Catholics is this true?

[puppypatrol]

catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

This is only one of thousands of ANTI-CATHOLIC websites and Mary Ann Collins is fictional. This is also a frequently used tactic used by those who want to bring down the Catholic Church out of fear or hate, pick one.
*
"Where in the world is Mary Ann Collins?

What is unusual is that Mary Ann Collins cannot be located other than on her web site. She states on her web site that her father and pastor cautioned her not to give any personal information. "*

If she did exist, she would be sure to make herself available for one on one counseling in order to “save” others from the “Whore of Babylon” from the hell she is leading them to. She and her pastor would never suggest she go into hiding. If she were real and if there was a conversion, it just wouldn’t be how it is done.

 

[puppypatrol]

catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

The problem is that a declared doctrine changes the Gospel, if it did not exist before.
An example of this would be: **Pius IX’s Immaculate Conception dogma which includes: “There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma.” **
Recent RCC popes confirmed that doctrine with the anniversary celebrations.
Paul never taught such salvation nonsense, so that verse applies to the RCC for its alteration of the simple Gospel.

First question. Do you know what Immaculate Conception means?

This doctrine means so much more than that Our Lady did not bear the sin of our first parents.

“Conception” has a much broader meaning than the miraculous biological act of conceiving a child. Conception is a matter of the mind, of the spirit, of the imagination.

We know from the Book of Genesis that when God wills for something to be created, it is created. When He conceives of something pleasing to Him, it is done.

And so, Mary, the most Holy, the one chosen to be the Mother of His Son, in that blessed moment when Almighty God conceived in His mind that this woman should exist, His Immaculate Conception was prefigured until that moment in our Human History when His Immaculate Conception was created in her mother’s womb.

It also refers to the fact that Jesus was conceived “Immaculately” within his mother’s womb, no sex involved. He was born of a virgin and he was born without original sin.

Are you willing to put limitations on what God can do? I’m not!!! I would rather believe he could do this and be safe instead of doubting he could or would do this and find out later I was wrong.

Protestant Pastors have many different interpretations of the same Scriptures because most don’t have the resources to look at the verses within the context of when it was written, they take individual verses out of context, and/or they only use those verses that prove their point no matter how fragile it is. This is what they teach and their congregations follow along which is no different the within the Catholic Church with the exception that those who have passed down the Churches interpretation have made those statements only after researching the original language, history and the people and customes of the times.

This doesn’t mean that all Protestants are wrong in all their interpretations but there is more to reading the Bible than looking at the words.

 

[po18guy]

Maybe your patience is worn thin, because you can not deny that your church says that you must also believe in the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary for salvation. You know that this doctrine has a serious opposition even in the RCC itself by its early church members. It is a new gospel, not something ever spoken about by Paul or Scripture.

So what if I try to point out what I see as error in your RCC beliefs, If you were so sure of the truth of your own RCC beliefs, you would not get so upset.

Maybe we just get tired from the constant heretical attacks. Cut some slack here. It is actually your beliefs and not ours that are a “new Gospel”, what with SS, SF, SG, o solo mio and all of the 500 year old solas. Please reveal from the Catechism on the Vatican web site where your assertions are true: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Then, we will BELIEVE!

 

[MariaG]

The problem is that a declared doctrine changes the Gospel, if it did not exist before.
An example of this would be: Pius IX’s Immaculate Conception dogma which includes: “There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma.”
Recent RCC popes confirmed that doctrine with the anniversary celebrations.
Paul never taught such salvation nonsense, so that verse applies to the RCC for its alteration of the simple Gospel.

Again, this is no different from Paul. Since we absolutely believe and can show through scripture and the early church fathers that the immaculate conception is the gospel truth, if you choose to reject this teaching from scripture and the early church, you are rejecting Christ, therefore you will have no salvation.

We believe scripture when it says if you reject those whom Christ sent, you are rejecting Christ. You reject Christ, you do not have salvation. And none of that is “nonsense” at all. To fail to warn people of the consequences is to fail to preach the gospel.

Respectfully,
MariaG

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

It’s half-true - IOW, it is true but a distortion **A lot depends on what is meant by the question. **​

---

 

[Ruthie]

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, Catholic men and women are not allowed to believe what they read in the Bible without checking it out with the Catholic Church. They are required to find out how the bishops of the Church interpret a passage and they are to accept what the bishops teach as if it came from Jesus Christ Himself. They are not allowed to use their own judgment or follow their own conscience. They are required to believe whatever the bishops teach without questioning it.[31]

No, this is not true.

In my case, it was studying the Bible that led me to Catholicism. I visited several other Christian churches, and found good in all of them. But I also found that each one of them pulled verses out of context before interpreting them. I also found them to ignore verses that conflicted with what they believed.

I wanted a church that read the *whole *Bible, and treated it as a whole, united work instead of a collection of different verses. I found it in the Catholic church. I have not yet found a doctrine or dogma of my Church that conflicts with or contradicts the Bible.

Yes, we have some beliefs that have not been directly spelled out in Sacred Scripture. Yet none of them contradicts the Bible, either. Remember the last verse of John’s Gospel. We have teachings that go back to the first Christians, but never made it into the Canon.

You’re much better off asking questions here to learn about Catholicism, than looking to an anti-Catholic site.

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[Prime]

No, this is not true.

In my case, it was studying the Bible that led me to Catholicism. I visited several other Christian churches, and found good in all of them. But I also found that each one of them pulled verses out of context before interpreting them. I also found them to ignore verses that conflicted with what they believed.

I wanted a church that read the *whole *Bible, and treated it as a whole, united work instead of a collection of different verses. I found it in the Catholic church. I have not yet found a doctrine or dogma of my Church that conflicts with or contradicts the Bible.

Yes, we have some beliefs that have not been directly spelled out in Sacred Scripture. Yet none of them contradicts the Bible, either. Remember the last verse of John’s Gospel. We have teachings that go back to the first Christians, but never made it into the Canon.

You’re much better off asking questions here to learn about Catholicism, than looking to an anti-Catholic site.

God bless you,

Ruthie

I personally know someone with similar experience as yours.

She was once Protestant Preacher who chanced upon a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. She read it from cover to cover for one day and 1 night. Since she already knows the Bible by heart, she horribly realized that the entire CCC is actually in line with the Bible. The following day she went to the Parish Priest to request for appointment for the next RCIA. Now she runs a retreat house for Catholics.

 

[brkn1]

Maybe we just get tired from the constant heretical attacks. Cut some slack here. It is actually your beliefs and not ours that are a “new Gospel”, what with SS, SF, SG, o solo mio and all of the 500 year old solas. Please reveal from the Catechism on the Vatican web site where your assertions are true: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Then, we will BELIEVE!

The Immaculate Conception is listed under Dogma in the New Advent Encyclopedia.
A dogma defined by the RCC must be accepted and believed by all church members or they are considered heretics and anathematized.
How have I been “heretical” by claiming that fact about the RCC?
Are you telling me that you don’t have to believe in the Immaculate Conception after the RCC defines it for you?

 

[brkn1]

Again, this is no different from Paul. Since we absolutely believe and can show through scripture and the early church fathers that the immaculate conception is the gospel truth, if you choose to reject this teaching from scripture and the early church, you are rejecting Christ, therefore you will have no salvation.

We believe scripture when it says if you reject those whom Christ sent, you are rejecting Christ. You reject Christ, you do not have salvation. And none of that is “nonsense” at all. To fail to warn people of the consequences is to fail to preach the gospel.

Respectfully,
MariaG

I understand that your church believes that there is no salvation for me, since I reject the idea that I must also believe in the RCC’s version of salvation.

I most certainly reject your claim that I reject my Lord Jesus Christ though. My Faith rests entirely on the complete and perfect work of Jesus Christ, when He once died for my sin. Jesus paid it all.
“Ye are bought with a price. Be not ye the servants of men.” (1Cor. 7:23)
Jesus bought me with His precious shed Blood. Since God does not half-pay when He buys His sheep, I know that He bought and paid completely for me. I don’t have to worry about any nonsense that some sinful man comes up with to convince me otherwise.
I am now His willing servant, not the servant of men and their unbiblical “truths”.

 

[po18guy]

The Immaculate Conception is listed under Dogma in the New Advent Encyclopedia.
A dogma defined by the RCC must be accepted and believed by all church members or they are considered heretics and anathematized.
How have I been “heretical” by claiming that fact about the RCC?
Are you telling me that you don’t have to believe in the Immaculate Conception after the RCC defines it for you?

You are not, strictly speaking. However, you point it out as though you had just discovered a scandal worth exposing to the world. Why else would you even mention it? Remember that this thread’s premise is anti-Catholic by nature.

There is no test under which we are included or excluded, if that is what you are hinting at. Certain “Catholic” politicians are close to being declared by the Lord as anathema, due to their relentless unfaithful beliefs and deliberate repetition of error in Catholic teaching. However, it is the Lord that declares anathema, not some imaginary cabal of shadowy Opus Dei manipulators.

Of course I believe in the Immaculate Conception, as God revealed it to His Church. Question is, why don’t you?

Also, here’s link to anathema: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Anathema

 

[maryprayforme]

It’s all a rich tapestry.

 

[Lee1440]

Okay, back to the question as originally asked…I think…

Is it true that we Catholics must believe the Church’s interpretation of the Bible and are not allowed to come up with our own?

Or something to that effect. And to that I offer a brief quote from Peter’s Second Epistle, Chapter One, Verse 20:

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” --Quoted from the RSV.

I imagine that this is one of the reasons that Martin Luther wanted to remove Peter’s epistle from his Bible. Fortunately, he was talked out of it. So there it is. The Church received her interpretation of the Scriptures from Christ when He journeyed with His chosen Apostles. Then He promised to send them the Holy Spirit to remind them of what He had told them, and also to teach them and to unfold the teachings to them over time. They passed it on to their own disciples; St. Paul mentions this in his own epistles. And the teachings have come down to us in our own day.

And lemme tell ya, the teachings I have received from the Church are vastly superior to anything I ever came up with on my own. Christ speaks of us taking upon ourselves His yoke, but it is anything but a burden. It is a very great grace and a gift. Before struggling against accepting the teachings, it helps to simply find out what they really are. I found that out and found out, in the process, that the Church did not teach what I thought she did, and did teach what I thought she didn’t. Who’da thunk that all I needed to do was buy a paperback catechism and then I woulda known the truth.

 

[brkn1]

Of course I believe in the Immaculate Conception, as God revealed it to His Church. Question is, why don’t you?

Also, here’s link to anathema: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Anathema

What I understand about how this doctrine came about does not impress me as trustworthy. Visions, miracles, etc. are claimed by many false prophets. There might be something to them, but it does not necessarily follow that it is by God.

The virgin birth and immaculate conception of Jesus is perfectly biblical gospel. Going further than that is unnecessary and unbiblical. The simple Gospel is sufficient without adding “new light”. I simply do not trust additions to the faith once delivered.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I personally know someone with similar experience as yours.

She was once Protestant Preacher who chanced upon a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. She read it from cover to cover for one day and 1 night. Since she already knows the Bible by heart, she horribly realized that the entire CCC is actually in line with the Bible. The following day she went to the Parish Priest to request for appointment for the next RCIA. Now she runs a retreat house for Catholics.

Funny how things like that happen… My wife was an independent fundamentalist baptist; her journey toward catholicism started with my mother’s 1611 King James Bible.

My wife was deeply stunned (for lack of a better term) to discover it had all the books in it after years of being told that Catholics added them later. Anyway, that’s what “lit the fire” for her. She describes her conversion to Catholicism something akin to what St. Paul experienced.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The virgin birth and immaculate conception of Jesus is perfectly biblical gospel. Going further than that is unnecessary and unbiblical. The simple Gospel is sufficient without adding “new light”. I simply do not trust additions to the faith once delivered.

Just curious… How do you know that Jesus was conceived immaculately? Perhaps you believe that original sin is inherited from the father?

 

[po18guy]

I understand that your church believes that there is no salvation for me, since I reject the idea that I must also believe in the RCC’s version of salvation.

I most certainly reject your claim that I reject my Lord Jesus Christ though. My Faith rests entirely on the complete and perfect work of Jesus Christ, when He once died for my sin. Jesus paid it all.
“Ye are bought with a price. Be not ye the servants of men.” (1Cor. 7:23)
Jesus bought me with His precious shed Blood. Since God does not half-pay when He buys His sheep, I know that He bought and paid completely for me. I don’t have to worry about any nonsense that some sinful man comes up with to convince me otherwise.
I am now His willing servant, not the servant of men and their unbiblical “truths”.

You’ve heard of “industrial disease”? Well, you have caught “me and Jesus” disease. You have separated yourself from the Church which Christ founded for your salvation. He saves souls individually, of course, but within the context of His Church. You reject that Church, accepting an imitation, so you aren’t you in essence rejecting part of Christ? There is no other way. He said so, and left a Church to guide all mankind. You are free to reject it at your own peril.

 

[brkn1]

Just curious… How do you know that Jesus was conceived immaculately? Perhaps you believe that original sin is inherited from the father?

Yes, original sin is passed down from the father. You will find that it was Adam’s sin (not Eve’s) that the Bible speaks of bringing on the sin nature on all of us by inheritance.

Jesus does not contract man’s sin by any sort of physical contact either. Sin is not ‘contagious’ that way. Sin is an inner (spirit and soul) condition.

 

[po18guy]

What I understand about how this doctrine came about does not impress me as trustworthy. Visions, miracles, etc. are claimed by many false prophets. There might be something to them, but it does not necessarily follow that it is by God.

The virgin birth and immaculate conception of Jesus is perfectly biblical gospel. Going further than that is unnecessary and unbiblical. The simple Gospel is sufficient without adding “new light”. I simply do not trust additions to the faith once delivered.

Your myopia stems from your reliance on but one part of God’s revelation. You have separated Sacred Scripture from the God-given authority which canonized it. Since the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, why look exclusively to the often misinterpreted written word? Once separated from the authority to interpret it, scripture can easily be twisted (and has been 30,000+ times) to mean just about anything.

Sources as varied as the evil one, the KKK and every other hate group have used scripture. Does that mean that what they say is true? After all, they are simply quoting “self-interpreting” scripture.

Or, did Jesus leave someone in authority over His Church when He ascended? Yes, He did. Did that someone pass on the authority to his successors? Yes, he did. Has that continued until today? Yes, it has.

Have some rejected that authority, replacing it with themselves or their pastors? Unfortunately, yes they have.

 

[brkn1]

You’ve heard of “industrial disease”? Well, you have caught (“me and Jesus” disease). You have separated yourself from the Church which Christ founded for your salvation. He saves souls individually, of course, but within the context of His Church. You reject that Church, accepting an imitation, so you aren’t you in essence rejecting part of Christ? (There is no other way.) He said so, and left a Church to guide all mankind. You are free to reject it at your own peril.

Jesus is the Way.

There is no other way, but the true and saving Gospel of Jesus.

Yes, I confess to having a serious case of what you call the “me and Jesus disease”.

Becoming part of Jesus’ Church happens only after salvation. The Church doesn’t save anyone. The Holy Spirit gives God’s sheep true Faith in Jesus (your described “me and Jesus disease”).

 

[brkn1]

Your myopia stems from your reliance on but one part of God’s revelation. You have separated Sacred Scripture from the God-given authority which canonized it. Since the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, why look exclusively to the often misinterpreted written word? Once separated from the authority to interpret it, scripture can easily be twisted (and has been 30,000+ times) to mean just about anything.

Sources as varied as the evil one, the KKK and every other hate group have used scripture. Does that mean that what they say is true? After all, they are simply quoting “self-interpreting” scripture.

Or, did Jesus leave someone in authority over His Church when He ascended? Yes, He did. Did that someone pass on the authority to his successors? Yes, he did. Has that continued until today? Yes, it has.

Have some rejected that authority, replacing it with themselves or their pastors? Unfortunately, yes they have.

There are some groups that claim the “authority” to kill those who disagree with them, but that does not make those groups right.