic Church, however, does have the audacity to claim that those outside her wishes fall out of GOD's grace. I've yet to see any of the catholic defenders here, raise any ounce of concern about that false assertion. One that essentially denies my access to GOD.

[ploto]

GOD planned our redemption the moment Adam and Eve committed sin.

To fulfill God's plan, He had to become fully human. He had to be born OF A WOMAN and some woman had to say Yes.

Why do you have such a problem with a simple acknowledgement that Mary agreeing to bear the Savior- YOUR Savior- gives her a role in salvation history?

[Samurai Jane]

Protestant services not OK for Catholics
Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Oct 17, 2005 by PAUL ASAY THE GAZETTE


Roman Catholics should avoid Protestant services, no matter how good the music is.

That's the word from Peter Howard, executive assistant to Bishop Michael Sheridan, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs. Howard says Catholics who split time between their parishes and contemporary Protestant megachurches are violating church teaching.

Howard addressed the issue in a column for the Oct. 7 Colorado Catholic Herald, the diocesan newspaper. The column was titled "Why Not Attend New Life?" -- a reference to New Life Church, the city's largest nondenominational congregation, which attracts thousands of Catholics every week.

"If you know somebody is engaged in something unhealthy, you have at least the duty to inform them of what they're doing," Howard said during a recent interview.

Although Catholics and evangelicals are united by a common faith and their leaders agree on social issues such as abortion, Howard's column spotlights lingering theological differences between the groups --both of which wield enormous influence locally.


Colorado Springs is sometimes called an evangelical Vatican and is home to a huge conglomeration of evangelical churches and organizations. Catholics, meanwhile, make up 17 percent to 18 percent of the city's population, and the sprawling 10-county diocese encompasses more than 130,000 parishioners.

Evangelicals and Catholics are driven to evangelize by a self- assurance in their brand of Christianity. Catholic doctrine holds that it is the only full manifestation of the faith and that all other denominations must eventually return to the Catholic fold.

Massive megachurches such as New Life, with their high-powered worship bands and charismatic pastors, can "confuse" Catholics who aren't completely grounded in their faith, Howard says. Attending these services also snubs the Catholic church.

"Why do Catholics leave the faith? Because they don't understand what the Catholic faith is," Howard said in an interview.

In his column, Howard wrote that the church has consistently discouraged Catholics from going to Protestant services even if they also attend Mass. He quoted Pope Pius XI (pope from 1922 to 1939), who said, "the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies... for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ."

"It was an important question because there is a lot of confusion among Catholics regarding their relationship with other Christian communities," Howard said.

Although the Catholic Church encourages ecumenism -- interdenominational dialogue among Christians -- it's a much different thing to actually participate in a non-Catholic worship service, according to Howard, because Protestant teachings often run counter to Catholic doctrine.

Take the Eucharist, for example. Most Protestants believe the bread and wine are symbols, but Catholics are taught that the sacrament is transfigured into the body and blood of Jesus.

Howard said Catholic children should stay away from Protestant youth groups, which often are designed to attract new church attendees. Bible studies are OK, but Howard says Catholics would go into such studies with different mindsets than Protestants. They have, after all, 2,000 years' worth of Catholic teaching that guides their understanding of the Bible.

"That's why it would be difficult for a Catholic to go to a Bible study, unless their intention was to help guide (Protestants)," Howard said.

Churches like New Life are open about their mission to convert nonbelievers. But Catholics are Christian already. The Rev. Ted Haggard says New Life doesn't try to "convert" Catholics.

"We want to be a blessing to the Catholic church," said Haggard, senior pastor for New Life. "We just want to encourage people in their spiritual walk."

Haggard estimates that as many as a third of New Life's regular attendees would call themselves Catholic. He says the church is "interdenominational," meaning that Christians from a variety of denominations attend. Some go just to church-sponsored small groups or Bible studies; others take part in New Life's mammoth weekend get- togethers.

"We let people make all those choices," Haggard said. "We don't dictate to them."

He said New Life would never restrict its attendees from becoming Catholic or attending Catholic Mass, but he doesn't take issue with Howard's column.

"One of the problems of freedom of religion is, people have freedom," he said. "They make their choices. For him to put this argument forward is part of the process and just fine. I think that's what keeps American religion so vibrant and so alive."

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0367 or [email protected]


This is exactly the experience I have received and witnessed as a member of the church. I'm sorry that some other churches may have the mission confused. Interesting, to me, it seems that Catholic doctrine teaches that we are engaged in a false Christianity, how does that reconcile with your belief that Protestants aren't going to hell because they aren't Catholic?

[Extra Stout]

Evangelicals target Catholics. I have always been amazed that so many are much more concerned with converting Catholics than actually trying to reach those with no faith at all. I know someone who rejoiced every time he got a Catholic to leave his family's church. I'm sure Jesus is proud.
I despise when that happens. I don't see it much in Texas, but I know it happens a lot in Louisiana, especially in SBC churches. Though I disagree with a lot of Catholic theology, especially the Marianistic traditions, the RCC upholds the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds. It is legitimately Christian.

The only instances where I could condone that is in those parishes, like what Phenom refers to, where the worship is synchretistic. The RCC should be taking care of its own business there and removing the heretical priests engaging in false teaching that leads the flock astray. If it won't, somebody else has to stand in the gap.

[Phenomanul]

To fulfill God's plan, He had to become fully human. He had to be born OF A WOMAN and some woman had to say Yes.

Why do you have such a problem with a simple acknowledgement that Mary agreeing to bear the Savior- YOUR Savior- gives her a role in salvation history?


I don't have a problem with that. Not as you stated it. She had a role just as Prophets had a role, just as the Apostles had a role... Ultimately, I owe my salvation to GOD's love and grace alone.

But the problem I do have is that the acknowlegement is not simple as you stated. Claiming that Mary is my Queen is a whole other premise altogether.

[Extra Stout]

Howard said Catholic children should stay away from Protestant youth groups, which often are designed to attract new church attendees. Bible studies are OK, but Howard says Catholics would go into such studies with different mindsets than Protestants. They have, after all, 2,000 years' worth of Catholic teaching that guides their understanding of the Bible.

"That's why it would be difficult for a Catholic to go to a Bible study, unless their intention was to help guide (Protestants)," Howard said.
Wow, what a profoundly arrogant attitude on behalf of Bishop Howard. I state and defend my beliefs and how I arrive at them, but my church certainly does not arrogate that it has all the answers on Biblical interpretation, and that I by going there am some "guide" to everybody else.

[ploto]

I didn't really get that quote either- but to clarify Howard is not a Bishop- those quotes are from someone who works in his office.

I do understand, though, the discussion about Protestant churches using youth groups to "lure" Catholic youth away- again just my personal experience in the Bible Belt.

[Samurai Jane]

I despise when that happens. I don't see it much in Texas, but I know it happens a lot in Louisiana, especially in SBC churches. Though I disagree with a lot of Catholic theology, especially the Marianistic traditions, the RCC upholds the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds. It is legitimately Christian.

The only instances where I could condone that is in those parishes, like what Phenom refers to, where the worship is synchretistic. The RCC should be taking care of its own business there and removing the heretical priests engaging in false teaching that leads the flock astray. If it won't, somebody else has to stand in the gap.

I just read an interesting article on Mexican Protestants that seem to take the conversion of Catholics as a mission and it is causing strife. I would tend to be concerned with areas where Catholicism is so ingrained in the culture that you are expected to be Catholic and you claim to be Catholic and you practice the rituals but don't have any true faith. But that's a problem in any denomination, I think.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2086

[Samurai Jane]

I didn't really get that quote either- but to clarify Howard is not a Bishop- those quotes are from someone who works in his office.

I do understand, though, the discussion about Protestant churches using youth groups to "lure" Catholic youth away- again just my personal experience in the Bible Belt.

It's amazing how you get all these different perspectives. Once again, I don't believe that the mission is to "lure" Catholic youth away.

[Extra Stout]

To fulfill God's plan, He had to become fully human. He had to be born OF A WOMAN and some woman had to say Yes.

Why do you have such a problem with a simple acknowledgement that Mary agreeing to bear the Savior- YOUR Savior- gives her a role in salvation history?One reason I would have a problem with it is that I only use Scripture to develop my theology.

And in Scripture, it never says that Mary agreed to bear Jesus Christ. She submitted to it. Gabriel did not come ask her, "Will you be with child?" He told her, "You will be with child." (Luke 1:31)

God was not counting upon Mary to bear his Son for him. He chose her for that role.

This gets back to the differences in Catholic vs. Protestant views of works. In the Protestant mind, works are a manifestation of what God has already done in regenerating the sinner. They do not add to the work of Christ; rather, they are a result of the work of Christ.

So to the Protestant, Mary's works add nothing to God's plan of redemption for mankind. She was elected by God into that role. She is highly honored and favored by God in His choosing her for such a blessed role. If she is to be venerated, it is for her obedience. But all the glory for Christ's birth, for his mediating and redeeming role belongs to God. She is not our queen. She is a human being just as you or I am, and she shares in the inheritance of Christ, albeit with especially great honor and reward.

[ploto]

how does that reconcile with your belief that Protestants aren't going to hell because they aren't Catholic?
Personally, I don't think it is my place to judge anyone's eternal destination- that is why I don't like it when people do that to me. God knows people's hearts- in the end, that is all I think that matters.

I respect and appreciate all who seek to find a way toward living their beliefs and if it works for them, I don't really see a problem. If asking Mary to pray for me, especially as a mother dealing with issues a mother deals with, helps me to be a better Christian parent, then why does anyone have a problem with that? It in no way, shape, or form takes away from the praying I do to God about the exact same things. Just like asking for guidance from someone I respect and bouncing my thoughts off of that person can help me to deepen my understanding- that does not take away from my experience of God's word in the Scriptures.

You want to do it all alone- ask no one to pray for you and seek the guidance of no one- that is our choice and if it is working for you- then only you know that. But what I do works for me- deepens my faith year after year and for ANYONE ELSE to presume that they can decide how God views my faith is sanctimonious.

So, thanks for asking, but no, I don't need to go to your Church to get saved. I am fine where I am. I try to understand the zeal some feel for sharing their faith, but again I say, go convert those with no belief and leave me alone in my belief.

[ploto]

One reason I would have a problem with it is that I only use Scripture to develop my theology.

And in Scripture, it never says that Mary agreed to bear Jesus Christ. She submitted to it. Gabriel did not come ask her, "Will you be with child?" He told her, "You will be with child." (Luke 1:31)

God was not counting upon Mary to bear his Son for him. He chose her for that role.

You don't believe in free will. Mary had no choice?

[Extra Stout]

I didn't really get that quote either- but to clarify Howard is not a Bishop- those quotes are from someone who works in his office.

I do understand, though, the discussion about Protestant churches using youth groups to "lure" Catholic youth away- again just my personal experience in the Bible Belt.
You have an interesting perspective on "luring" in this case. When Catholics of their own volition choose to attend a Protestant youth group because they find it attractive, that is "luring."

Are they supposed to make sure that no Catholic would ever be attracted to their church? Perhaps engage in some ritual Catholic-bashing at the start to run them off? Would you have the Protestant churches report Catholic attendees to the local parish for discipline?

[ploto]

You have an interesting perspective on "luring" in this case. When Catholics of their own volition choose to attend a Protestant youth group because they find it attractive, that is "luring."

Again my personal experience- with SBC youth intentionally going after Catholic youth to get them to attend their supposed social gatherings under the promise of enjoyment when they are really after converting the Catholic youth to join their church. It is the motives with which I have a problem. I have just seen it happen too much not to be bothered by it.

[Phenomanul]

Personally, I don't think it is my place to judge anyone's eternal destination- that is why I don't like it when people do that to me. God knows people's hearts- in the end, that is all I think that matters.


OK you and I don't -- as it should be. Your Institution however, claims to have authority on such matters. That is what is causing dissenting opinion



I respect and appreciate all who seek to find a way toward living their beliefs and if it works for them, I don't really see a problem. If asking Mary to pray for me, especially as a mother dealing with issues a mother deals with, helps me to be a better Christian parent, then why does anyone have a problem with that? It in no way, shape, or form takes away from the praying I do to God about the exact same things. Just like asking for guidance from someone I respect and bouncing my thoughts off of that person can help me to deepen my understanding- that does not take away from my experience of God's word in the Scriptures.

You want to do it all alone- ask no one to pray for you and seek the guidance of no one- that is our choice and if it is working for you- then only you know that. But what I do works for me- deepens my faith year after year and for ANYONE ELSE to presume that they can decide how God views my faith is sanctimonious.
I don't believe anyone in here ever presumed that. That others disagree with the tenets of the RCC... does not mean that they are inferring or ascribing anything to your own status with GOD.



So, thanks for asking, but no, I don't need to go to your Church to get saved. I am fine where I am. I try to understand the zeal some feel for sharing their faith, but again I say, go convert those with no belief and leave me alone in my belief.
Again, no one in here has tried to 'convert' you.

[Samurai Jane]

Personally, I don't think it is my place to judge anyone's eternal destination- that is why I don't like it when people do that to me. God knows people's hearts- in the end, that is all I think that matters.

I respect and appreciate all who seek to find a way toward living their beliefs and if it works for them, I don't really see a problem. If asking Mary to pray for me, especially as a mother dealing with issues a mother deals with, helps me to be a better Christian parent, then why does anyone have a problem with that? It in no way, shape, or form takes away from the praying I do to God about the exact same things. Just like asking for guidance from someone I respect and bouncing my thoughts off of that person can help me to deepen my understanding- that does not take away from my experience of God's word in the Scriptures.

You want to do it all alone- ask no one to pray for you and seek the guidance of no one- that is our choice and if it is working for you- then only you know that. But what I do works for me- deepens my faith year after year and for ANYONE ELSE to presume that they can decide how God views my faith is sanctimonious.

So, thanks for asking, but no, I don't need to go to your Church to get saved. I am fine where I am. I try to understand the zeal some feel for sharing their faith, but again I say, go convert those with no belief and leave me alone in my belief.

I can agree with those statements. I don't try and do it alone, myself. I ask prayer warriors to pray for me and my family or whatever and I go to church for teaching and worship on a regular basis. As I said, I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I was just wondering how you feel about the RCC's condemnation of Protestants when it appears that you don't feel the same.

[Samurai Jane]

Again my personal experience- with SBC youth intentionally going after Catholic youth to get them to attend their supposed social gatherings under the promise of enjoyment when they are really after converting the Catholic youth to join their church. It is the motives with which I have a problem. I have just seen it happen too much not to be bothered by it.


I'm just curious, how did they do this? Did they go around asking everyone if their Catholic or something? How were you made aware of their motives?

[Extra Stout]

You don't believe in free will. Mary had no choice?
The free will of mankind is powerless to thwart the will of God. He alone is sovereign.

If you read Romans 9 and 10 back-to-back, it can be rather confusing, since Paul on the one hand advocates for the absolute sovereignty of God, then immediately talks about the free will of man.

The two exist in tension. The best understanding I have is that this tension emerges because of our limited human perspective juxtaposed against the unbounded perspective of God.

A similar tension exists when Paul talks on the one hand about our being presdestined for salvation and already being seated in the heavens, and then on the other hand instructs us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

[Extra Stout]

I was just wondering how you feel about the RCC's condemnation of Protestants when it appears that you don't feel the same.
The official position of the RCC is that Protestants have a flawed and incomplete fellowship with God on account of doctrinal error, not that Protestants are lost.

[Samurai Jane]

The official position of the RCC is that Protestants have a flawed and incomplete fellowship with God on account of doctrinal error, not that Protestants are lost.


I see.. thanks for the clarification.

[ploto]

I'm just curious, how did they do this? Did they go around asking everyone if their Catholic or something? How were you made aware of their motives?
They know who attends a Catholic Church and that is who they invite-- not the people who attend no Church.

When you are friends with the son of a Southern Baptist Evangelist you learn a lot. He finally said when he was about 30 years old, that people could go to Heaven who were Catholic- but before that he sincerely believed that he HAD to save the Catholics. For some reason, we were the most lost people. Well, us, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there just weren't many of them around.

[Phenomanul]

The official position of the RCC is that Protestants have a flawed and incomplete fellowship with God on account of doctrinal error, not that Protestants are lost.

They still however maintain that access to GOD goes exclusively through the doctrines set forth by the RCC. It's a dichotic argument.

[leemajors]

The RCC contends that only through her humanity can attain salvation.

i still don't know where you are getting this. i went to Catholic Mass all my life and there was not the slightest evidence, sermon or suggestion of that claim. there is a special feast day for Mary, the Hail Mary is a prayer often recited, but there has been nothing to suggest what you claim. i realize you have found quotes online supporting it, but as a member of the Catholic Church i can assure you it's not the case. praying to Mary for intercession and saying only through her humanity can be saved are different matters entirely. it's not a pillar of Catholic dogma and doctrine that Mary is the only salvation, as many of us here can attest to.

[Phenomanul]

i still don't know where you are getting this. i went to Catholic Mass all my life and there was not the slightest evidence, sermon or suggestion of that claim. there is a special feast day for Mary, the Hail Mary is a prayer often recited, but there has been nothing to suggest what you claim. i realize you have found quotes online supporting it, but as a member of the Catholic Church i can assure you it's not the case. praying to Mary for intercession and saying only through her humanity can be saved are different matters entirely. it's not a pillar of Catholic dogma and doctrine that Mary is the only salvation, as many of us here can attest to.

The reference to "her" being the Roman Catholic Church... not Mary.

[Samurai Jane]

They know who attends a Catholic Church and that is who they invite-- not the people who attend no Church.

When you are friends with the son of a Southern Baptist Evangelist you learn a lot. He finally said when he was about 30 years old, that people could go to Heaven who were Catholic- but before that he sincerely believed that he HAD to save the Catholics. For some reason, we were the most lost people. Well, us, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there just weren't many of them around.

Interesting. I've never seen that perpetrated at my church and I was just wondering. Of course, we're not Southern Baptist, so that may be a different story all together. My husband grew up in a Southern Baptist church and has never expressed a need or desire to convert Catholics or whatever.

[Crookshanks]

If asking Mary to pray for me, especially as a mother dealing with issues a mother deals with, helps me to be a better Christian parent, then why does anyone have a problem with that?

If praying to Mary makes you feel better, then so be it. However, it won't do you any good as only God alone hears and answers our prayers. We don't pray to the apostles or to saints - only God.

Knowing how humble Mary was, I think she would be dismayed that people pray to her, especially since she has no power to hear those prayer, much less answer them.

Same thing with lighting candles - I see so many people buying all different candles to protect them and other such nonsense. Lighting a candle does nothing but add a little light and scent to the room!

[Samurai Jane]

They still however maintain that access to GOD goes exclusively through the doctrines set forth by the RCC. It's a dichotic argument.

Somebody tell me: Is confession a requirement to get into heaven? Who goes to purgatory? What exactly must you do to get into heaven, according to RCC?

[Samurai Jane]

If praying to Mary makes you feel better, then so be it. However, it won't do you any good as only God alone hears and answers our prayers. We don't pray to the apostles or to saints - only God.

Knowing how humble Mary was, I think she would be dismayed that people pray to her, especially since she has no power to hear those prayer, much less answer them.

Same thing with lighting candles - I see so many people buying all different candles to protect them and other such nonsense. Lighting a candle does nothing but add a little light and scent to the room!

We went to San Juan in August and I was amazed at all the candles there. They had a seperate candle room and everything. I thought it was bizarre and beautiful at the same time. (They also had a little store where you could buy all these candles.)

[ploto]

If praying to Mary makes you feel better, then so be it. However, it won't do you any good as only God alone hears and answers our prayers. We don't pray to the apostles or to saints - only God.

Did you bother to READ what I wrote. I said I ask Mary to pray for me- not that I pray to Mary.

Why did I even try??

[Crookshanks]

Did you bother to READ what I wrote. I said I ask Mary to pray for me- not that I pray to Mary.

Why did I even try??

Doesn't matter which way - it still does no good because Mary doesn't hear you! Also, where in the bible do you find that people in Heaven can or do pray for those of us here on earth?

[ploto]

Go back a few pages. Been there done that.

I'm tired of going around and around on the same things.

I'll believe what I want and just quit inviting me to your church. I am quite happy at mine- 3 or 4 times a week.

[Phenomanul]

Go back a few pages. Been there done that.

I'm tired of going around and around on the same things.

I'll believe what I want and just quit inviting me to your church. I am quite happy at mine- 3 or 4 times a week.


With all due respect are you imagining these solicitations?

We are having a theological discussion concerning perspectives on doctrines not a "you need to come to my church, your church don't know" type of argument.

[johnsmith]

If praying to Mary makes you feel better, then so be it. However, it won't do you any good as only God alone hears and answers our prayers. We don't pray to the apostles or to saints - only God.

Knowing how humble Mary was, I think she would be dismayed that people pray to her, especially since she has no power to hear those prayer, much less answer them.

Same thing with lighting candles - I see so many people buying all different candles to protect them and other such nonsense. Lighting a candle does nothing but add a little light and scent to the room!


I love when religious philosophies become FACTS from people arguing these things.

[Extra Stout]

They know who attends a Catholic Church and that is who they invite-- not the people who attend no Church.

When you are friends with the son of a Southern Baptist Evangelist you learn a lot. He finally said when he was about 30 years old, that people could go to Heaven who were Catholic- but before that he sincerely believed that he HAD to save the Catholics. For some reason, we were the most lost people.
I had some experiences with fundie Southern Baptists in Louisiana along those lines. They would rail up and down about the priests and bishops had a special place in hell waiting for them because of their false teaching and how they had to save those poor parishoners from hell.

I also have experience in Texas with a bunch of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, A/G's, and non-denominational folks arm in arm singing together and eating together.

The latter one is better.

[travis2]

Somebody tell me: Is confession a requirement to get into heaven? Who goes to purgatory? What exactly must you do to get into heaven, according to RCC?

Confession is strictly only required for mortal (grave) sin. However, it is recommended at least once per year.

If you die without serious sin but still with the effects of venial sin on your soul, you still can't enter Heaven, because nothing unclean shall enter. However, there is a place to get "cleaned up".

Purgatory is less a "place" than a "state of being". It's not an alternative to Hell, and it's not a second judgement. I like to compare it to a trucker's rest stop on the way to Heaven...there's one way in, one way out...there are showers and a store to buy some clothing items...but no sleeping space. No one lives or stays there.

If you go to Purgatory...you are saved. It's just a waypoint.

What is required in the eyes of the Church? Baptism. Jesus said so. Also, no serious sin unconfessed. That's about it...

[Samurai Jane]

Confession is strictly only required for mortal (grave) sin. However, it is recommended at least once per year.

If you die without serious sin but still with the effects of venial sin on your soul, you still can't enter Heaven, because nothing unclean shall enter. However, there is a place to get "cleaned up".

Purgatory is less a "place" than a "state of being". It's not an alternative to Hell, and it's not a second judgement. I like to compare it to a trucker's rest stop on the way to Heaven...there's one way in, one way out...there are showers and a store to buy some clothing items...but no sleeping space. No one lives or stays there.

If you go to Purgatory...you are saved. It's just a waypoint.

What is required in the eyes of the Church? Baptism. Jesus said so. Also, no serious sin unconfessed. That's about it...

And by unconfessed you mean unconfessed to a priest or would private confession between you and the Lord do? Also where is the line drawn between mortal and venial?

[travis2]

Doesn't matter which way - it still does no good because Mary doesn't hear you!

Where does it say that, exactly?


Also, where in the bible do you find that people in Heaven can or do pray for those of us here on earth?

Rev 5:8 is the most direct.

[travis2]

And by unconfessed you mean unconfessed to a priest or would private confession between you and the Lord do?

That gets a bit murky for me...I'll try to see if I can get a clear statement for you. As I understand it, though...if the lack of confession was a conscious act on your part...too bad so sad. If, on the other hand, you had every intention of going to confession but were prevented from doing so...I think the Church says that's OK.

However...keep in mind we see confession instituted by Christ Himself...in two different places. So no, as a general rule, what you call "private confession" would not do.

[Samurai Jane]

That gets a bit murky for me...I'll try to see if I can get a clear statement for you. As I understand it, though...if the lack of confession was a conscious act on your part...too bad so sad. If, on the other hand, you had every intention of going to confession but were prevented from doing so...I think the Church says that's OK.

However...keep in mind we see confession instituted by Christ Himself...in two different places. So no, as a general rule, what you call "private confession" would not do.

Where, please?

[Extra Stout]

Where does it say that, exactly?

Rev 5:8 is the most direct.
Interesting. When Protestants read the word "saints" in the Bible they take it to mean simply "believers." (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41, 26:10, Rom 1:7, 8:27, 12:13, 15:25, 26, 31, 16:2, 15, 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:2, 14:33, 16:1, 16:15, 2 Cor. 1:1, 8:4, 9:1, 9:12, 13:13, Eph 1:1, 15, 3:18, 4:12, 5:3, 6:18, Philip. 1:1, 4:21, 22, Col. 1:2, 4, 12, 26, OK I'm worn out now)

So "the prayers of the saints" simply would be the prayers of believers offered up to God.

What about Heb. 12:1? That one says they're at least watching us.

[travis2]

Where, please?

Mt 18:18, Jn 20:22-23

[travis2]

Interesting. When Protestants read the word "saints" in the Bible they take it to mean simply "believers." (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41, 26:10, Rom 1:7, 8:27, 12:13, 15:25, 26, 31, 16:2, 15, 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:2, 14:33, 16:1, 16:15, 2 Cor. 1:1, 8:4, 9:1, 9:12, 13:13, Eph 1:1, 15, 3:18, 4:12, 5:3, 6:18, Philip. 1:1, 4:21, 22, Col. 1:2, 4, 12, 26, OK I'm worn out now)

So "the prayers of the saints" simply would be the prayers of believers offered up to God.

What about Heb. 12:1? That one says they're at least watching us.

There are others. I just chose that one.

And in the context of the times in which Revelation was written, "believers" would not make much sense. (IMHO)

[Samurai Jane]

Mt 18:18, Jn 20:22-23

I don't understand the reference in Matthew here and how it pertains to confession. The second one is more understandable. However, since we all receive the Holy Spirit when we become Christians, does that imply that any of us can forgive the sins of another? Can this not be done without the need of a confession? (For example, I have forgiven my sister for something she has done to our family but she has never actually confessed it to us and we have not pressed the matter.) Does this imply that one human being can have the power over another for the entrance to heaven?

[ploto]

With all due respect are you imagining these solicitations?

Gee- that's not patronizing.

I must be hallucinating while I worship Mary.

[Phenomanul]

Gee- that's not patronizing.

I must be hallucinating while I worship Mary.


ploto... I wasn't being facetious... Seriously, where in this thread was someone trying to convert you, and or invite you to their church? I didn't see it. And yet you wrote off the discussion on the grounds that you felt someone was trying to do that to you. It didn't make any sense. :huh

[Phenomanul]

Confession is strictly only required for mortal (grave) sin. However, it is recommended at least once per year.

If you die without serious sin but still with the effects of venial sin on your soul, you still can't enter Heaven, because nothing unclean shall enter. However, there is a place to get "cleaned up".

Purgatory is less a "place" than a "state of being". It's not an alternative to Hell, and it's not a second judgement. I like to compare it to a trucker's rest stop on the way to Heaven...there's one way in, one way out...there are showers and a store to buy some clothing items...but no sleeping space. No one lives or stays there.

If you go to Purgatory...you are saved. It's just a waypoint.

What is required in the eyes of the Church? Baptism. Jesus said so. Also, no serious sin unconfessed. That's about it...

I know you are answering SJ's questions with a candid and willing heart - so don't take what I'm about to say as a bigoted statement.

The doctrines you just alluded to are the very same 'complications' I was referring to when I said that the message of Christ was simple and that the RCC had managed to complicate it. :dizzy

[sickdsm]

So after all this, Am i going to have a big problem being accepted if i tell the priest i don't believe in praying to Mary and i won't do it?

[smeagol]

I know you are answering SJ's questions with a candid and willing heart - so don't take what I'm about to say as a bigoted statement.

The doctrines you just alluded to are the very same 'complications' I was referring to when I said that the message of Christ was simple and that the RCC had managed to complicate it. :dizzy

This doctrines were practiced by the earliest Chrisitans. People who new the Apostles. You tell me: who would know the practices insitituted by Christ better?

1) St Ignatius

2) Martin Luther, or

3) Phonomanul

With all due respect, I go with 1).

[smeagol]

So after all this, Am i going to have a big problem being accepted if i tell the priest i don't believe in praying to Mary and i won't do it?
If you tell a priest you are praying to Mary, he will not accept you as a Catholic.

There you go, problem solved.

[smeagol]

ES brings pretty goos points to the discussion, but so does Travis. Both read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. That is precisely why you need an authority to help people understand the Scriptures.

[smeagol]

By the way ES, you have not proven conclusively that the Scriptures explain themselves.

[smeagol]

I know only the very basics regarding the RCC. What I will say, with all due respect to my Brothers, smeagol and travis2, is that I believe it's significant that there are a large number of Catholics that convert to being Evangelical Protestants, but it's extremely rare for it to be the other way around.

Would anyone care to address the reasons for this?

One reason is that Protestantism has much more appeal that Catholicism.

"Accept Jesus Christ and your personal Savior and you will be save: NO MATTER WHAT".

Even though there are more going one way than the other, there are plenty of Evangelicals that have found comfort in the RCC.

[smeagol]

:How are these three quotes not blasphemous???


I ask you the same question.


The first one claims that Mary is our Queen and Mistress...


Does it say Mary is God?



The second claims she never sinned... (remember Romans 6:23 -- ''For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD )


There are exceptions to Paul's statement. Mary is one.



The last one claims it was she who defeated Satan...


It says with the help of Jesus, not by herself.

[smeagol]

As beutiful as that is, I would have to agee with Phenomanu that they are also, quite probably, blasphemous from a scriptual perspective.


Explain what is blasphemous about it.

[smeagol]

The free will of mankind is powerless to thwart the will of God. He alone is sovereign.

If you read Romans 9 and 10 back-to-back, it can be rather confusing, since Paul on the one hand advocates for the absolute sovereignty of God, then immediately talks about the free will of man.

The two exist in tension. The best understanding I have is that this tension emerges because of our limited human perspective juxtaposed against the unbounded perspective of God.

A similar tension exists when Paul talks on the one hand about our being presdestined for salvation and already being seated in the heavens, and then on the other hand instructs us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

So God gave Eve free will to sin against Him but did not give free will to Mary to choose to say yes to His Redemption plan?

[smeagol]

If praying to Mary makes you feel better, then so be it. However, it won't do you any good as only God alone hears and answers our prayers. We don't pray to the apostles or to saints - only God.

Knowing how humble Mary was, I think she would be dismayed that people pray to her, especially since she has no power to hear those prayer, much less answer them.

Same thing with lighting candles - I see so many people buying all different candles to protect them and other such nonsense. Lighting a candle does nothing but add a little light and scent to the room!

Funny how Pheno fills his lips with how arrogant the RCC is but has nothing to comment about Crook's statemnt.

[smeagol]

Did you bother to READ what I wrote. I said I ask Mary to pray for me- not that I pray to Mary.

Why did I even try??
Don't bother.

She seems to be another Fundamentalist that thinks she knows the Catholic doctrines but at the end of the day she is simply repeating untrues statements that have been passed down by anti Catholics from generation to generation.

[Kori Ellis]

If you tell a priest you are praying to Mary, he will not accept you as a Catholic.



A lot of Catholics I know pray to Mary in and out of church (which I think is ridiculous).

[smeagol]

Doesn't matter which way - it still does no good because Mary doesn't hear you!


Did Jesus himself tell you this?



Also, where in the bible do you find that people in Heaven can or do pray for those of us here on earth?


Read the thread. Both Travis and I state it in different posts.

[smeagol]

A lot of Catholics I know pray to Mary in and out of church (which I think is ridiculous).


Are you sure they pray to Mary, or they pray (ask) Mary to pray for them?

If they do, they are mistaken.

[Kori Ellis]

Are you sure they pray to Mary, or they pray (ask) Mary to pray for them?

If they do, they are mistaken.

They pray to Mary. Pretty much every Catholic person I know does it. I've been to mass with them many times and seen it/heard it with my own eyes/ears. They even kneel in front of her huge shrine in the middle of the church and pray to her like she's God. They also pray to other saints and to the Pope.

I think that this is pretty common place, that's maybe you have so many people in this thread not agreeing with you on this particular point about Mary.

I only pray to God and this is one of the things that has bugged me about Catholics for a long time.

I know you are going to turn around and say I'm wrong or that they are wrong for doing it, but it's very commonplace in Catholic church. I was raised Protestant but I've been to about 50 Catholic churches in my life and seen 100's of people do it.

[Phenomanul]

Funny how Pheno fills his lips with how arrogant the RCC is but has nothing to comment about Crook's statemnt.


Arrogance was implied at an institutional level... not at the level of a practitioner. Besides I don't believe I saw Crook's post the first time around (now doesn't that make you feel silly :spin ).

It is the RCC which contends that people like myself, who choose to follow Christ outside the bounds of her sacraments, cannot attain a relationship with GOD. That my friend is arrogance -- they are exalting themselves to a judicial position that only GOD and GOD alone can hold.

[Phenomanul]

I ask you the same question.

Does it say Mary is God?

GOD does not share his DIVINITY with anyone... so no.

Having Mary as queen reeks of paganism... and I'm sorry if you disagree. It just does. Being a queen implies she must be served. I will only serve GOD and GOD alone - PERIOD.

You do realize that Constantine's proclamation made it 'politically incorrect' to profess to be from another faith aside from Christianity. Many many people were therefore absorbed by the church - and many of those did not have genuine conversions. This absorption included the incorporation of many false teachings and pagan theologies. The veneration of Godesses comes from Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Egyptian theologies. Not from Judaism or Apostolic Christianity.




There are exceptions to Paul's statement. Mary is one.

How convenient.

If she was sinless how come she needed a Savior herself? She clearly rejoices in "GOD her savior" in Luke 1:47.




It says with the help of Jesus, not by herself.


OK... I'll quote the pope again....

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. - - Ineffabilis Deus(19)

and re-emphasize: "and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

Mary did not descend into the bowels of Hades to defeat death... JESUS did. JESUS will defeat Satan at Armaggedon not Mary.

[Guru of Nothing]

While a valid point... I didn't realize that you would in any way merit the worth or relevance of any of my spiritual anecdotes. You never struck me as the 'type' who would even care to hear a faith based story. I'm surprised to say the least... I guess your mantra of satire, cynicism and facetiousness doesn't describe you entirely. :smokin

Like any good agnostic, I have an inquiring mind.

My biggest stumbling block when engaging in threads like these is that I base my opinion of Christianity on Christian thought.

That any Christian would want to ARGUE their beliefs confounds me. Isn't going to heaven enough to satisfy you?

[smeagol]

I know you are going to turn around and say I'm wrong or that they are wrong for doing it, but it's very commonplace in Catholic church. I was raised Protestant but I've been to about 50 Catholic churches in my life and seen 100's of people do it.

No, I'm going to turn around and say the Catholic Church says we can communicate with the dead and ask them to pray for us, the same way you can turn to your mother, uncle, best friend, etc to pray for you.

How are we to communicate with the dead? It only makes sense we do it the only way we know how to make contact with Heaven, and that's kneeling down in Church (or at home) and think about (talk to) our loved ones, or Mary or a Saint.

I doubt you have actually heard/knew, without a shadow of a doubt, what was going on between Mary and all those hundreds of people you claim were praying to her. The only way what you saw is wrong is if these people don't know or don't acknowledge that all they are doing, or should be doing, is asking Mary/Saints/other dead people that they help them in their prayers to God. If what they are doing is actually PRAYING to Mary as if Mary could help them in their material or spiritual needs (something only God can help them with), then I agree with you they are mistaken and committing a sin (I hope most of these later cases, this is done unknowingly).

It is almost impossible to know if somebody is kneeling down in front of an image of Mary, what he or she is really doing. I know if you ever see me doing this, you would probably think I praying to Mary, but I can asure you I wouldn't be.

[smeagol]

Being a queen implies she must be served[/B]. It just does. I'm sorry if you disagree. I will only serve GOD and GOD alone - PERIOD.


Why do you keep making things up? Where does it say that we Catholics "serve" Mary? We put Mary in the place she deserves because of what she did, which is willingly take a crucial part in God's Redemptive plan.

We do the same thing with Saints, that is honor them for who they were when they were alive (and who they are now that they are dead).

Do you honor your father? I know you do because the Bible says so (and because you have spoken highly of him many times). Well use your relationship with you father as an analogy of Catholics' relationship with certain Saints. And our relationship with Mary mimics our relatioship with our mothers (saving the distance).



You do realize that Constantine's proclamation made it 'politically incorrect' to profess to be from another faith aside from Christianity. Many many people were therefore absorbed by the church - and many of those did not have genuine conversions. This absorption included the incorporation of many false teachings and pagan theologies. The veneration of Godesses comes from Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Egyptian theologies. Not from Judaism or Apostolic Christianity.


Again you bring up a Protestant missconception about Catholicism (that we borrowed pagan practices) and try to pass it as truth.

You do realize that Mary's veneration strarted well before 313 AD. There are records of this in Ignatius Epistles (110 AD) and a much more clearly defined Marian veneration in Justin Martyr's books (135 AD).



How convenient.


Does a one year old child who dies commit any sin in his lefetime? As you can see, Paul's comments was not meant to be all inclusive. There are exceptions to an otherwise universal rule. The other exception being the Man Jesus. You have pointed out that sometimes he spoke as a man (on our discussion about Arianism) because he was a man. Well, as a man, he never sinned. If these exceptions exist, why should Mary be an exception too? And why is it, in you eyes, so bad that she was sinless?



If she was sinless how come she needed a Savior herself? She clearly rejoices in "GOD her savior" in Luke 1:47.


I'm not sure I know the answer to this question, but i will find out.



and re-emphasize: "and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."


And I will re-emphasize too: "so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. "

She did not do any of this alone. She did it with Christ.



Mary did not descend into the bowels of Hades to defeat death... JESUS did. JESUS will defeat Satan at Armaggedon not Mary.


Where does it say she descended into Hell? How do you conclude that Mary, by herself, defeated death?

All it says is that Mary helped Christ defeat the serpent that tempted Eve. Mary is also known as the second Eve. Eve helped in the events that caused humanity to be tainted with sin; Mary helped in the events that brought salvation to humanity.

[leemajors]

pheno, would you assume buddhists worship buddha?

[Kori Ellis]

I doubt you have actually heard/knew, without a shadow of a doubt, what was going on between Mary and all those hundreds of people you claim were praying to her.

I have tons of Catholic friends. I went to church with them. They say they pray to Mary.

[Extra Stout]

By the way ES, you have not proven conclusively that the Scriptures explain themselves.
I am going to exercise restraint in this, and not go past Scriptural references. There are instances throughout history, where I vehemently disagree with choices made by the RCC according to the authority it claims, which I believe invalidate its claims of infallibility. I do not really want to flesh out those concerns so much, because I do not want to turn this dialogue into an orgy of Catholic-bashing, inasmuch as devout Catholics are Christians.

I believe that the arguments I have presented for the sufficiency of Scripture outweigh those presented for the authority of tradition. Since you are a Catholic, certainly you place the burden of proof on me. Since I am Protestant, I place the burden of proof on you.

I do not believe that it is likely or even necessary to try to bring you around to my way of thinking. But I certainly am going to present and defend my views on faith.

[Kori Ellis]

I think that a lot of people (Catholics and Protestants) are confused if Catholics pray TO Mary or if they are just asking her to pray with them. (which some would say is praying TO her and asking her to pray for them)

I think when the Pope say something like this, "Let us pray to Mary Queen of Peace," said Benedict, "that she may implore from God the fundamental gift of harmony, bringing political leaders back to the way of reason and opening new possibilities of dialogue and understanding. With this in mind, I invite the local Churches to raise special prayers for peace in the Holy Land and in the entire Middle East." It makes things even more hazy. (I understand he's not saying anyone should worship her)

I know some Catholics can present evidence through scripture that they should ask Mary to pray for them. However, many people will dispute that and say there's no scriptures stating that anyone but God will hear their requests (prayers?).

[Extra Stout]

ES brings pretty goos points to the discussion, but so does Travis. Both read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. That is precisely why you need an authority to help people understand the Scriptures.
The whole point of the Reformation was that the authority was being abused.

[Extra Stout]

One reason is that Protestantism has much more appeal that Catholicism.

"Accept Jesus Christ and your personal Savior and you will be save: NO MATTER WHAT".

Even though there are more going one way than the other, there are plenty of Evangelicals that have found comfort in the RCC.
I don't think joch is talking about people who just go through the motions of religion. There are whole heck of a lot of tepid "Catholics" too.

He is talking about people who in moving from one to the other begin bearing fruit for God.

[Kori Ellis]

I had another question. Why do Catholics refer to Mary as the "All-Holy One"?

[leemajors]

i've never heard her referred to as that.

[Extra Stout]

So God gave Eve free will to sin against Him but did not give free will to Mary to choose to say yes to His Redemption plan?
God could have picked anyone to be Jesus' mother. If Mary did not have an obedient heart, he could have elected another.

While we have an opportunity to participate in God's plan, it does not hinge on us. It is not our plan. It was not Mary's plan. Gabriel did not come to her and say, "Hey, Mary, God has this idea about redeeming mankind and wants to see if you agree with it before he moves ahead." He did not say, "Mary, God needs your help to redeem mankind. Can you lend a hand and bear his Son?"

Rather, he said, "You will be with child." Not, "You will be with child, if you're OK with it." Not, "Make a choice about whether you are going to be with child."

Mary had an obedient heart, and so God elected her. Certainly this means she was a woman of extraordinary character. Certainly this means that God showed her great favor and honor.

But it does NOT mean that salvation hinged upon her. She was a vessel used by God. God uses people how he sees fit (Rom. 9:20-21).

[Kori Ellis]

i've never heard her referred to as that.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c2a2.htm

2677 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. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing38 to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

[JoeChalupa]

Mary rocks!

[johnsmith]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c2a2.htm

2677 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. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing38 to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.


What's wrong with that?

[Kori Ellis]

What's wrong with that?

IMO, she's not the All-Holy One. That's God. To say she's the All-Holy One is to say she's equal with God's holiness and it seems that's blasphemous.



Revelation. 15:4 Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou only art Holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee...

I Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside Thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

[Kori Ellis]

Anyway, I do not really have time to post here. So if I don't answer any posts it's not that I'm defeated, I'm just try to work (which is why I didn't want to post in this thread anyway).

I'm glad that everyone is being (relatively) civil. Faith is such a personal choice, I normally don't try to get into it in the forum.

Take care.

[JoeChalupa]

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Son of God, the All Holy One. Blessed is she amongst women. Not saying she is GOD.

The Virgen de Guadalupe is dear to my heart.

[johnsmith]

I'm glad that everyone is being (relatively) civil. Faith is such a personal choice, I normally don't try to get into it in the forum.


Funny coming from someone that posted this:


A lot of Catholics I know pray to Mary in and out of church (which I think is ridiculous).

[JoeChalupa]

I'm glad that everyone is being (relatively) civil. Faith is such a personal choice, I normally don't try to get into it in the forum.

Take care.

I concur. I don't ever question another's faith and all the remarks against Catholicism never faze me one bit. Mouse has tried to tear me up about being Catholic but ain't gonna happen.

Take care!

[JoeChalupa]

I pray to Mary everyday and ask that she watch over my family. I find nothing ridiculous about it at all but it is my belief that makes it so.

[Phenomanul]

Why do you keep making things up? Where does it say that we Catholics "serve" Mary? We put Mary in the place she deserves because of what she did, which is willingly take a crucial part in God's Redemptive plan.


If the shoe fits....

Many true disciples in the catholic church understand the difference between 'worship' and 'honor'... and refrain from doing the former. I don't believe, however, that the Catholic laity as a harmonious whole differentiates the meaning or the connotative implications of those two verbs. Marianists, in particular, have elevated Mary to a status that rivals that of GOD -- GOD wants to be our priority - to occupy first place in our hearts. It is one thing to honor Mary, and quite another to build shrines to her or to place her as the central focus point (architecturally, aesthetically or other) of a temple.

While you claim that no one can really hear what practitioners are praying... and you're right, I can't... that doesn't mean that their body language is to be excluded from the discussion. I've seen countless of people 'bow' to Mary. I've seen pilgrims crawl on their knees for several kilometers to shrines located in remote and 'sacred' places... shrines built for Mary or some other 'virgin'.

Bowing on one's knees with your face to the ground is teeter-tottering on the brink of worship... otherwise Daniel, Shadrack, Meshac and Abednego would not have protested to the same.



We do the same thing with Saints, that is honor them for who they were when they were alive (and who they are now that they are dead).

Do you honor your father? I know you do because the Bible says so (and because you have spoken highly of him many times). Well use your relationship with you father as an analogy of Catholics' relationship with certain Saints. And our relationship with Mary mimics our relatioship with our mothers (saving the distance).

Yes, I honor my parents, my grandparents, and aunts and uncles.

That is a far cry from declaring them my Kings or Queens.



Again you bring up a Protestant missconception about Catholicism (that we borrowed pagan practices) and try to pass it as truth.

The theological rifts between the practices observed in the apostolic age and those in the 2nd and 3rd centuries are very obvious. I can't envision either Paul or Peter sitting on a gold throne, trying to stipulate moral policy. Their main purpose was to spread the message of GOD's love to all those who would hear it, to all corners of the known world. Furthermore, Peter, Paul nor any of the other disciples sought earthly power or political authority because they realized that Christ Himself did not come to establish a political kingdom. How then can you reconcile the political power that the Vatican wields with the Apostolic mission statement? What caused that change in purpose? That is why the absence of Mary veneration from scripture is very revealing. You continually claim that Ignatious and other 2nd century figures incorporated veneration of Mary in their congregations (along with other 'strictly catholic' practices). But the point remains: the practice doesn't harmonize with the Apostolic creeds unless you give these other writings equal worth. We both agree that these additional works were not inspired and yet you insist on allowing new material and doctrines to emanate from them, not scripture. Besides, what is to prevent the keeper of history from bending it to suit its needs (IMO I would venture to say it has)? You act like the Vatican has been a shining example of integrity.

And that is not catholic bashing. That is a secular perspective on historical accounts.



You do realize that Mary's veneration strarted well before 313 AD. There are records of this in Ignatius Epistles (110 AD) and a much more clearly defined Marian veneration in Justin Martyr's books (135 AD).


Again it's funny how none of the inspired works hint to any of these practices. Only when you include other writings does the catholic perspective come into focus. Why would GOD have left such an important and 'enhancing' practice out of His Word?




Does a one year old child who dies commit any sin in his lefetime? As you can see, Paul's comments was not meant to be all inclusive. There are exceptions to an otherwise universal rule. The other exception being the Man Jesus. You have pointed out that sometimes he spoke as a man (on our discussion about Arianism) because he was a man. Well, as a man, he never sinned. If these exceptions exist, why should Mary be an exception too? And why is it, in you eyes, so bad that she was sinless?


IMHO that just shows that Christ's atoning blood is sufficient to cleanse the 'unclean' for entry into heaven. Babies or children (only GOD knows at what age - as it is different from person to person) are excluded from having to confess that JESUS is their LORD; especially if they are at an age where they do not understand what that means. Coupled with GOD's mercy and grace He grants them exceptions... But only because His Love is so great. Yes, GOD is JUST, but He is also LOVE and MERCIFUL. How then can all these attributes be reconciled? That is why the subject of infant afterlife is very controversial. It's one of those things I don't believe we can completely wrap our minds around.

As an offnote: That is not to say that children aren't capable of committing 'venial' sins of their own... Ever heard of two year olds yelling at the top of their lungs MINE MINE MINE! as they punch another toddler in the face? They may not know that corrupt human nature is seeded in their very being and that it begins to manifest itself at a very young age. Nevertheless, I believe Christ died for them as well.

To state however, that Mary committed no sin... and as an adult, no less, is very unrealistic. Only one was perfect. The Scriptural record is abundantly clear that Jesus was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). "In Him there was no sin" (1 John 3:5). He "knew no sin" (II Cor. 5:21), and "committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22).

Jesus Himself could ask His contemporaries, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46), and no one could do so. He was a "high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), who "offered Himself without blemish" (Heb. 9:14), "a lamb unblemished and spotless (1 Peter 1:19).

The doctrine of Mary's 'immaculate conception' is unsubstantiated by scripture.




I'm not sure I know the answer to this question, but i will find out.

And I will re-emphasize too: "so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. "

She did not do any of this alone. She did it with Christ.


The fact that it atributes any of that 'victory 'to Mary runs contrary to scripture.



Where does it say she descended into Hell? How do you conclude that Mary, by herself, defeated death?


She didn't... only Christ did.



All it says is that Mary helped Christ defeat the serpent that tempted Eve. Mary is also known as the second Eve. Eve helped in the events that caused humanity to be tainted with sin; Mary helped in the events that brought salvation to humanity.
All Mary did was fulfill the role that the profecy of Christ's virginal birth had foretold. She found favor in GOD's eyes. She had the priviledge of being selected for this glorious task. But I'm sorry, she had no part in the redemption and atonement of our sins - that task was Christ's alone.

[Samurai Jane]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c2a2.htm

2677 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. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing38 to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

:nope I thought we were only supposed to give ourselves over to Christ. What gives??????

[johnsmith]

:nope I thought we were only supposed to give ourselves over to Christ. What gives??????


Read the rest of the quote dumbass.

[Samurai Jane]

Read the rest of the quote dumbass.


I did, the rest of the quote doesn't change the meaning, IMO, and please don't call me names.

[johnsmith]

I did, the rest of the quote doesn't change the meaning, IMO, and please don't call me names.


The quote says she'll just give us over to Jesus, why is that hard to understand?

[Samurai Jane]

The quote says she'll just give us over to Jesus, why is that hard to understand?

Maybe because I'm dumb, I don't know. My understanding is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The way that quote reads, I have to go through Mary to get to Jesus??

[johnsmith]

Maybe because I'm dumb, I don't know. My understanding is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The way that quote reads, I have to go through Mary to get to Jesus??


The way that quotes reads is that Mary is there to greet us, make us feel comfortable, then she'll let us see Jesus.

[Phenomanul]

The way that quotes reads is that Mary is there to greet us, make us feel comfortable, then she'll let us see Jesus.


Eitherway, Jesus never hinted to such a detour. :downspin:

[ploto]

It will always be about two opposing views-
To some: if it's not in the Bible, it can not be valid.
To others: if it's not in opposition to the Bible, it can be valid.

[JoeChalupa]

Some get it, some don't. You can explain it till you're blue in the face and they still won't get it.

[Kori Ellis]

Some get it, some don't. You can explain it till you're blue in the face and they still won't get it.

I don't know Joe. Throughout this thread smeagol and Ploto insisted that Catholics don't pray to Mary. I said that I know several Catholics that pray to Mary and they said they aren't praying to Mary but just asking her to pray for them, that praying to her is wrong - a sin. And then you said:


I pray to Mary everyday and ask that she watch over my family.

So, is Joe doing something wrong according to the Catholic faith?

[spurster]

I think we better hope God isn't a God of technicalities.

[smeagol]

Some get it, some don't. You can explain it till you're blue in the face and they still won't get it.


True, and I'm getting blue in the face (and so is H :spin )

[Extra Stout]

I think we better hope God isn't a God of technicalities.
These exercises in debate are good to hone one's apologetic skills. One should take ownership of one's faith and know how to defend it.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't know Joe. Throughout this thread smeagol and Ploto insisted that Catholics don't pray to Mary. I said that I know several Catholics that pray to Mary and they said they aren't praying to Mary but just asking her to pray for them, that praying to her is wrong - a sin. And then you said:

I hear this all the time...Catholics pray to idols, Saints, etc...but I don't see it that way. I pray for the Virgin Mary's guidance and protection since she is the Mother of Jesus and when she appeared to Juan Diego she told him directly that we are all her children and that is what I believe.




So, is Joe doing something wrong according to the Catholic faith?

I don't think I am and I've never been told differently by any Priest or Bishop I've ever spoken to. But I do carry a picture of La Virgen de Guadalupe everywhere I go because I feel at ease.

[Phenomanul]

True, and I'm getting blue in the face (and so is H :spin )


My tonal mood varies from blue to purple and occasionally green (if something outright makes me sick to the stomach)... :dizzy

[ploto]

I really think it has to do with the meaning of the word Pray. I don't think that Catholics "pray" to her in the way the word might be taken literally. That is why I don't word it that way because I don't want to be misunderstood. At least to me- it is not the same thing as when I pray to God. I don't believe she has the Power of God- I don't worship her or ask for her forgiveness. I do believe, though, that she has a unique role in salvation history and that she is the Mother of the Savior. When Jesus said at the cross- Behold, your Mother- the Church believes that she was given as the Mother to us all. Eve was our natural Mother, but in becoming Jesus' brethren, Mary is our spiritual mother.

We have not even delved into the apearances of Mary, but a lot of what Protestants see that bothers them is related- I think -to people's response to those appearances and to the belief that Mary came to deliver a message to their people.

I also never mentioned before about Mary's perpetual virginity- I was taught that in early Church writings those siblings are attributed as Jospeh's children from a previous marriage, but I don't have the motivation right now to look that up.

I also think that alot of people have been bothered by the notion that a statue is an idol- but it's not. The person is not praying TO the statue and expecting the statue of its own power to perform some miraculous thing. If physical items remind us or deepen our ability to focus, then they aren't being used as idols. Many religions have prayer beeds or prayer ropes.

The main thing to me is this- if it all leads TO Christ then why the big uproar. I know you will say- but you can go directly to him without any "aid"-but can't you also have means to help you get there. Can't music help- or incense.

I guess my question really is- if it works for millions of people for thousands of years and can inspire someone like Mother Teresa to do what she did- why do people of other Chrisitan denominations need to spend so much time trying to knock it down. Is it perfect- of course not- but last time I checked, your religion wasn't perfect either with perfect leaders who never sin.

I am honest about my faith- and am willing to look at it with a sincere eye as to its strengths and weaknesses. But people from outside who often really only have half-truths and spew forth propaganda are not serving a useful purpose to the discourse. Agian, I ask, why do some Protestants seem to care so much about what the Catholics are doing? No offense, but I don't really care how you worship at your Church. If it works for you and brings about the desired result, then I am fine with it and see no need to attack it.

Well, mine works for me- and I don't want this to sound wrong- but if my faith can get me thorugh the past couple of years then there obviously is something amazingy right about it- if it can lead me to be able to forgive someone for what he did- then it must be doing something right.

[Phenomanul]

I really think it has to do with the meaning of the word Pray. I don't think that Catholics "pray" to her in the way the word might be taken literally. That is why I don't word it that way because I don't want to be misunderstood. At least to me- it is not the same thing as when I pray to God. I don't believe she has the Power of God- I don't worship her or ask for her forgiveness. I do believe, though, that she has a unique role in salvation history and that she is the Mother of the Savior. When Jesus said at the cross- Behold, your Mother- the Church believes that she was given as the Mother to us all. Eve was our natural Mother, but in becoming Jesus' brethren, Mary is our spiritual mother.

We have not even delved into the apearances of Mary, but a lot of what Protestants see that bothers them is related- I think -to people's response to those appearances and to the belief that Mary came to deliver a message to their people.

I also never mentioned before about Mary's perpetual virginity- I was taught that in early Church writings those siblings are attributed as Jospeh's children from a previous marriage, but I don't have the motivation right now to look that up.

I also think that alot of people have been bothered by the notion that a statue is an idol- but it's not. The person is not praying TO the statue and expecting the statue of its own power to perform some miraculous thing. If physical items remind us or deepen our ability to focus, then they aren't being used as idols. Many religions have prayer beeds or prayer ropes.

The main thing to me is this- if it all leads TO Christ then why the big uproar. I know you will say- but you can go directly to him without any "aid"-but can't you also have means to help you get there. Can't music help- or incense.

I guess my question really is- if it works for millions of people for thousands of years and can inspire someone like Mother Teresa to do what she did- why do people of other Chrisitan denominations need to spend so much time trying to knock it down. Is it perfect- of course not- but last time I checked, your religion wasn't perfect either with perfect leaders who never sin.

I am honest about my faith- and am willing to look at it with a sincere eye as to its strengths and weaknesses. But people from outside who often really only have half-truths and spew forth propaganda are not serving a useful purpose to the discourse. Agian, I ask, why do some Protestants seem to care so much about what the Catholics are doing? No offense, but I don't really care how you worship at your Church. If it works for you and brings about the desired result, then I am fine with it and see no need to attack it.

Well, mine works for me- and I don't want this to sound wrong- but if my faith can get me thorugh the past couple of years then there obviously is something amazingy right about it- if it can lead me to be able to forgive someone for what he did- then it must be doing something right.

That's fine and all... no one is asking you to denounce your faith.

With regards to the bolded part.... ahhhh therein lies the difference. It is your institution which claims that protestants have fallen out of GOD's grace simply because they don't partake of the RCC's sacraments. So while you may not care how we worship... and that is your GOD-given perogative. It is not you or any other practitioner that has raised the 'ire' of protestant believers; it is the arrogance of an institution that has always attempted to claim that our connection to GOD is not authentic.

So while I may be buddies with Catholics (and I have several Catholic friends) that doesn't mean that I accept the teachings of their institution. Nor does it imply that I have to 'convert' them...

[jochhejaam]

I guess I'll join the fun here and throw in my two cents.

The Virgin Mary is quite significant and blessed for the obvious reason that she gave birth to the Son of God, the Saviour of Mankind. For me, her significance begins and ends there.

I can't imagine anyone reading the Bible independently, without the instruction or indoctrination of someone else, and have them come to the conclusion that Mary's significance goes beyond her being called "Blessed" and "honored" for birthing our Saviour Jesus Christ. It's just not there.
Like many of us her I've read the Bible through several times, and the Gospels dozens of times, and have found nothing that would suggest otherwise.
Hardly any mention of her. No healing, no raising of the dead or being raised from the dead, no magnificent sermons or instruction on how to live, pray, etc. No claims of being the only mediator between man and God.

The Scriptures attention to, and focus on the life of Mary, beyond her being the mother of Christ, is more or less a blank slate.
It pretty much ends with Christ telling John that she is his mother and telling Mary that John is her son (and one of many that witnessed Christ the Resurrected). Quite touching, but I believe it to be definitive that she went out in a rather inconspicuous manner.

[ploto]

No healing, no raising of the dead.. no claims of being the only mediator between man and God.

Therein again lies the problem with this entire discussion-- Catholics do not believe this.

And for the record- I may be Roman Catholic- but I have read the Bible cover to cover many more times that just about anyone in this thread can claim- if for no other reason than my age, my compulsiveness, and the years I have been doing it. I have taken courses in scripture from theologians with a lot more training than anyone in this thread.

[ploto]

It is your institution which claims that protestants have fallen out of GOD's grace simply because they don't partake of the RCC's sacraments. So while you may not care how we worship... and that is your GOD-given perogative. It is not you or any other practitioner that has raised the 'ire' of protestant believers; it is the arrogance of an institution that has always attempted to claim that our connection to GOD is not authentic.

I do not believe the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants have fallen out of God's grace. I would say that the Church teaches that you are not in full Union.

Similarly, some Protestants- including prominent leaders- have said that Catholics are not Christians because of the sacramental nature of their worship- which by the way should include the Orthodox churches, as well, but somehow they don't seem to care about them.

[ploto]

That's fine and all... no one is asking you to denounce your faith.

Being called blasphemous for my faith comes awfully close.

[Guru of Nothing]

Let's cut to the chase.

Hector, are your beliefs 100% correct, and thusly, Catholic beliefs less than 100% correct?

$20 says you can't reply with two or three letters.

[smeagol]

The whole point of the Reformation was that the authority was being abused.


The result of the Reformation is 20,000 groups of Christians claiming they preach the truth. Maybe this is what God wanted. I doubt it, though.

[Extra Stout]

The result of the Reformation is 20,000 groups of Christians claiming they preach the truth. Maybe this is what God wanted. I doubt it, though.
I think what God wants is for disputable matters not to create division.

[Guru of Nothing]

For many, religion is emotional, more than spiritual.

Is that a problem?

Is that THE problem?

[Phenomanul]

Let's cut to the chase.

Hector, are your beliefs 100% correct, and thusly, Catholic beliefs less than 100% correct?

$20 says you can't reply with two or three letters.

No

[Phenomanul]

Where's my money GON??

[Phenomanul]

My dad told me about this last week.... Interesting.... :reading

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope to Abolish “limbus infantium”
Posted 10/3/2006 10:10 PM


What happens to babies who die before baptism, according to Catholic teaching? For years “limbus infantium”, a half-way holding spot for such infants has been the accepted theory of the Roman Catholic church. Later this week Pope Benedict is expected to remove this teaching from the Catholic cateshism.

The London Times is reporting this in tomorrow's newspaper. Here are a couple of quotes from the article:


...its lack of doctrinal authority has long failed to impress the Pope. who was recorded as saying before his election: “Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis.”


Read the whole article as it gives a concise overview of the history of the teaching. Particularly interesting is the quote from the church father Augustine of Hippo.

Since the core of this erroneous teaching centers of the question of the fate of those who die without accepting Christ as personal savior you should also read this chapter from our booklet, "What Happens At Death". (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm)

Rest assured God's merciful plan includes all who have lived and died without coming to understand His plan for their life.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

London Times

Pope tries to win hearts and minds by saving souls of unbaptised babies
By Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen


THE Pope will cast aside centuries of Catholic belief later this week by abolishing formally the concept of limbo, in a gesture calculated to help to win the souls of millions of babies in the developing world for Christ.
All the evidence suggests that Benedict XVI never believed in the idea anyway. But in the fertile evangelisation zones of Africa and Asia, the Pope — an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic — is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to Heaven. For the Church, looking to spread the faith in countries with a high infant mortality rate, now is a good time to make it absolutely clear that stillborn babies of Christian mothers go direct to Heaven, too.


Anyone who deludes themselves that Muslims do not know about limbo would be wrong. Dante put Jerusalem’s conqueror Saladin in limbo in his Inferno, along with Ovid and Homer and other pre-Christian villains and heroes.

Even though it has never been part of the Church’s doctrine formally, the existence of limbo was taught until recently to Catholics around the world. In Britain it was in the Penny Catechism, approved by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, that declared limbo “a place of rest where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained”.

But its lack of doctrinal authority has long failed to impress the Pope. who was recorded as saying before his election: “Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis.”

This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians, which has been examining limbo, began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of “the universal salvation of God” and the “mediation of Christ”, whether baptised or not.

The theologians’ finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a “merciful God” whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. “In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven,” one source said.

The commission’s conclusions will be approved formally by the Pope on Friday.

Christians hold that Heaven is a state of union with God, while Hell is separation from God. They have long wrestled, however, not only with the fate of unbaptised children, but also with the conundrum of what happened to those who lived a “good life” but died before the time of Jesus.

The answer since the 13th century has been limbo. What remains in an uncertain state, though, is the status of all the pre-Christian and unbaptised adult souls held by some still to be in this halfway house between Heaven and Hell.

The Pope is expected to abolish only “limbus infantium”, where the souls of unbaptised infants go. The precise status of “limbus patrum”, where the good people went who lived before Christ remains . . . well, in limbo.

Although it is the latter that has been subject to such dramatic representation in art and literature, no Christian mother today who miscarries, has a stillborn child or otherwise loses a baby before baptism can bear to view without a purgatorial shudder the traditional images, such as those by Giotto, of Christ freeing Old Testament figures from limbo.

In propelling limbo out of its own uncertain state, the Pope is merely acknowledging the distress its half-existence causes to millions and is bringing his characteristic Teutonic sense of righteous clarity to the matter.

One of the reasons Baptists and some other Protestant denominations resist infant baptism is because they believe the souls of babies are innocent and that it is for adults to choose a life in Christ or otherwise. The Early Church father Tertullian opposed infant baptism on these grounds. But the teachings that took hold of the imagination and the faith of the early Christians were those of the Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus who wrote: “It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, they are not wicked.”

This seems lenient compared with St Augustine, who in 418 persuaded the Council of Carthage to condemn the British Pelagian heresy that there was an “in between” place for unbaptised babies. He persuaded the council that unbaptised babies share the general misery of the damned. The most he would concede was that their misery was not quite as bad as that of wicked dead adults.

VISIONS OF AN ETERNAL HALFWAY HOUSE

Dante’s The Divine Comedy describes limbo as the first circle of hell, inhabited by unbaptised children and virtuous pagans born before Christianity. Among them are Homer, Ovid, Socrates and Plato

In his novel The First Circle, Alexander Solzhenitsyn compares life in a Stalinist prison camp to limbo. The prisoners are unlikely to reach “heaven”, but still enjoy relative freedom within the Gulag system, avoiding the worst of this “hell”

Shakespeare uses “Limbo Patrum” (Limbo of the fathers) as a metaphor for prison in Henry VIII

To Samuel Taylor Coleridge, limbo is not a place, but a frightening state, “where Time & weary Space Fettered from flight, with night-mair sense of fleeing Strive for their last crepuscular half-being”

In The Rape of the Lock Alexander Pope locates the stage between heaven and hell in the lunar sphere, where all things lost on earth find their place. There, “smiles of harlots” are preserved with “the tears of heirs”, broken vows and prayers

[Guru of Nothing]

Where's my money GON??

I'm impressed.

How do I get you the $20?

I'll send you a check tomorrow.

[Phenomanul]

I'm impressed.

How do I get you the $20?

I'll send you a check tomorrow.


Not necessary. It was in jest.

[Guru of Nothing]

Not necessary. It was in jest.

Well, maybe someday we will meet at a gtg and I will buy you $20 worth of expensive beer.

I'm good for it.

[ploto]

Even though it has never been part of the Church’s doctrine formally, the existence of limbo was taught until recently to Catholics around the world.

I, personally, have not heard a single word about limbo since I was in elementary school. It has never appeared in print in anything I was ever taught.

But again I ask- why the obsession with what the Catholics are doing?

[Kori Ellis]

But again I ask- why the obsession with what the Catholics are doing?

No obsession on my part. But this is a thread about Catholics. Thus the discussion.

[Extra Stout]

But again I ask- why the obsession with what the Catholics are doing?
This discussion has been quite educational, IMHO.

[Phenomanul]

I, personally, have not heard a single word about limbo since I was in elementary school. It has never appeared in print in anything I was ever taught.

But again I ask- why the obsession with what the Catholics are doing?


To address your question... the article shows that the Catholic Doctrine is not always perfect... it can in fact change to progress. That is a good thing.

The 'bad' thing is that it proves yet again that the 'doctrinal infallibility' that the Papal seat has always waved around as a 'seal of divine authority' really doesn't exist. And this has been a significant point throughout this discussion; why? Because it negates the RCC institution the exclusivity rights it has always claimed for herself only. Again, I'll restate: One blunder alone on matters of doctrine nullifies the existence of the concept of 'doctrinal infallibility' - one instance alone. This doesn't hurt the RCC's cause as much as it grants other perspectives the right to exist.

[Extra Stout]

To address your question... the article shows that the Catholic Doctrine is not always perfect... it can in fact change to progress. That is a good thing.

The 'bad' thing is that it proves yet again that the 'doctrinal infallibility' that the Papal seat has always waved around as a 'seal of divine authority' really doesn't exist. And this has been a significant point throughout this discussion; why? Because it negates the RCC institution the exclusivity rights it has always claimed for herself only. Again, I'll restate: One blunder alone on matters of doctrine nullifies the existence of the concept of 'doctrinal infallibility' - one instance alone. This doesn't hurt the RCC's cause as much as it grants other perspectives the right to exist.
To be fair to our Catholic friends, not all teachings by the pope are considered 'ex cathedra,' which are the allegedly infallible ones. In fact, such teachings are quite rare. In the past 100 years, only the Assumption of Mary has been issued as an infallible teaching.

And from reading the article, 30 theologians deliberated on this issue, which makes it more of an "ecumenical council" kind of teaching than a Papal edict.

I presume by reading this article that Benedict will issue this ruling about the fate of children infallibly, but certainly you know that journalism is quite fallible, and we won't know until we see the ruling.

Catholic doctrine does allow for what I think is called "magisterium ordinarium," or ordinary teaching, which is not considered infallible and can be changed.

[Phenomanul]

To be fair to our Catholic friends, not all teachings by the pope are considered 'ex cathedra,' which are the allegedly infallible ones. In fact, such teachings are quite rare. In the past 100 years, only the Assumption of Mary has been issued as an infallible teaching.

And from reading the article, 30 theologians deliberated on this issue, which makes it more of an "ecumenical council" kind of teaching than a Papal edict.

I presume by reading this article that Benedict will issue this ruling about the fate of children infallibly, but certainly you know that journalism is quite fallible, and we won't know until we see the ruling.

Catholic doctrine does allow for what I think is called "magisterium ordinarium," or ordinary teaching, which is not considered infallible and can be changed.


Granted....

The teaching, however, was one that was always unsubstatiated by scripture. It just goes to show that others outside the RCC were able to 'see' that truth long before this council convened. And that observation is still rather significant in its own right.

[Extra Stout]

Granted....

The teaching, however, was one that was always unsubstatiated by scripture. It just goes to show that others outside the RCC were able to 'see' that truth long before this council convened. And that observation is still rather significant in its own right.
There is no teaching on the eternal fate of children that can be fully substantiated by Scripture, because Scripture is vague on this point.

From my standpoint, that means that there is no definitive teaching. It hasn't stopped even Protestant and evangelical churches from presuming one, however.

[Phenomanul]

There is no teaching on the eternal fate of children that can be fully substantiated by Scripture, because Scripture is vague on this point.

From my standpoint, that means that there is no definitive teaching. It hasn't stopped even Protestant and evangelical churches from presuming one, however.

Though I agree that the status of children, in particular the status of infants is not explicitly stated, I still believe that the transcendent pause that Christ took to welcome children in his embrace in Matthew Chapter 19 is very significant. He was talking about divorce, and then makes a pause to address children, and finally has his well-known conversation with the rich young man.

I also believe that children have a special status in God's Kingdom; Jesus held them up as an example for us. Jesus, when asked who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, answered the question by placing a little child in the midst of the disciples and saying:

Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself, as this little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name, receiveth Me...Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 18:3-5,10)

Whosoever shall receive this child in My name receiveth Me; and whosoever shall receive Me receiveth Him that sent Me. For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. (Luke 9:48)

Suffer [allow] little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:14).

Again, this last verse is poignant in that it implies that the consciousness of children is not developed enough to have been fully corrupted. It almost seems, as I alluded to in another post, that Christ does make exceptions for children - where only GOD decides their eternal fate on a case by case assessment.

Spiritually speaking, Jesus also wishes that our spirit be like that of children, and implies that without said spiritual condition we ourselves cannot enter heaven. It may in fact only be a symbolic comparison that relates the complete parental dependence of a child to one that GOD 'the Father' desires for us. One where we are completely dependent on Him and not on ourselves.

Eitherway, I agree that a controversy does exist on the subject and that only GOD can reconcile His attributes as He sees fit. I'm just inclined to believe that Christ did address the afterlife status of children - though not as explicitly as we would have hoped. I still maintain, however, that 'infant limbo' is a human concoction that is not supported at all by scripture - one that was created to stress the importance of infant baptism - a practice that again is explicitly absent from scripture.

[Extra Stout]

...a practice that again is explicitly absent from scripture.
And that yet is practiced as well by very many Protestants.

[Extra Stout]

The reason I bring that up is because you cause a self-inflicted wound in your reasoning by citing infant baptism.

Infant baptism is practiced by Protestant groups who also affirm Sola Scriptura. Their arguments defending it stem only from Scripture.

So if you rail against it too hard, you move from criticism of extra-biblical tradition, into the casting of a Scriptural interpretation with which you disagree as extra-biblical.

And that would make you as narrowly dogmatic as you are criticizing the Catholic hierarchy as being, and would hamstring your point.

[Samurai Jane]

I do not believe the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants have fallen out of God's grace. I would say that the Church teaches that you are not in full Union.

Similarly, some Protestants- including prominent leaders- have said that Catholics are not Christians because of the sacramental nature of their worship- which by the way should include the Orthodox churches, as well, but somehow they don't seem to care about them.

What exactly does this mean?

[Extra Stout]

What exactly does this mean?
It means that Protestants are Christians, just not as good of Christians as Catholics are, on account of our erroneous doctrine.

[Phenomanul]

The reason I bring that up is because you cause a self-inflicted wound in your reasoning by citing infant baptism.

Infant baptism is practiced by Protestant groups who also affirm Sola Scriptura. Their arguments defending it stem only from Scripture.

So if you rail against it too hard, you move from criticism of extra-biblical tradition, into the casting of a Scriptural interpretation with which you disagree as extra-biblical.

And that would make you as narrowly dogmatic as you are criticizing the Catholic hierarchy as being, and would hamstring your point.


My denomination doesn't practice it.... either way, it's not as inflicting as say recognizing that limbo doesn't exist after several centuries of teaching that it did... The only reason I even brought up infant baptism was to stress that the existence of limbo was one that 'pushed' practitioners into that practice.

BTW my beliefs are personal so they are going to be narrow by definition. Stating however that my position hurts my cause is irrelevant because I don't chastise others for believing what they do. Otherwise I would have entered the infant baptism debate by page 12 (when someone else brought it up). My criticisms fall solely on the assumption that the RCC never errs.

[Samurai Jane]

I still don't understand what that means. That is why I was asking about the requirements to get to heaven. I'm trying to get a full picture of what they mean by not being in "full Union" or not being "as good of Christians". It's still a pretty vague term IMO.

[Phenomanul]

Furthermore, I would hope that by now you would know that I've never claimed to be doctrinally infallible. Or claimed that I or any other protestant practioner have got it perfectly right. Neither did I stake to know GOD's full revelation. That is why we are called to "study the scriptures without ceasing"

[Extra Stout]

My denomination doesn't practice it.... either way, it's not as inflicting as recognizing that limbo doesn't exist after several centuries of teaching that it did... The only reason I even brought up infant baptism was to stress that the existence of limbo was one that 'pushed' practitioners into that practice.

BTW my beliefs are personal so they are narrow by definition. Stating however that my position hurts my cause is irrelevant because I don't chastise others for believing what they do. Otherwise I would have entered the infant baptism debate by page 12 (when someone else brought it up).
I just didn't want you opened up for attack on that front. Of course each person who searches the Scriptures has a personal opinion on disputable matters of doctrine. I just saw a criticism of infant baptism as un-Scriptural rhetorically as a problematic path to take based upon your line of argument.

I see this whole exercise as apologetics practice, so take my advice only as critique on technique, and not as critique of your belief system or character.

On the subject of limbo, I question whether your criticism of the church changing its teachings here is really valid. Since limbo for children was never official church doctrine, but rather an opinion expressed by certain theologians, I don't see how this particular point makes Catholic teaching internally inconsistent. It seems they allow differing opinions on matters that are not taught ex cathedra, so that one priest's teaching may not be identical to another on these issues.

I'm sure you have experience as well as I do of Protestant pastors in one denomination or another presenting their exegesis as the "right" one, even when it goes well beyond the official position of the sect (say, the BF&M for the SBC). I'm sure you also have experience with pastors coming with up ideas not explicitly supported by Scripture in order to resolve perceived conflicts within the text.

As far as the Scriptural basis for limbo, it appears weak, but not absent. I believe the cited verses would be Luke 16:22-23, and and Luke 23:43. It refers not to the Dantean sense of the word, but rather the waiting place of reighteous souls prior to Jesus' Resurrection. The word "limbo" is meant to describe what is called in Scripture "Abraham's side" or "Paradise."

Believe it or not, I have sat in a Southern Baptist Sunday school class and heard the teacher tell me that Paradise was where the Jews went when they died until Jesus' sacrifice allowed them to enter heaven. I'm guessing Frank Page would not be thrilled with that line of teaching.

Of course, in my personal exegesis, these views show needless deference towards linear time in the Kingdom of Heaven, borne of inadequate human cognitive ability to perceive the eternality of God not just into the past and future, but off the timeline entirely.

Infant limbo has never been officially taught in the RCC; in fact, there has been debate for centuries on how unbaptized infants might be saved. So it seems you might have it backwards; the practice of infant baptism led to the hypothesis about infant limbo, not the other way around.

Benedict's initiative here could be seen as more of an effort to eliminate a hypothesis he finds troublesome, much as JPII rooted out liberation theology.

[ploto]

I have to go back to the discussion of limbo. You are missing the entire point about Catholic doctrine.

First- limbo was NEVER an official doctrine of the Church- EVER- your own article brings that out.

Second, you keep saying over and over something that is simply UNTRUE and I wish you would quit. Nowhere does anyone claim that the Pope is perfect or infallible in all he does. As someone even pointed out to you- that designation is only for very, very specific doctrines, only one of which has occurred in the past 100 years. So, your continued problems are with something that quite frankly does not even exist.

As for baptizing infants we all know there are stories about entire households being baptized in the New Testament, and it would seem reasonable that some of these families included babies or children below the age of reason. We also know that Christianity came from Judaism, in which parents had prescribed practices with regards to their infants- circumcision, etc... Even Jesus' own parents made their offering in accord with this.


And since H brought it up- if you are so literal about the Bible-

Why do Protestants allow remarriage after divorce?

[Extra Stout]

I still don't understand what that means. That is why I was asking about the requirements to get to heaven. I'm trying to get a full picture of what they mean by not being in "full Union" or not being "as good of Christians". It's still a pretty vague term IMO.
Of course you know from reading 1 Corinthians 3 that Christians in heaven do not receive equal reward. One person can be a "better Christian" than another, though if one thinks he is, it most assuredly means he is not!

And the idea of Protestants not being in "full Union" is that the RCC believes it is THE Church, not just a particular assembly of believers. They believe they are THE Body of Christ, THE Bride of Christ, and that we Protestants are just a very rebellious and naughty part of them.

They would regard us perhaps as The People's Republic of China sees Taiwan, as a renegade province, except I don't expect them to invade anytime soon.

[ploto]

Of course, in my personal exegesis, these views show needless deference towards linear time in the Kingdom of Heaven, borne of inadequate human cognitive ability to perceive the eternality of God not just into the past and future, but off the timeline entirely.

I totally agree.

I am confused as to why someone is so up in arms about a religion attempting to help people who in times of crisis wonder what happens to their children. What do you tell a woman who loses a baby- oh, I'm sorry, the Bible does not specfically tell us what happens so I can't help you?

I think what perplexes me is the notion that somehow the Bible has directly addressed every issue and every question that could possibly ever be raised. I just don't see that it does. People will take what they read and attempt to apply it to very complex issues to help them understand.

[Samurai Jane]

Of course you know from reading 1 Corinthians 3 that Christians in heaven do not receive equal reward. One person can be a "better Christian" than another, though if one thinks he is, it most assuredly means he is not!

And the idea of Protestants not being in "full Union" is that the RCC believes it is THE Church, not just a particular assembly of believers. They believe they are THE Body of Christ, THE Bride of Christ, and that we Protestants are just a very rebellious and naughty part of them.

They would regard us perhaps as The People's Republic of China sees Taiwan, as a renegade province, except I don't expect them to invade anytime soon.

I understand that concept well and I believe in it. I guess what I'm trying to get at is this. According to the RCC, there are certain requirements that must be fulfilled for an individual to get to heaven, correct? What are those requirements? What are Sacrements and where do they fall in with these requirements? What happens if a person does not fulfill those requirements? What happens to a Catholic person who is otherwise a "good Christian" but dies on a bad day before they have confessed? Travis mentioned earlier that this person would go through purgatory before going to heaven, am I understanding this correctly?

[Phenomanul]

ES, I'm sure you will find the following read very fascinating.

What Happens after death (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm)

Darn I can't get the hyperlinking feature working but here is the address...

h t t p://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm

(close the http)

[101A]

Why do Protestants allow remarriage after divorce?

Why do Catholics change the name and do the same?

The dissolution of marriages is entirely too common; especially amongst Protestants; here, I believe, the Catholic Church has done a better job of encouraging scriptural adherence.

However, the Catholic Chruch's position is not without its faults: From personal experience my grandparent (fathers side) had their marriage annulled after 20 years; effectively making bastards of my father and his sister in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Dad always resented my grandparents for that. Both remarried, btw.

[ploto]

Why do Catholics change the name and do the same?

The dissolution of marriages is entirely too common; especially amongst Protestants; here, I believe, the Catholic Church has done a better job of encouraging scriptural adherence.

YOU are the Fundamentalists- that is why I asked you.

If everything is specifically in the Bible- then why is it allowed? To try to turn it around does not answer my question.

Your claim (not mine) is that EVERYTHING you do is directly in the Bible. How do you justify your church's teaching on this issue. Please, give me your scriptural references for it.

[101A]

YOU are the Fundamentalists- that is why I asked you.

If everything is specifically in the Bible- then why is it allowed?

First, I never claimed to be a Fundamentalist.

Next regarding divorce:
They cite the "exception" clause "marital unfaithfulness" in Mathew; although that should only allow the innocent party to remarry, IMO; although, obviously, divorcees are granted for many more reasons than that - but those divorces are granted by the state; Protestant Churches don't grant "divorce"; although, obviously again, they do participate in the remarriage of divorcees.

As I've already stated, I feel the Catholic Church does a better job emphasising marriage as a holy, unbreakable union - and divorce rates suggest that is the case.

I have not studied the reason that Protestant Churches will openly remarry divorcees, but I'm betting it falls under the umbrella of "thou shalt not judge".

[leemajors]

Why do Catholics change the name and do the same?

The dissolution of marriages is entirely too common; especially amongst Protestants; here, I believe, the Catholic Church has done a better job of encouraging scriptural adherence.

However, the Catholic Chruch's position is not without its faults: From personal experience my grandparent (fathers side) had their marriage annulled after 20 years; effectively making bastards of my father and his sister in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Dad always resented my grandparents for that. Both remarried, btw.

an annulment is not easy to get, it's definitely not the same as getting a divorce. even a decree of annulment does not officially dissolve the vows, no earthly power can do that.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

[101A]

an annulment is not easy to get, it's definitely not the same as getting a divorce. even a decree of annulment does not officially dissolve the vows, no earthly power can do that.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

Not THAT tough.

My grandparents got one after twenty years of marriage, two children, a business they ran together and a house they owned. Catholic Church did much more than "grant" a divorce; The Catholic Church decreed that THAT marriage never existed in the first place. Again, made bastards of my dad and aunt.

[ploto]

I have not studied the reason that Protestant Churches will openly remarry divorcees, but I'm betting it falls under the umbrella of "thou shalt not judge".

Thou shalt not judge? then that would allow anything.

[101A]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

Thanks for the link; educational.

I now need to call my Mom (dad is no longer with us); My grandfather got remarried in a Catholic Church - My Grandmother didn't - by reading that link, makes me wonder if maybe she couldn't get remarried in a Catholic Church.

[SA210]

ES, I'm sure you will find the following read very fascinating.

What Happens after death (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm)

Darn I can't get the hyperlinking feature working but here is the address...

h t t p://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm

(close the http)
Interesting link Phenomanul, does that site have an explanation on the validity of the "Trinity"?
Maby I'm missing it. Thanks. :)

[ploto]

My grandparents got one after twenty years of marriage, two children, a business they ran together and a house they owned. Catholic Church did much more than "grant" a divorce; The Catholic Church decreed that THAT marriage never existed in the first place. Again, made bastards of my dad and aunt.
Why did they get married in the first place? Their state at the time they took their vows is what matters- for example, if someone was forced into it.

[101A]

Thou shalt not judge? then that would allow anything.

No it wouldn't.

The meaning of my post is that if two professed Christians want to marry, but had been married previously, it is not that church's place to say whether or not those previous marriages ended in accordance with Scripture; that is between those individuals, there former spouse(s) and god. It doesn't mean that the new Union should not be made in the house of the lord and with witnesses.

Again, I repeat, I am making this up as I go hear, literally - I don't KNOW if this is why Protestant churches remarry divorcees, I'm just making an educated guess.

[101A]

Why did they get married in the first place? Their state at the time they took their vows is what matters- for example, if someone was forced into it.

It was during WWII, oh hell, please don't tell me Po-Po used the "I may not come back" line and knocked her up!!!

...now I have to think, how old is dad? when were they "married"?

[ploto]

The meaning of my post is that if two professed Christians want to marry, but had been married previously, it is not that church's place to say whether or not those previous marriages ended in accordance with Scripture
It's not? The church has no right to know about the state of the people they are marrying? Don't you require any pre-marriage counseling or meetings with the minister? Doesn't he ask about your divorce?

And my questions are not just for you. I am waiting for those who seem suddenly silent.

[101A]

It's not? The church has no right to know about the state of the people they are marrying? Don't you require any pre-marriage counseling or meetings with the minister? Doesn't he ask about your divorce?

And my questions are not just for you. I am waiting for those who seem suddenly silent.

I married in a Catholic Church,and my oldest child is only twelve; I don't know about pre-marriage counseling, or other stipulations to getting married in a Protestant one - I'm sure they vary.

[Extra Stout]

ES, I'm sure you will find the following read very fascinating.

What Happens after death (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm)

Darn I can't get the hyperlinking feature working but here is the address...

h t t p://www.ucg.org/booklets/AD/knowingjesuschrist.htm

(close the http)
I don't regard the UCGIA as legitimately Christian, primarily because it rejects the Trinity, but also because it requires adherence to the ceremonial practices of the Old Covenant, and because of its heretical and racist British-Israelism.

So therefore I cannot find anything they say fascinating.

[Phenomanul]

Interesting link Phenomanul, does that site have an explanation on the validity of the "Trinity"?
Maby I'm missing it. Thanks. :)


That was captured earlier in the thread.

[smeagol]

To be fair to our Catholic friends, not all teachings by the pope are considered 'ex cathedra,' which are the allegedly infallible ones. In fact, such teachings are quite rare. In the past 100 years, only the Assumption of Mary has been issued as an infallible teaching.

And from reading the article, 30 theologians deliberated on this issue, which makes it more of an "ecumenical council" kind of teaching than a Papal edict.

I presume by reading this article that Benedict will issue this ruling about the fate of children infallibly, but certainly you know that journalism is quite fallible, and we won't know until we see the ruling.

Catholic doctrine does allow for what I think is called "magisterium ordinarium," or ordinary teaching, which is not considered infallible and can be changed.
:clap

Thanks

[Phenomanul]

I don't regard the UCGIA as legitimately Christian, primarily because it rejects the Trinity, but also because it requires adherence to the ceremonial practices of the Old Covenant, and because of its heretical and racist British-Israelism.

So therefore I cannot find anything they say fascinating.

I don't mind reading interdenominational material... regarding the topic we were discussing however, they do make some interesting points I had never considered. As far as being Doctrinally wrong or right I would have to do further study, and I would inherently agree with your assessment. Nevertheless, some of the perspectives on the afterlife are a little insightful -- at least from an apologetics standpoint.

In the end though -- you're right -- the word 'fascinating' was made in poor choice.

[Phenomanul]

It's not? The church has no right to know about the state of the people they are marrying? Don't you require any pre-marriage counseling or meetings with the minister? Doesn't he ask about your divorce?

And my questions are not just for you. I am waiting for those who seem suddenly silent.


If you're referring to me I've got nothing to hide. My father in particular does not marry folks if they've not received proper counseling. The classes he gives take 6 weeks to administer.

Anyhow the exception as 101A alluded to earlier is found in the same chapter of Matthew that I was quoting from on the subject of children.

Matthew 19:8-9 -- Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

The faithful party then would not be considered as being in sin were they to marry again.

[Extra Stout]

I don't mind reading interdenominational material... regarding the topic we were discussing however, they do make some interesting points I had never considered. As far as being Doctrinally wrong or right I would have to do further study, and I would inherently agree with your assessment. Nevertheless, some of the perspectives on the afterlife are a little insightful -- at least from an apologetics standpoint.
You may have to pardon me for being a little closed-minded.

I have a line between calling a group "interdenominational" and calling them a "cult."

For general (but not infallible) reference, I use the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds as a guideline. I believe those draw a useful boundary between which beliefs are core to the faith and which are disputable.

If a group does not uphold those creeds, while I might want to learn what they believe in order to be on guard, I will not partake of any of their teachings for edification, insofar as their basic belief system is utterly infused with gross error. It would be like eating meat I know is tainted with E. coli. It might seem like it tastes OK at first, but I'll be sick as a dog later.

I have the gist of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but I'm not going to read stuff from the Watchtower for insight in my daily living.

[Samurai Jane]

YOU are the Fundamentalists- that is why I asked you.

If everything is specifically in the Bible- then why is it allowed? To try to turn it around does not answer my question.

Your claim (not mine) is that EVERYTHING you do is directly in the Bible. How do you justify your church's teaching on this issue. Please, give me your scriptural references for it.

I believe this was already pointed out but Fundamentalists != Protestants.

Anywho... Most Protestant churches I know of require pre-marital counseling and mentorship if you desire to be married by the church. If you get divorced and remarried outside of the church, the church is certainly not going to reject you and your spouse for it. We are all sinners in one way or another. I can't speak to any knowledge about those that are divorced and remarried within the church, unfortunately. I know of one case, that of our worship minister, and it was clearly a case of unfaithfulness on his ex-wife's part.

[Phenomanul]

I totally agree.

I am confused as to why someone is so up in arms about a religion attempting to help people who in times of crisis wonder what happens to their children. What do you tell a woman who loses a baby- oh, I'm sorry, the Bible does not specfically tell us what happens so I can't help you?

I think what perplexes me is the notion that somehow the Bible has directly addressed every issue and every question that could possibly ever be raised. I just don't see that it does. People will take what they read and attempt to apply it to very complex issues to help them understand.

The Bible doesn't explicitly address email fraud or other modern era issues. Humanity's inherent nature however is explicitly described in the Bible insomuch as it declares that basic corruptions tend to manifest themselves repeatedly no matter the 'era'. Greed, envy, lure of power, deceit, unfaithfulness, etc...

With regards to questions about what the 'future' holds in store... you're right, we don't know everything. But that doesn't mean we need to read things in scripture that aren't there. We can pray and seek understanding from above; maybe GOD will further reveal His mysteries to us.

ES mentioned Abraham's paradise as a basis for the RCC's 'limbo' teaching, but that place is implicitly regarded as being in existence before Christ's resurrection; not after Christ became a bridge for humanity.

[ploto]

H- you NEVER answered my question. Will your father marry a divorced person- a simple yes or no. Is it unlawful to get remarried in your church?

Are you claiming that he only remarries people who got cheated on? What if the spouse leaves without cheating?

I am amazed that people in this thread claim to know NO ONE who is divorced and got re-married in a Protestant Church. I am Catholic and I know tons of them. I even know divorced Catholics who re-married Protestants in Protestant churches. Thise churches had no problem with it. Why?

[ploto]

The faithful party then would not be considered as being in sin were they to marry again.
It does not explicitly say that. It merely says the opposite is sinful.

I am also sure- Biblical scholar that you are- that you know that phrase (which by the way is NOT in Mark and Luke) is not translated directly that way and its meaning has been up to interpretation as to what acts it is exactly referring to.

[101A]

H- you NEVER answered my question. Will your father marry a divorced person- a simple yes or no. Is it unlawful to get remarried in your church?

I am amazed that people in this thread claim to know NO ONE who is divorced and got re-married in a Protestant Church. I am Catholic and I know tons of them. I even know divorced Catholics who re-married Protestants in Protestant churches.

You didn't ask if we knew anyone.

My sister got married in a Catholic Church; remarried Protestant. Her husband was unfaithfull. I don't know what standards she had to meet.

[ploto]

You didn't ask if we knew anyone.


I can't speak to any knowledge about those that are divorced and remarried within the church, unfortunately.

[ploto]

My sister got married in a Catholic Church; remarried Protestant. Her husband was unfaithfull. I don't know what standards she had to meet.
Did she remarry in a Protestant Church because she could not in a Catholic? That is the kind of question I would like answered.

[Phenomanul]

It does not explicitly say that. It merely says the opposite is sinful.


You can define something that is cold as having less heat or being absent of heat. Semantics.

Mary being our queen is not a semantical issue.
Mary's Immaculate conception is not a semantical issue.
Limbo or purgatory is not a semantical issue.

Certain teachings are just absent from scripture (some moreso than others)

Besides why would the innocent party of an act of spousal unfaithfulness have to bear the sin of his/her wife/husband? No man can bear the sins of another. The actions of their spouse should not deny them the right to marry again. People however, will commit mistakes. We shouldn't judge them on that - who are we, but sinners ourselves?

The bigger problem is the sin of adultery itself. And that is a problem that is widespread in many religions, across many faiths and strictly dependent on the person's integrity.

I imagine pre-marital sex is just as common a problem in Catholic households as Protestant ones. Is this not adultery by Jesus' standards? Lust is one of Satan's best lures and he attacks indescriminantly. Ideally, one should pray for the divine wisdom to marry someone they can Love forever, a mate chosen from above, where divorce is not an option. Lately though, the sanctity of marriage is under attack and marriage is not lasting. This is a big problem.

And no my father doesn't marry divorcees that divorced for something other than infidelity. He won't even wed "uneven" yolk or young ladies 'with a bun in the oven'.

[Phenomanul]

You may have to pardon me for being a little closed-minded.

I have a line between calling a group "interdenominational" and calling them a "cult."

For general (but not infallible) reference, I use the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds as a guideline. I believe those draw a useful boundary between which beliefs are core to the faith and which are disputable.

If a group does not uphold those creeds, while I might want to learn what they believe in order to be on guard, I will not partake of any of their teachings for edification, insofar as their basic belief system is utterly infused with gross error. It would be like eating meat I know is tainted with E. coli. It might seem like it tastes OK at first, but I'll be sick as a dog later.

I have the gist of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but I'm not going to read stuff from the Watchtower for insight in my daily living.

Understood.

I guess I didn't initially realize that the United Church of GOD was aligned with the belief structure of the Jehova's Witnesses. Now I know.

[smeagol]

Interesting link Phenomanul, does that site have an explanation on the validity of the "Trinity"?
Maby I'm missing it. Thanks. :)


This is a perfect example of how three people read the Bible and come up with three different views, which is why the Sola Scriptura notion, IMO, has a flaw.

SA210 reads the Bible and does not see evidence for the Trinity.

I read the Bible and see evidence for the Trinity but I have to use the help of Tradition and ultimately trust the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Pheno reads the Bible and sees enough evidence to explain the extremely complicated Doctrine of the Trinity

[xrayzebra]

H- you NEVER answered my question. Will your father marry a divorced person- a simple yes or no. Is it unlawful to get remarried in your church?

Are you claiming that he only remarries people who got cheated on? What if the spouse leaves without cheating?

I am amazed that people in this thread claim to know NO ONE who is divorced and got re-married in a Protestant Church. I am Catholic and I know tons of them. I even know divorced Catholics who re-married Protestants in Protestant churches. Thise churches had no problem with it. Why?

I know of a couple instances where someone re-married in
the Catholic church that had been previously married in
a protestant church. It was my understanding that the
Catholic church did not recognize Protestant marriages as
being truly married.

[Phenomanul]

This is a perfect example of how three people read the Bible and come up with three different views, which is why the Sola Scriptura notion, IMO, has a flaw.

SA210 reads the Bible and does not see evidence for the Trinity.

I read the Bible and see evidence for the Trinity but I have to use the help of Tradition and ultimately trust the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Pheno reads the Bible and sees enough evidence to explain the extremely complicated Doctrine of the Trinity

Ah... but there is one difference.

I would probably consider the Watchtower's version of the Bible as being purposefully 'tainted'.... The translators were not even apt for the task. This was discussed on some other occasion no?

[101A]

Did she remarry in a Protestant Church because she could not in a Catholic? That is the kind of question I would like answered.

She remarried in a Protestant Church because she is protestant (in fact a youth director) now.

[Extra Stout]

This is a perfect example of how three people read the Bible and come up with three different views, which is why the Sola Scriptura notion, IMO, has a flaw.

SA210 reads the Bible and does not see evidence for the Trinity.

I read the Bible and see evidence for the Trinity but I have to use the help of Tradition and ultimately trust the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Pheno reads the Bible and sees enough evidence to explain the extremely complicated Doctrine of the Trinity
The Bible is pretty clear on the following:
1) There is one God (Deut. 6:4).
2) God the Father is God (1 Pet. 1:2 among many).
3) Jesus the Son of God is God (John 20:28-29, 1 Jn 5:20 among many).
4) Jesus is a distinct person from God the Father (John 5:19-23 among many).
5) Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30).
6) The Holy Spirit is God (John 14:16-17, Acts 5:3-4 among many).
7) The Holy Spirit is a distinct person from God the Father and God the Son (John 14:26, Acts 13:2,4, Romans 8:26-27).

So three persons are God; there is one God. The Trinity doctrine reconciles this Scriptural evidence.

There are some cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, which use deviant translations of the Bible in order to deny the Trinity doctrine. But in a translation faithful to Koine Greek, the evidence is laid out.

It is not a matter of differing opinions on exegesis. This is one of the core beliefs. A sect that denies the Trinity cannot be truly Christian.

[Extra Stout]

Understood.

I guess I didn't initially realize that the United Church of GOD was aligned with the belief structure of the Jehova's Witnesses. Now I know.
That's not really what I meant. UCG is a cult, like LDS, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Those groups have varyingly deviant views not necessarily aligned with one another.

I just referenced a well-known cult as an example of why I have no interest in UCG's views on the afterlife.

[Phenomanul]

That's not really what I meant. UCG is a cult, like LDS, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Those groups have varyingly deviant views not necessarily aligned with one another.

I just referenced a well-known cult as an example of why I have no interest in UCG's views on the afterlife.

I see.

[Samurai Jane]

I didn't say I didn't know anyone that had been divorced and remarried in the church, merely, that I have no personal knowledge of church policy on this matter. Personally, I don't make it a habit to grill people about the details of their divorce and other matters. That's between God and them, IMO.

[Extra Stout]

I see.
Although, Mormons by and large really are lovely people. It's a shame their theology is so whack.

[ploto]

I didn't say I didn't know anyone that had been divorced and remarried in the church, merely, that I have no personal knowledge of church policy on this matter. Personally, I don't make it a habit to grill people about the details of their divorce and other matters. That's between God and them, IMO.
I am not asking about private conversations- but your church's teachings.

[ploto]

I know of a couple instances where someone re-married in
the Catholic church that had been previously married in
a protestant church. It was my understanding that the
Catholic church did not recognize Protestant marriages as
being truly married.
They are not SACRAMENTAL.

[ploto]

Besides why would the innocent party of an act of spousal unfaithfulness have to bear the sin of his/her wife/husband? No man can bear the sins of another. The actions of their spouse should not deny them the right to marry again.
So you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right?

How does one person's actions take away from the vow made by another? If the wife cheats- how does that release the husband from the vow he made to God? Just because you don't keep your promises does not mean I don't have to keep mine.


Ideally, one should pray for the divine wisdom to marry someone they can Love forever, a mate chosen from above, where divorce is not an option.
See that is the point in Catholicism- if you agree to a sacramental Catholic marriage you believe that divorce is NOT an option. Period. Even if he cheats.

[Samurai Jane]

I am not asking about private conversations- but your church's teachings.

Officially: "Divorce and Remarriage - We do not counsel or encourage divorce, nor do we make second class Christians out of those who have been through a divorce or are remarried."

If I remember correctly from the membership class, my particular church will not allow any of our ministers to marry people that have been divorced, except in extreme circumstances such as the victim of infidelity or spousal abuse (I am not positive on that last one). I cannot attest to any other church's practices.

[Crookshanks]

Unlike Catholic churches, Baptist churches are autonomous; so each Pastor would make those determinations. Most Baptist churches require some sort of pre-marital counseling and, as a general rule, will not allow church weddings for girls who are pregnant or couples who are living together.

As far as divorced people are concerned, they run the full spectrum. Some verrry conservative churches teach that divorced people can never remarry, regardless of the circumstances; others are more lenient.

But the bottom line is this: divorce is a sin, just like any other sin, and it can be forgiven. If we kept sinners out of church - they would be empty!

[smeagol]

You can define something that is cold as having less heat or being absent of heat. Semantics.

Mary being our queen is not a semantical issue.
Mary's Immaculate conception is not a semantical issue.
Limbo or purgatory is not a semantical issue.

Certain teachings are just absent from scripture (some moreso than others)


The bottom line continues to be interpretation, which is why I trust the Church instituted by Christ to guide me.

Pheno says all these concepts are not in the Bible, I say they are, not conclusively but they are there.

I also have said that many other concepts, such as Christ instituting his visible Church on Earth, the Papacy, the Real Presence, Salvation not only by Faith, auricular confession, etc. are in the Bible because I interpret it a certain way, but my Protestant brothers interpret it a different way and therefore the split between the two Christian denominations.

[Samurai Jane]

So you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right?

How does one person's actions take away from the vow made by another? If the wife cheats- how does that release the husband from the vow he made to God? Just because you don't keep your promises does not mean I don't have to keep mine.


See that is the point in Catholicism- if you agree to a sacramental Catholic marriage you believe that divorce is NOT an option. Period. Even if he cheats.

Why does the Catholic church not allow the exception that Jesus mentioned?

So if you get an annullment granted by the Catholic church, does that mean that you were engaging in pre-marital sex during all that time?

By the way, what about those Catholics that get divorced outside of the church? How does the church handle that? I know quite a few divorced Catholics that have been remarried, in some cases, several times. What is their status in the church?

[Samurai Jane]

Unlike Catholic churches, Baptist churches are autonomous; so each Pastor would make those determinations. Most Baptist churches require some sort of pre-marital counseling and, as a general rule, will not allow church weddings for girls who are pregnant or couples who are living together.

As far as divorced people are concerned, they run the full spectrum. Some verrry conservative churches teach that divorced people can never remarry, regardless of the circumstances; others are more lenient.

But the bottom line is this: divorce is a sin, just like any other sin, and it can be forgiven. If we kept sinners out of church - they would be empty!

Exactly

[smeagol]

The Bible is pretty clear on the following:
1) There is one God (Deut. 6:4).
2) God the Father is God (1 Pet. 1:2 among many).
3) Jesus the Son of God is God (John 20:28-29, 1 Jn 5:20 among many).
4) Jesus is a distinct person from God the Father (John 5:19-23 among many).
5) Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30).
6) The Holy Spirit is God (John 14:16-17, Acts 5:3-4 among many).
7) The Holy Spirit is a distinct person from God the Father and God the Son (John 14:26, Acts 13:2,4, Romans 8:26-27).

So three persons are God; there is one God. The Trinity doctrine reconciles this Scriptural evidence.

There are some cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, which use deviant translations of the Bible in order to deny the Trinity doctrine. But in a translation faithful to Koine Greek, the evidence is laid out.

It is not a matter of differing opinions on exegesis. This is one of the core beliefs. A sect that denies the Trinity cannot be truly Christian.

As I said earlier, the Arians denied the Trinity reading the same Bible you and I read. They did up until the V and VI centuries.

And the Bible does not explicitly state the Doctrine of the Trinity, same substance, same person, etc. I quoted some verses that go against the Trinitarian doctrine, but [B]Pheno[/B} came with some explanation of how those verses can be reconciled . If you don’t buy the explanations, you can still claim that God is more important than Christ. And let’s not even get into the Holy Spirit. Saying he is God does not mean he is one of the persons of the Trinity.

The problem still exists.

[Phenomanul]

So you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right?

How does one person's actions take away from the vow made by another? If the wife cheats- how does that release the husband from the vow he made to God? Just because you don't keep your promises does not mean I don't have to keep mine.

See that is the point in Catholicism- if you agree to a sacramental Catholic marriage you believe that divorce is NOT an option. Period. Even if he cheats.

So are widows to remain perpetually widow? And are we to adopt Jewish tradition that states that the brother take the wife of his deceased brother?

Look, philosophically and theologically speaking we are on the same page as far as divorce goes. I don't believe in it. If I am not married yet, it is precisely because I want to make sure it is with the person that GOD has in His plans for me -- not someone I choose at a whim. And when I marry said person, does that mean we will never have problems? No. We will just have to be wise about how we go about resolving our differences. Most of all, if I love her as "Christ loved the church" I will love her enough to give my life for her (are you listening sickdsm). Most people that are going into marriages nowadays aren't even capable of sincerely evaluating that premise. For me, divorce will not be an option.

Back on point, is I've never claimed that the Protestant church was perfect. But that doesn't mean that divorces don't run amuck in Catholic nations either. It is a worldwide problem associated with our times. And yes, I would agree with 101A that the RCC is doing a better job than most other denominations in stressing the sanctity of marriage.

Nevertheless, divorce is not a problem that is rooted in protestant theology... it isn't. We more than discourage it.

[JoeChalupa]

The number one cause of divorce...is marriage.