Catholicism Not really original

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReformationPlus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul might have spoken of divorce upon immoral grounds, but Jesus Christ Himself said:

“Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” - Matthew 19:6.

Between Paul and Jesus, I’d pick Jesus any day of the week!
 
This does not need to be turned into a complexity and you know it. The poof is really your burden if you claim to be Christ’s church. Your teachings are not concurrent with scripture and so many of your dogmas are non-sensical and in many cases laughable. Prove that Mary was born without original sin and also prove that she entered into Heaven body and spirit. I will be waiting for your proof.
Do you believe it would be fitting for the Son of God to be held in the womb of one stained with sin? People could not even touch the Ark of the Covenant without being struck dead due to God’s holiness. God cannot be in the presence of sin… and therefore, could not be born of a woman stained with it, original or otherwise. This is a logical argument… Not everything to be believed by Christians is in Scripture.

Second, Christians have always held the relics of Saints in high regard… when one was martyred, their bones were collected and preserved. But where is the body of Mary? Why are there no relics of her? Do you not think that the relics of the Mother of God would be held dear and close to the Christians who knew and loved her? Also, it is not unheard of that people were taken up into heaven… Look at Elijah… If God would raise Elijah to heaven in such way, why would He also not raise the woman he chose to bear him? It seems fitting to me.

Perhaps you should prove that Mary was born in sin and provide evidence of her earthly body to show that she was not, in fact, assumed into heaven.
 
The truth shall set you free. Making claims that Mary is the ark of the new covenant will not gain you anything. Again, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. What you have given me for proof is (Edited by Moderator). It proves nothing. Just as calling Mary mediatrix is not scriptural but yet contrary to it and insulting to our Lord and Savior who said that nobody goes onto the father except through him (not Mary).
Nothing in the Bible states that Mary was not the Ark of the New Covenant… nor does it say she was not assumed…

It is clear that you do not understand the mediatrix concept the way it’s meant to be understood… While it is true that only Christ stands between us and God for salvation, this does not mean that we do not mediate in some way. This title of Mary does not place her on par with God in any way if it is properly understood.

It is clear in Scripture that we participate in the distribution of grace.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

When we pray for others, we mediate, in a sense between them and God… This is not to say that Christ is not necessary, by any means! Mary mediated in the sense that, by God’s will, Christ was able to be born in order to achieve his goal of death on the cross for our salvation.

Understood properly, there is nothing wrong with this concept.
 
nothing in scripture proves that Mary is the ark of the new covenant or that she is the woman mentioned in Revelation as being clothed with the sun. In fact, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. Again, more Catholic add ons and gossip
Nothing proves that she is NOT either… This is a matter of your own interpretation… which we are also entitled to.
 
nothing in scripture proves that Mary is the ark of the new covenant or that she is the woman mentioned in Revelation as being clothed with the sun. In fact, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. Again, more Catholic add ons and gossip
“An Ark truly royal, an Ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an Ark which received the treasure of entire satisfaction.” - St. Chrysippus of Jerusalem, 455 A.D.

Throughout the Litany of Loreto, we are given glimpses into the Blessed Virgin’s prerogatives, into her various roles within the Church, and even insights into her own physical and spiritual beauty. Reading the Litany gives us a sense that we are viewing a panoramic sweep of history, as Old Testament imagery, such as “House of Gold” or “Tower of David,” stands alongside imagery associated with its fulfillment, such as “Mother of Our Savior” and “Mother of the Church.”

Surely one of the most - if not the most - interesting of all the Marian titles preserved in the Litany is Foederis Arca, “Ark of the Covenant.” What makes this title of such particular interest is the manner in which the Old and New Testaments seem to be almost “superimposed” over each in this one image, while, at the same time, the richness of our Catholic tradition of Scriptural exegesis is truly made manifest.

For starters, ReformationPlus, I refer you Exodus 25:10-20.

Certain aspects of this description stand out. The Ark was constructed of setim wood - possibly the wood of the acacia tree, a very hard and durable substance - which was purported to be indestructable. It was then overlaid with the purest gold, within and without. The Ark was not intended to be handled by the hands of men, for it was constructed with four golden rings, through which wooden bars could be inserted; thus, it could be lifted and carried to any destination. A covering for the Ark, called a Propitiatory, was also built; it was also referred to as the Mercy Seat, for the Lord was supposed to sit there upon the wings of the golden cherubim, the Ark serving as His footstool, and from there dispense His mercy to the people (it was also known as the Oracle, a place from which the Lord would command and receive replies from the people). Finally, golden cherubim covered both sides of the Propitiatory, facing each other, their wings spread to cover the Oracle. How well do the attributes of the Ark fit the Mother of God! In fact, important Marian doctrines are present in this initial Scriptural description, albeit in a veiled form, as foreshadowings of the “Living Ark” who would be born to Sts. Joachim and Anne.
 
nothing in scripture proves that Mary is the ark of the new covenant or that she is the woman mentioned in Revelation as being clothed with the sun. In fact, she isn’t mentioned once past the book of Acts. Again, more Catholic add ons and gossip
The Immaculate Conception

It is a revealed truth that Mary was conceived without the stain of origianl sin, a prerogative unique to her and derived from her Divine Maternity. The Mother of the Redeemer was all beautiful, all stainless, in body and soul, like the Ark made of setim wood and overlaid with the purest gold, within and without. “Now the Lord was without sin,” wrote St. Hippolytus of Rome, “being in His human nature from incorruptible wood, that is from the Virgin, and being sheathed, as it were, with the pure gold of the Word within and of the Spirit without.”

Mediatrix of All Graces

Sound Catholic doctrine teaches us that Our Lady is, indeed, the “Mediatrix of All Graces,” and that all graces bestowed by Christ pass through her hands.

Like the original “Mercy Seat,” from which God would hear the petitions of His people and answer them, we refer to Our Lady as the Mother of Mercy and Seat of Wisdom, well aware that Our Lord wishes us to approach Him through His Mother, as He made quite clear during the Wedding at Cana.

The Assumption

Again, it is a Revealed Truth that the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Like the Ark made of durable, seemingly “indestructible” setim wood, so was the Woman whose immaculate womb carried the Infant Savior for nine months, who gave birth to God Incarnate and whose perfect soul was never tainted with the stain of sin (original or actual) from the very first moment of her existence, destined not to suffer corruption in any form, including that of the grave.
 
40.png
ReformationPlus:
It’s really simple when you boil it down. You can’t change what you want and do what you want (contrary to scripture)
How wonderful!
Peter did not chop off the head of his wife, Henry the VIII did, many times.
Christ did not ordain any women priests. The Anglicans do.
Christ did not ordain any openly gay priests and bishops. The Anglicans do.

Who did you say changed the scripture and do what they want again?
40.png
ReformationPlus:
and say that you are ordained by the Holy Spirit to do so. Just non-sensical.
Christ’s promise to be with His Church till the end of time:

Matt28:18-20

"And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’ "

Are you saying that He lied and failed to keep His promise to be with His Church?
Is Christ’s promise non-sensical?
Are you calling Him a liar?

Lastly, I shall be nice to you as we may soon be one church.
See news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,21250429-952,00.html
 
Did you know that the Gregorian calender that you follow along with us Anglicans was altered in the Catholic church away from its original form? …
I beg your pardon? We followed ‘YOUR’ Gregorian Calendar?

Who is the Gregorian Calendar named after? Who authorised its use?

Pope Gregory VIII in 1582. The Gregorian Calendar belongs to the Catholic Church.

Not to the Anglicans, Protestants or Reformers.

We created it. We can edit it.

If you do not believe in the Pope, why accept his calendar?

Is the Gregorian Calendar scriptural? Christ did not institute it! If not, why do you recognise it?
 
I beg your pardon? We followed ‘YOUR’ Gregorian Calendar?
Who is the Gregorian Calendar named after? Who authorised its use?

Pope Gregory VIII in 1582. The Gregorian Calendar belongs to the Catholic Church. We created it, we can change it.

Not to the Anglicans, Protestants or Reformers.

If you do not believe in the Pope, why accept his calendar?

Is the Gregorian Calendar scriptural? Christ did not institute it! If not, why do you recognise it?
 
Changing the calendar is a distortion of Christian truth that proves the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded?

That blows my mind, Christ never ordained any calendar. The Calendar is not a religious truth, it is merely an invention of men for keeping track of time.

By that logic you could say no Christian Church is true because the sabbath was Saturday, Jesus celebrated it on Saturday, and the Church later changed it to Sunday. Did Christ ever sayto do this? Is the it mentioned in the Bible?

But if we say there was a distortion that was restored by the Chuch of England that makes the Church of England the true Church of Christ than we are saying that the gates of Hell did prevail against the Church, at least for a time (which makes Christ a liar), until men who thought they were so smart that they could fix this and re-establish Christ’s church by getting people to believe in their version of things. As far as I know I don’t think these men claimed that God sent them angels to tell them to do this. I would be more inclined to believe Muhammed or Joseph Smith who at least claim some form of divine revelation than a guy like Luther or Calvin who simply thought they were so good at reading the Bible that they said we don’t need the Church and then went and started their own Church based on their amazing intelligence.
 
Look for yourself and see what Paul says about marriage and divorce. Stop trying to questions one’s knowledge of scripture when if you knew them you would know yourself that Paul was clear about divorce. Why would the Catholic church forbid divorce period when scripture allows for it. Isn’t that church teaching that doesn’t square with scripture? No need to be complicated and distorted here.
What makes you think the Catholic Church forbids divorce? Divorce is not forbidden if there is just cause. Remarriage is forbidden unless a previous marriage is ended by death of the spouse, or a previous union was nullified (not recognized as a sacramental and valid marriage).
 
Curiosity got the best of me…what a weird first post. For all the things one could choose to debate against Catholic theology, especially coming from a new member, well all I can say is :bigyikes: . Hope that wasn’t the final reason why he left the Church.
Marian Doctrine definitely more worthy of debate, but is pointless to try to use the ECFs … unless you are Catholic

eg
St Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27 (Died 373 AD)
“ Truly you, Lord, and your mother are the only ones who are beautiful, completely so in every respect; for, Lord, there is no spot in you, nor any spot at all in your mother. Even my babes are hardly similar to these two pulchritudes!" Any who I do not think Reformation Plus will stick around…then again it would be good if he did that way we can answer ihs/her objections.

Cheers got to go back to work … break is over :crying:
 
I find it funny that Reform is using as an argument for the invalidity an object that is not in any way tied to the Church (a calendar for crying out loud!) and he uses the Episcopal church which is the anglican Church in the US and it was started by a King that wanted a divorce!!! and one that beheaded people if they didn’t do what HE wanted!!! Get a grip on reality!
 
Code:
Peter was a poor fisherman who wasn't charasmatic at all and much of the time wasn't even bright.
Wow! Better not tell the souls he caught in his charismatic net on Pentecost!

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them…

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.Acts 2:37-42
 
Right on Guanaphore 👍

But maybe what we really need is more people like “bishop” Eugene Robinson. :rolleyes:
 
Anglicans say we should go by Scripture. Where does Scripture say there is an Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say the King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say “Thou are Henry VIII and upon Henry VIII I will build my Church?” These are all fabrications. Even a bunny can see that.
 
Anglicans say we should go by Scripture. Where does Scripture say there is an Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say the King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say “Thou are Henry VIII and upon Henry VIII I will build my Church?” These are all fabrications. Even a bunny can see that.
Certainly no longer novel

Been around for 2000-years, everybody is doing it or trying to:p

Many branches and sub-branches.

But only one authentic. God bless his holiness 👍
 
Anglicans say we should go by Scripture. Where does Scripture say there is an Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say the King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church? Where does Scripture say “Thou are Henry VIII and upon Henry VIII I will build my Church?” These are all fabrications. Even a bunny can see that.
You are one smart cinnamon bunny!! 👍 (I love cinnamon buns!!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top