D
Des
Guest
Apply that same logic with your books of the Bible. Stating which ones ‘must’ be in there is necessary or you won’t believe it.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
F
Fair_Lady
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And the Scriptures which St. Paul used **did not include **Acts, or the 4 gospels, or St. Paul’s own letters, or the letters of St. Peter and St. James or St. John’s works . .The “Scripture” that St. Paul used (in addition to the oral teaching which later was incorporated to some degree but not fully in the New Testament as some always remained ‘oral’ tradition) was what we know today as the Old Testament only. The **gospel **(as an addition or an explanation to the Old Testament Scripture, but not Scripture itself at the time St. Paul taught) he preached certainly included some elements, especially later in time, of that which we know as the New Testament, but St. Paul would not have preached it as “scripture”; if St. Paul noted something as Scripture it would only be what we know today as the Old Testament.
E
Eliza10
Guest
I hope its okay if I interject here with some comments to the orignal poster, and to her original post. I finished reading the entire thread just now - phew! Its long and there are many side related discussions going on now. But I would like to make some observations about what I just read. However, I see that it will take me two posts to get it on here. I hope you will accept that after 22 pages of reading! Here is part one:
Fair Lady, although your original question was about Mary, you can see that most of the side discussions in your thread pertain to scriptural arguments. I believe that what you wrote in post #100, page 7, shows the reason for this:
I think its safe to say your statement reflects a foundational belief of yours. What you state here was early on so blaringly obvious a beleif to the Catholic posters, and that is why they have descended on you with arguments against Sola Scriptura.
In other posts you exhort Catholics to get out their Bibles and read, not realizing how very arrogant that sounds, as most of the Catholic posters here are steeped deeply in the scripture of Holy Mother Church. However it was probably not arrogance but innocent ignorance. You are probably also not aware that our Mass is deeply steeped in scripture.
But the Bible say the Church, not scripture, is the pillar and foundation of truth.
1Timothy 3:15, in your King James Version:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth..
This is what we stand on. The Church: the pillar and foundation of truth. It is the Church that gave us Holy Scripture - and we agree with you on the holiness and sacredness of those words.
No where in the Bible does it say all you need for faith is in the Bible. Thats an extra, added belief of Protestants who broke off, in disunity, from the Church that Christ formed. You are still of the Catholic Chruch, only separated out a bit, by choice and by ignorance.
The Church has been handed sacred traditions from the apostles and from Jesus Himself. One is the sign of the cross. You have lost it, but we have held onto it since the times of the apostles, who obviously weren’t making things up, but were taught from Jesus Himself.
From 2 Thessalonioans 2:15 in your King James version:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
There is more discussion about that here:
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
Another sacred tradition we have hung onto and not lost is reverence for our Blessed Mother. That is what you had questions about. Your new Protestant tradition - a tradition of man and not of God - is a hinderence to your embracing this wonderful gift that Jesus wants us to have: His Mother. The last thing he did before dying was to give her to us on the cross. How powerful is a dying wish!
While He literally did give His mother into John’s care, He was not making a private arrangment as He hung from the cross, as all He did was for all of us. And while John is the beloved disciple, we are all beloved of God. John represents us, and Jesus was giving Mary to not just John but to all of his beloved disciples - thats you and me. Yes, you have a heavenly mother! And He wants you to take His mother into your heart and your home!!
Mary is the Mother of the Body of Christ. And we are the Body of Christ. So Mary is* our* mother. Our* Blessed* Mother and all generations will call her blessed! Yes, it says ALL! All generations, of ALL time.
More comments on what you said:
Mary is the Light of lights. Yes. Jesus is not the Light of lights - no one ever calls Him that because Jesus is THE Light. Does that sound like a small disticntion to you? Because it doesn’t to us. Its a clear distinction. The rest of us are little lights reflecting the Light. Mary is the brightest “little” light that God ever created and we celebrate her as the brightest little Light of lights. It is what a Catholic knows in his heart, because we love Mary, and we know her. I think if you read that reasoning with your heart, you will realize you know it, too.
We also know that to know Mary is to know Jesus. We know that the fastest way to know Jesus is to know Mary. That may seem absurd to you but thats because you don’t know your Mother. Get to know your mother and you will see how true it is - she will show you more of Jesus. It is just a theologocal and historical fact. Mary ALWAYS points to Jesus. Look at icons of Jesus and Mary. She is pointing to Him. That who Mary is: she points to Jesus.
E
Eliza10
Guest
**(Part Two) **
Knowing Mary naturally births Jesus into the our hearts. Protestants think they can have Jesus without Mary, but we know that just as the world received Jesus through Mary, individually, we receive Jesus through Mary. God’s way is good enough for us.
A Catholic tradition is to say the Jesus is the sun, and Mary is the moon. Jesus is the light and the source, and Mary perfectly reflects him. Her light comes not from herself, but from Jesus, her Lord and her God - and her Son.
You say you have observed that Catholics give credit to Mary for answering their prayers without acknowledging that God ultimately was the source, and that is true, I have heard it too and wonder what Protestants like yourself must think. Offense! But I know what they mean. They know God did the miracle, and Mary asked. It is perfectly clear to them! It is you who misunderstand, who take offense at an intention that is NOT in their heart. You can’t read their hearts but you* can* ask them - and you won’t find ONE Catholic who think Mary conjures up the miracle! Look at images of Mary and apparitions of Mary. She is praying.
Sometimes in her images he hands are spread out and graces are falling out of them. We know the graces are from God. We know Mary is, as the Angel fresh from the side of God said, “FULL of grace” - and we know graces come from God.
I hope that makes sense, I understand your offense about people giving Mary credit but you only have to ask the one who seems to be discounting God. You will find they KNOW the answered prayer came from God. Mary is all about God. She gave up her will and is all God’s will. And example for us.
We pray to Mary because we have been told that the Holy Trinity loves Mary so much that she has to do is sigh and they rush to do her bidding. (I think I read that in St. Louis de Montefort, though I don’t think he was the originator). Yes, we have been told that and there are centuries and multitudes to witness that it is true.
The Holy Trinity is Love. God is love. Unlike people. God doesn’t use people. He loves them and has relationships with them. Relationships deepen. No, Mary was NOT just a “vessel” that God used to get His job done. God’s will is that all babies including his Son are conceived in love, so we know that at Mary’s yes when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and conceived the Son of God, He came to her in love, and formed a permanent relationship of love with her. And He did not conceive a baby with anyone else after that! And Mary did conceive with anyone else after that! And does it make sense that after God had virginally conceived with Mary and after Jesus grew in her womb, Joseph wanted his turn in the dwelling place of the Most High, the Tabernacle of God, and that he wanted to take what God Himself did not take, Mary’s virginity? No, that is not the tradition that was handed down and cherished by Gods people all these centuries. Its pretty-fetched to think that Mary is anything but ever-virgin. But intellectuals can get pretty far-fetched (as we all know from watching the History Channel’s summation of things biblical!).
Fair Lady, I hope you are most blessed some day in this life on earth with knowing your true heavenly mother, your greatest heavenly advocate outside of God (the Holy Trinity). She is the fairest flower in the garden of God and reflects perfectly His love and mercy.
Yes, there is a Mother in the Heaven! There is a Queen in the heavenly kingdom!
.http://www.spiritsite.com/gallery/art/medmar/BotticelliMadonna.JPG
Knowing Mary naturally births Jesus into the our hearts. Protestants think they can have Jesus without Mary, but we know that just as the world received Jesus through Mary, individually, we receive Jesus through Mary. God’s way is good enough for us.
A Catholic tradition is to say the Jesus is the sun, and Mary is the moon. Jesus is the light and the source, and Mary perfectly reflects him. Her light comes not from herself, but from Jesus, her Lord and her God - and her Son.
You say you have observed that Catholics give credit to Mary for answering their prayers without acknowledging that God ultimately was the source, and that is true, I have heard it too and wonder what Protestants like yourself must think. Offense! But I know what they mean. They know God did the miracle, and Mary asked. It is perfectly clear to them! It is you who misunderstand, who take offense at an intention that is NOT in their heart. You can’t read their hearts but you* can* ask them - and you won’t find ONE Catholic who think Mary conjures up the miracle! Look at images of Mary and apparitions of Mary. She is praying.
Sometimes in her images he hands are spread out and graces are falling out of them. We know the graces are from God. We know Mary is, as the Angel fresh from the side of God said, “FULL of grace” - and we know graces come from God.
I hope that makes sense, I understand your offense about people giving Mary credit but you only have to ask the one who seems to be discounting God. You will find they KNOW the answered prayer came from God. Mary is all about God. She gave up her will and is all God’s will. And example for us.
We pray to Mary because we have been told that the Holy Trinity loves Mary so much that she has to do is sigh and they rush to do her bidding. (I think I read that in St. Louis de Montefort, though I don’t think he was the originator). Yes, we have been told that and there are centuries and multitudes to witness that it is true.
The Holy Trinity is Love. God is love. Unlike people. God doesn’t use people. He loves them and has relationships with them. Relationships deepen. No, Mary was NOT just a “vessel” that God used to get His job done. God’s will is that all babies including his Son are conceived in love, so we know that at Mary’s yes when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and conceived the Son of God, He came to her in love, and formed a permanent relationship of love with her. And He did not conceive a baby with anyone else after that! And Mary did conceive with anyone else after that! And does it make sense that after God had virginally conceived with Mary and after Jesus grew in her womb, Joseph wanted his turn in the dwelling place of the Most High, the Tabernacle of God, and that he wanted to take what God Himself did not take, Mary’s virginity? No, that is not the tradition that was handed down and cherished by Gods people all these centuries. Its pretty-fetched to think that Mary is anything but ever-virgin. But intellectuals can get pretty far-fetched (as we all know from watching the History Channel’s summation of things biblical!).
Fair Lady, I hope you are most blessed some day in this life on earth with knowing your true heavenly mother, your greatest heavenly advocate outside of God (the Holy Trinity). She is the fairest flower in the garden of God and reflects perfectly His love and mercy.
Yes, there is a Mother in the Heaven! There is a Queen in the heavenly kingdom!
.http://www.spiritsite.com/gallery/art/medmar/BotticelliMadonna.JPG
E
Eliza10
Guest
An error above: I meant to write that just like the Holy Spirit, Mary did NOT conceive with anyone else after that. I wrote Mary did, mistakenly leaving out the word “not”. I hope an administrator will correct it for me.
Does anyone else ever contemplate the absurdity of Mary conceiving other children? As the rest of us are born with Adams sin, so would the alleged brothers and sisters of Jesus, and can you imagine the mess it would make overtime if a bunch of people could say, “God is my great uncle’s half-brother”, or, “I am from the most royal and holy bloodline of Jesus”. Who could top that for claiming superiority of race?
Can you imagine the sibling rivalry when your brother is perfect? How can you follow in the footsteps of a brother who can do all things.? And how can Mom and Dad avoid showing special favor to the child who is also their Lord and their Savior??
Fortunately we have faithful Catholic tradition to offer an explanation that is in fact the only one that makes sense. Mary and Joseph both were consecrated virgins to God, having individually already made up their own personal wills to be all for God only, when the priests of the Temple decided that Mary, a virgin of the Temple, needed a husband and chose Joseph for her. They sought God’s will by having eligible men from the House of David give their staffs, and they prayed, and the one of Joesph miraculously sprouted a lily. That is why we see St. Joseph portrayed with a lily.
http://www.saint-mark.net/organizations/images/05_saint_joseph.jpg
http://neatnik2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/st-joseph-with-the-baby-jesus.jpg
http://www.brisbanelivingheritage.com/_dbase_upl/ig_css_st_joseph.jpg
http://www.am-church.com/images/moroder/statues/10261_stjoseph-2.jpg
Does anyone else ever contemplate the absurdity of Mary conceiving other children? As the rest of us are born with Adams sin, so would the alleged brothers and sisters of Jesus, and can you imagine the mess it would make overtime if a bunch of people could say, “God is my great uncle’s half-brother”, or, “I am from the most royal and holy bloodline of Jesus”. Who could top that for claiming superiority of race?
Can you imagine the sibling rivalry when your brother is perfect? How can you follow in the footsteps of a brother who can do all things.? And how can Mom and Dad avoid showing special favor to the child who is also their Lord and their Savior??
Fortunately we have faithful Catholic tradition to offer an explanation that is in fact the only one that makes sense. Mary and Joseph both were consecrated virgins to God, having individually already made up their own personal wills to be all for God only, when the priests of the Temple decided that Mary, a virgin of the Temple, needed a husband and chose Joseph for her. They sought God’s will by having eligible men from the House of David give their staffs, and they prayed, and the one of Joesph miraculously sprouted a lily. That is why we see St. Joseph portrayed with a lily.
http://www.saint-mark.net/organizations/images/05_saint_joseph.jpg
http://neatnik2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/st-joseph-with-the-baby-jesus.jpg
http://www.brisbanelivingheritage.com/_dbase_upl/ig_css_st_joseph.jpg
http://www.am-church.com/images/moroder/statues/10261_stjoseph-2.jpg
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
Just repeating your original position, huh? If that’s the case, then all we have are your confused perceptions about what the Church teaches.
First of, God is Infinite. That being said, He cannot have any separate parts or restrictions placed upon Him. Space and time would mean that some part of him is separated, making Him finite and no longer eternal. Where God exist, there is no time. Heaven isn’t endless time but a place where time has no meaning; it is the eternal now. But even ‘the eternal now’ predicates a time restriction so here is where our words fall to grasp what God has revealed to us. God’s divine qualities mean that He can here prayers but not that it is needed to hear ‘all at one time’ because for the Eternal God, time has no meaning.
As Des pointed out, God has gifted us by making us ‘in His image’ by giving us a free will, intellect, and an immortal soul. You might want to check out 2nd Peter 1:4 as well.
More later, off to dinner…
D
dcrowmik
Guest
Thanks for the partial answer but excuse me for still not understanding or finding the full answer. I still have not really found a scriptural answer on why asking for intercessory prayer from living persons is OK and why it is not OK asking from those who are gone from this earth (as with Mary). As I mentioned before and as you see above, Fair Lady gave a number of scriptural references for intercessory prayer (and asking Mary, or the saints for that matter, is asking for intercessory prayer).
However, neither you nor Fair Lady have helped me find any scriptural basis for prohibition of intercessory prayer from those not on this earth. If intercessory prayer by living persons is scripturally based then mustn’t there also be a scriptural reference about not asking those who have passed on, yes?
No need to repeat the “this is how you are to pray” quotes again unless you mean also to say that we all shouldn’t be asking each other on this thread to pray for each other.
Thanks again for bearing with me. I’m looking forward again to your answer.
P
Padrej
Guest
If you pray for a person, that is an intercessory prayer that is certainly NOT prohibited by scripture. NOW Jesus when condemning the Sadducees said in Mathew 22:32 that God is a God of the LIVING not of the dead; so the Saints in heaven would then be alive and still be praying. As Jesus said God described Himself as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Obviously at the time Jesus spoke those words the patriarchs he mentioned were long in the ground buried. With that in mind I would say that these saint’s do continually intercede for us as well.
Granted there IS only one true mediator between God and Man and that is the person of Jesus Christ; however, would it not also make sense when you are in a spiritual crisis and you are asking everyone else to pray for you that you asked somebody already that much closer to God’s ear to pray for you also?
I hope that is a simple enough answer for you.
Funny Protestants have no problems “binding demons” in Jesus name, and calling on Angels to come and protect them and do their bidding and such, but will not ask a saint for an intercessory prayer. Funny I don’t see the difference.
F
FrJohnB
Guest
Odd you mentioned Binding Demons and such. I went to a church by invitation of a friend of mine and It happen to be one of those “holiness” meetings and the pastor was casting out demons and then calling on “warrior angels” to surround the person and drive the demon out. He used the passage of scripture where it mentions where two agree touching on earth it shall be done in heaven. He also mentioned that the fight goes on in the heavenly realms too, so we need to pray for the angels and the principalities to fight for us “in agreement” so that our demons would stay away and our fortunes returned seven fold.
As you say Padre, Protestants don’t seem to mind that kind of praying but God forbid they ask a Saint in heaven for a favor. But they can PRAY an Angel come to them.
M
MacDaddy
Guest
"Tantum ergo:
You called it the Protestant church of England; I said it was over the top in my opinion, you disagree so I said “if you say so”. I thanked you for the correction-what else do you want your Highness?
Tantum ergo:
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas – not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609). Catholic Source or source
That is called a rub; are you a Californian? Late teens or early twenties? Just asking; the attitude is familiar to me.
You called it the Protestant church of England; I said it was over the top in my opinion, you disagree so I said “if you say so”. I thanked you for the correction-what else do you want your Highness?
Tantum ergo:
Anyone writing a book on the “Seven Sacrements” does not appear to be a Protestant, but that is my opinion.Henry wrote a book On The Seven Sacraments, a defense of traditional doctrines against the teachings of Martin Luther. (The Pope rewarded him with the title, “Defender of the Faith,” a title born to this day by English monarchs.) More, discussing the book with Henry while it was still in rough draft, said, “I am troubled, because the book seems to me to give too much honor to the Pope.” Henry replied, "There is no such thing as giving too much honor to the Pope." source
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities who proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas – not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (the Douay-Rheims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609). Catholic Source or source
M
MacDaddy
Guest
Poor analogy, I can communicate directly to someone via phone or email a request for a prayer, but they can only respond because they in fact directly communicated. In you analogy you would need to locate the bodies of the saints and resurrect them so they could communicate and that too would be God’s providence. Why can’t you admit your error; it is called pride.
Now you are down-playing you passed condemnation on 3 occasions by your own words and the context of the passage from Scripture was inapplicable to the situation. The red highlight above, we agree, it is pride.
How has your life changed since being born again?
I apologize for the exaggeration, the small minority would have been more appropriate; however this part of Revelation is not even difficult and you rightly stated in Chapter the 7, that they were the souls crying which came out of the tribulation, which referred back to chapter 6. In light of Matthew 23 and Luke 21 allows one to further connect the dots.
God bless and thank you for the response.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Wow. . .you really couldn’t have been much more off if you tried.
I’m 53, my youngest child is 24; I’m a native Philadelphian, and I’ve never been to CA. In fact until I moved to VA when my youngest flew the nest I’d been pretty much solely in Northeast with only a brief stay in Minnesota in my early 20s (though I did travel abroad a bit back then too, way back in the good old late 1970s!)Only my children have to call me by my ‘royal’ Title. You can simply “Ma’am” me, good sir.
M
MacDaddy
Guest
You to need to prove from Scripture the error as I have done. He actually showed my position as true himself from chapter 7 where the saints that were crying are from the tribulation, which refers back to chapter 6 and in view of Matthew 23 and Luke 21 it is not even difficult to discern and I am a “nobody” in the theological world.Padrej is hardly the one in the Minority on the Tribulation. There are many views on this and his is one of the accepted views.
What is truly sad is you accuse him of being in error when you are the one in pride pointing out others errors like you are sitting on the left hand of God. Padrej has been accurate in his exegesis of scripture where you have said that he is not, so it is YOU who needs to humbly apologize.
BTW Why should it matter to YOU in what manner Padrej was saved and how he deals with sin? Sounds like judgmental questions to me.
It is easy to discern between pride and arrogance and true Christian humility and between the two of you both are guilty of what you originally accused me of in your both of your haste to jump in without looking at the context of the previous dialogue. The original poster took no offense whatsoever, but both of you decided to and both passed condemnation on me at least 3 times for him and the same for you by your own words. Yours is actually worse because you entered in and chose sides, not based on facts but based on “credentials”, which is another sin and the exact thing Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in the very passage you accused me. The irony of it all…LOL
Hey it is okay and no skin off my back. God bless and have a good night.
MacD
P
Padrej
Guest
MATTHEW 23???
Matthew 23 1-12 Jesus Characterizes the Pharisees 13-36 he condemns them and then 37-39 laments over Jerusalem. OHHHH THOU GREAT BIBLE SCHOLAR tell me how those verses connect with Revelation 6 and 7?
Proof YOU ARE in a small minority if you think Matthew 23 is a connection. Any fool knows its chapter 24. But, being as you are so sure of yourself lets here you explain how the Pharisees have to do with Revelation.
But lets say that you are correct and it is “during,”(AKA mid Tribulation) it STILL justifies that Saints intercede for those here on earth. Those “crying out” were already dead awaiting God’s vengeance on those who were ill treating them and those still living, so HOW can you continue to muddy the waters and say that it cannot be Saints interceding? Even if it is a Post Tribulation cry out it would still justify the same. Come on lets see you tackle it.
BTW Mr Matthew 23 what seminary did you go to? Give me an answer to that before I answer any more of your salvation questions about myself.
F
FrJohnB
Guest
MATTHEW 23??? Jesus and his condemnation of the Pharisees??? Oh this is rich!!!
You accuse others of Scriptural error and look at yourself. You should be ashamed. But as the book of Proverbs says, “Pride goes before the fall” and OHHH how the mighty MacDaddy has proven this tonight.
You have just proven that the rest of your post is not worth beans.
M
MacDaddy
Guest
We can always use a little comic relief here,bless you Ma’am.Wow. . .you really couldn’t have been much more off if you tried.
Only my children have to call me by my ‘royal’ Title. You can simply “Ma’am” me, good sir.
M
MacDaddy
Guest
This is the reply for #321 & #322. Your accusations are false and unwarranted and you “play dumb” in reference to playing God for your multiple condemning statements. I explained it in the context and gave the link so you can see for yourself; there is nothing more I can do and nothing that needs to be done except to part dialogue with you because have not been charitable in the least to me.
Enjoy you walk in life and I pray God blesses you in a mighty way.
- Status