Disrespect of the Holy Mother

[ralphinal]

rod of iron:

The office of bishop is a pastoral office. The office of apostle is an evangelical office. How can a pastoral office be substituted for an evangelical office and still be the same office? It can’t. Since Peter was an apostle, he couldn’t have been a bishop also. A pastoral office is one that stays in one place, while an evangelical office is one that travels and is missionary. If the Catholic church is the successor of the Apostles, apparently the church quickly filtered the office of apostle out of the church. If so, it would no longer be the true church.

An Apostle was a man chosen by Christ who was a witness to the Resurection. The Bishops are the successor of the Apostles. IF a man was a witness to the Resurection but had not been called by Christ, then he is a disciple.

I would like to see it. It’s funny. If Peter was the bishop of Rome, it is strange that Paul doesn’t mention Peter in his salutations in his Letter to the Romans. In fact, Peter is never mentioned in Romans. How could Paul be so oblivious to not salute Peter or even mention him in his letter if Peter was the bishop of Rome?

If I was a member of the French underground during German occupation, and I was in the same place or contacting the place where the head of the resistance was, I would not acknowledge him either. You would have Paul enlist all of the Power of Rome to enact Peter’s death warrent before he could fulfill his mission.

You’re accusing us of trying to get out of honest homework? Not so. A person expects that when someone claims something that that someone will provide the evidence to support that claim. When I make a claim, I do not expect you to do research for me to support my claim. Why do you expect it of me? It is not your job to prove my claims, and it certainly is not my job to prove your claims. Why would I care if your claims are ever proven?

If you did not care, you would not challenge

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

An Apostle was a man chosen by Christ who was a witness to the Resurection. The Bishops are the successor of the Apostles. IF a man was a witness to the Resurection but had not been called by Christ, then he is a disciple.

You have not proven that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles. “Apostle” means: “a messenger” or “he that is sent”. Apostles are traveling ministers who preach the gospel and build up churches. A bishop is a “superintendent” or “overseer” who does not travel. The two office are not synonymous with each other. I can see where the Catholic church has the office of bishop, but it lacks the office of apostle. I don’t believe that the office of apostle can be found in the Catholic church, unless you can inform me of a priesthood office in the church which has the primary duty of going forth, preaching the gospel, and making disciples for Christ. Can you show me a priesthood office in the Catholic church whose primacy function is that of a traveling minister?

ralphinal:

If I was a member of the French underground during German occupation, and I was in the same place or contacting the place where the head of the resistance was, I would not acknowledge him either. You would have Paul enlist all of the Power of Rome to enact Peter’s death warrent before he could fulfill his mission.

Are you trying to portray Peter as a spy? Are you trying to tell me that he was involved in a covert operation? Where do you get such an idea???

ralphinal:

If you did not care, you would not challenge

I care about the truth, not about proving someone else’s interpretation of scripture. If the other person cannot prove his or her interpretation, I am not obliged to do it for them.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Emmaus:

Trutseeker,

#2 on Peter

A scriptural antecedent or Old Testament type of the kind of commission Jesus gives to Peter in Matt: 16:18-19 can be found in Isaiah 22:15-25. It is the description of the delegation of authority to the chief steward or minister of the king. The steward is given the key of the House of David It is an office with succession. The authority over the House of David is transferred from one servant to a new servant and his line. Much as the stewards of temple worship in Jerusalem were cut off and Jesus the Son of David passes the authority of His house to Peter. You see there also the transfer of authority to bind and loose even as given to Peter in Matthew.

What examples do we have in scripture of Peter exercising this authority? They are found in

Acts 1:15 Peter leads the other apostles in the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas in his office.
Acts 2:14 Peter is first to proclaim the Gospel at Pentecost.
Acts 3:1-12 The first public miracle is worked through Peter.
Acts 4:8-12 Peter professes the faith before the Sanhedrin.
Acts 5:1-5 Peter exercises Church discipline on Ananias and Sapphira dramatically and
Acts 5:3-10 speaks with amazing and frightening authority.
Acts 5:15 The faith of the people in Peter’s authority is demonstrated by their actions.
Acts 8:14-15 Peter goes to Samaria to lay on hands so the Holy Spirit would come.
Acts 8:20-24 Peter speaks for the Apostles rebuking Simon Magus.
Acts 10:1-48 Peter baptizes the first Gentiles into the Church.
Acts 11:18 Peter’s authority in baptizing Gentiles is accepted after he explains actions.
His decision was binding on the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentiles
and loosing for the Gentiles, loosing them from any obligation to be circumcised.
Acts 15:1-35 At the Council of Jerusalem after much debate on the matter of the Gentiles
Peter again states his position on the question. The assembly falls silent,
Paul and Barnabas speak, and James accepts and supports Peter’s doctrinal
Declaration. James then addresses the issues of minimum disciplines the Gentiles must
practice now that they are accepted without having to be circumcised.

Emmaus, if Peter was the leader of the church, why is he not mentioned again in the book of Acts after chapter 15? You attempt to prove that Peter is the leader of the church by showing how often he is mentioned in the New Testament. But I still ask you, why is Peter not mentioned after chapter 15? Had he died? If he had, Acts should have mentioned who succeeded him. But the Bible is silent on this. How frequently a person was mentioned in the New Testament does not prove that he was the leader of the church. Rather, it proves that he had a big mouth. He was an extrovert.

 

[jimmy]

rod of iron:

You have not proven that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles. “Apostle” means: “a messenger” or “he that is sent”. Apostles are traveling ministers who preach the gospel and build up churches. A bishop is a “superintendent” or “overseer” who does not travel. The two office are not synonymous with each other. I can see where the Catholic church has the office of bishop, but it lacks the office of apostle. I don’t believe that the office of apostle can be found in the Catholic church, unless you can inform me of a priesthood office in the church which has the primary duty of going forth, preaching the gospel, and making disciples for Christ. Can you show me a priesthood office in the Catholic church whose primacy function is that of a traveling minister?

Are you trying to portray Peter as a spy? Are you trying to tell me that he was involved in a covert operation? Where do you get such an idea???

If you did not care, you would not challenge

I care about the truth, not about proving someone else’s interpretation of scripture. If the other person cannot prove his or her interpretation, I am not obliged to do it for them.

It does not matter what the word apostle and the word bishop mean those are irrelevant. They had to be called something. Where do you get your definition of an apostle becaue yours is not in the bible? Why would the catholic church need travelling preachers when they have preachers at every parish that preaches about God and Jesus. You can’t replace the apostles. Have you noticed in Acts when they selected Mathias as the succesor of Judas that they chose someone that was with Jesus since the beginning of his ministry. That is why they chose Joseph and Mathias to cast the lots between. Therefore there can’t be an office of apostle.

We are not trying to portray him as a spy but the church was under great persecution at that time. Peter was the leader of the entire church. If Paul would have mentioned Peter in his epistle to the Romans then they would have known that he was in Rome. That would have been a very bad thing for him to do.

You should care if our claims are proven because that would prove your claims wrong. If you truely care about truth you will search for it even if it leads you away from your own church.

 

[Emmaus]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Truthseeker,

#4

Letter of Clement to the Corinthians
circa 96 A.D

0:1 The Church of God which sojourneth at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourneth at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you from Almighty God through Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER 1
1:1 On account of the sudden and repeated calamities and mischances, brethren, that have come upon us, we suppose that we have the more slowly given heed to the things that are disputed among you, beloved, and to the foul and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a degree of madness, that your venerable and famous name, worthy to be loved of all men, is greatly blasphemed.
…
5:1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.
5:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.
5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.
5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:
5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;
5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.

42:1 The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
42:2 Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God.
42:3 They, therefore, having received the promises, having been fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having been confirmed by the word of God, with the full persuasion of the Holy Spirit, went forth preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand.
42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
43:1 And wherein is it wonderful, if they who, in Christ, were entrusted by God with this work appointed the aforesaid officers?
43:1 And wherein is it wonderful, if they who, in Christ, were entrusted by God with this work appointed the aforesaid officers?

…

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Greek/clement.html

 

[Emmaus]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Truthseeker,

#5

Irenaeus of Lyon - Against All Heresies, circa 180 A.D.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
   ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#TopOfPage

How much historical reality do you need? Got tonnage if it takes it.

 

[Pax]

rod of iron:

You claim that my response was weak. But your scriptural connections were very weak. You tried to make a connection between verses based on their having a certain phrase in them. Therefore, when anyone uses those phrases in writing, your logic would also compel us to make a logical connection between that writing and the verse in the Bible. You still have to show more than that for me to believe there is a logical connection between the verses you were comparing.

I repeat…your response was weak and so is this one. Please take the verses in question to a mathematician and have him give you the mathematical probabilities that these are just random and not connected. The fact that these verses are clustered in these two chapters of scripture and are so similar defies statistical chance.

Your other post in response to me is an expression of disagreement and not a refutation. You can refuse to agree and I respect that.

 

[Pax]

rod of iron:

The office of bishop is a pastoral office. The office of apostle is an evangelical office. How can a pastoral office be substituted for an evangelical office and still be the same office? It can’t. Since Peter was an apostle, he couldn’t have been a bishop also. A pastoral office is one that stays in one place, while an evangelical office is one that travels and is missionary. If the Catholic church is the successor of the Apostles, apparently the church quickly filtered the office of apostle out of the church. If so, it would no longer be the true church.

I would like to see it. It’s funny. If Peter was the bishop of Rome, it is strange that Paul doesn’t mention Peter in his salutations in his Letter to the Romans. In fact, Peter is never mentioned in Romans. How could Paul be so oblivious to not salute Peter or even mention him in his letter if Peter was the bishop of Rome?

You’re accusing us of trying to get out of honest homework? Not so. A person expects that when someone claims something that that someone will provide the evidence to support that claim. When I make a claim, I do not expect you to do research for me to support my claim. Why do you expect it of me? It is not your job to prove my claims, and it certainly is not my job to prove your claims. Why would I care if your claims are ever proven?

You will have to render biblical proof that Peter could not be both pastoral and evangelical in his office. This is a ridiculous suggestion on your part.

There is no reason for Paul to say that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. This requirement is of your making. Try reading the Acts of the Apostles and check out where Paul goes to Jerusalem to verify with Peter and James that his own teachings were approved. Paul then tells us that he received the handshake of fellowship. If you question the primacy of Peter then you do not know your scriptures. You can check out some other threads on these boards to read all of the data on the primacy of Peter.

My objection concerning “honest homework” pertains to your claims about catholic teaching and belief. When our teachings are misrepresented and history is misrepresented, I think it is time to ask the other side to check their beliefs against what our church really says and not on what they have been erroneously told by anti-catholic sources.

I will not tell you that “you believe such and so” unless I know what the teaching is. If you deny that my description of your belief is correct then I will readily accept the correction. I will not insist on putting words in another persons mouth or in the mouth of their church.

 

[MariaG]

Okay, for the sake of argument, if the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established, where is His Church? For over 1000 years, if you were a Christian, I can show you through history, you belonged to the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established, where is His historical body of believers for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

 

[rod_of_iron]

jimmy:

It does not matter what the word apostle and the word bishop mean those are irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Words have meanings for a reason. There must be established and accepted meanings for words, or a person cannot use them in a discussion or argument. Whether or not you think that the meanings of those two words are relevant, the meanings still exist. I can use them to prove my point.

They had to be called something.

So, why would God pick these words for these offices over all the other words He could have used? They were chosen because of what they meant and how they most accurately represented the meanings that were intended. I don’t know how declaring that the names for these priesthood offices are irrelevant helps your case.

Where do you get your definition of an apostle becaue yours is not in the bible?

From Strong’s Greek Biblical Dictionary.

jimmy:

Why would the catholic church need travelling preachers when they have preachers at every parish that preaches about God and Jesus.

Apostles are not for areas that have churches built up. They are for building up churches in areas where no church exists. Your point may be valid in the time we live in now, but in the early centuries of Christianity, Catholic churches were not as numerous or widespread as they are now. The church would have need for a traveling, missionary ministry. Are you claiming that Catholic churches can be found in every nation on the planet today? If not, there is definitely a need for a traveling, missionary ministry today.

jimmy:

You can’t replace the apostles. Have you noticed in Acts when they selected Mathias as the succesor of Judas that they chose someone that was with Jesus since the beginning of his ministry. That is why they chose Joseph and Mathias to cast the lots between. Therefore there can’t be an office of apostle.

If this is true, Paul could not have been an apostle, because he was not with Jesus from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The Bible never claims that Paul ever was in the presence of Jesus before Jesus ascended to heaven.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Pax:

I repeat…your response was weak and so is this one. Please take the verses in question to a mathematician and have him give you the mathematical probabilities that these are just random and not connected. The fact that these verses are clustered in these two chapters of scripture and are so similar defies statistical chance.

You claim that my response is weak, but I find this funny, since I responded to show how weak your argument about these alleged parallels is. Instead of responding to my point, you simply discredit my response. How about asking a mathematician about the probability that a particular phrase could be used several times in a book the size of the Bible? I found it rather interesting to find that “the house” occurs in 1016 verses in the Bible. They must all be connected to prove Mary is what you say she is, huh?

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

Okay, for the sake of argument, if the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established, where is His Church? For over 1000 years, if you were a Christian, I can show you through history, you belonged to the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established, where is His historical body of believers for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

In the wilderness. That is what the book of Revelation tells us.

 

[ralphinal]

From Websters dictionary:

a-pos’tle: n one of the twelve sent by Christ to preach the Gosple; a missionary; any devoted advocate

ap-os-tol’ic: adj. pertaining to an apostle; in accordace with the practice of the apostles; of the line of succession from the Apostles; papal

Now then, you say that an Apostle must go out and preach, yet James the greater stayed in Jerusalem, so I guess he was not an apostle. The Apostles CHOSE someone to replace Judas, so if to be apostolic means to be in accordance with the practice of the Apostles, then the church is apostolic in nature and correct when appointing new replacements. Why would Websters list the last two definitions if the Catholic Church does not have a valid historical claim that she is apostolic? Now, before you claim that Websters is not inspired and inerrant scripture, I submit that you have ignored all scripture that does not line up with your beleifs. That is not how it works. By whose authority have you been sent?

 

[MariaG]

But Christ’s church must be visable, or it would contradict Scripture about not “hiding your light”. Please show me a historical, visible church of Christ, or I must continue to believe that Church is the Catholic Church which can be traced back 2000 years and the Bible gives the promises about.

God Bless

 

[elgom]

It sounds to me like there is a whole lot of confusing terminology being used on this thread. I really don’t see a problem. Let me give you this analogy.

When you get to heaven and let’s picture it as God’s house with a front door. You go up to the door and ring the doorbell. A woman answers the door. It is Jesus mother. Do you venerate her with a kiss and thank her for her yes and tell her as the angel said “Blessed are you among women” or do you push on past her, dis her and run only to her son.

At that point I think he will be so shocked at how you treated his mother and the Father who created her from all time to be so special to carry, nourish and love his son and us…I think you should consider what the real truth here is.

Do you know that the protestant religions have digressed very much from their founding father. Martin Luther honored our Lady and prayed the rosary and wanted all to do so. He believed in her Immaculate Conception.

I can think of no other way in which the devil would be so happy as to hurt Jesus by having congregations of people all over the world protesting and showing disrespect for his mother.

I pray that some of the people on this thread will pray that the Holy Spirit will soften their hearts to love with all tenderness the beautiful mother that God has given all of us.

 

[MariaG]

Blessed Mother Mary, My Mother, lead us to your son!

Mary is just the ultimate mom. Doesn’t every mother you know almost bore you to death with stories of how great their kid is? (I actually love the stories, but you get the idea) Honor of Mary can only bring a person closer to her child, Christ. That is what most all mothers do, point to their kid and tell you how great they are.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Pax:

You will have to render biblical proof that Peter could not be both pastoral and evangelical in his office. This is a ridiculous suggestion on your part.

Your suggestion that Peter was both a traveling minister and a stationary minister is ridiculous. A person cannot be on the move and in one place at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive. Apostles are sent to where churches do not exist. A church did exist in Rome, and thus required a pastoral minister to lead it. If Peter had become a pastoral minister, who succeeded him as an evangelical minister? If Peter was now stationary, who replaced him as one of the 12 traveling ministers? Can you tell me?

Pax:

There is no reason for Paul to say that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

If Peter was in Rome at the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, it would be extremely rude for him not salute or even acknowledge Peter as the head of the church in Rome. But Peter is not mentioned at all in Romans, which makes it very doubtful that Peter was living there at that time.

Pax:

Try reading the Acts of the Apostles and check out where Paul goes to Jerusalem to verify with Peter and James that his own teachings were approved.

Well, lookee here. Paul had to go to Jerusalem, not Rome, to meet with Peter. Acts shows that Peter was in Jerusalem. Where in the Bible does it show that Peter ever visited Rome? The only mention of Peter being somewhere else is in Galatians where Paul mentions Peter coming to Antioch. In Peter’s first epistle, he addressed a few regions, all in Asia Minor. This shows that Peter was a traveling minister. An apostle travels and builds up new churches. Can you show me where Peter ever wrote a letter to the Romans, like Paul did?

Pax:

If you question the primacy of Peter then you do not know your scriptures. You can check out some other threads on these boards to read all of the data on the primacy of Peter.

I accept the primacy of James. Peter spoke a lot, but James made the decisions. This can be seen in Acts 15. At the council in Jerusalem, Peter spoke, and then James answered.

 

[davidv]

rod of iron:

Oh, I see. The Catholic church can have their own special version of the Bible. But yet other churches have their own Bibles, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they are condemned for it. Since no other Bible says that Mary is “full of grace”, why should we rely on just one version published by the church that believes that very thing?

Yes, we have a special version of the Bible. It is the original. BTW, a foot note in the NRV CE, offers an alternate reading for “full of grace”. It is “O favored one”, which matches the translation of many other bibles, including RSV, NASB, NET, NKJV and NRSV. The meaning is therefore the same. We should rely on it because it is the Word of God who has given use teachers, the bishops (including the Pope), to help us understand what it means.

 

[Pax]

rod of iron:

You claim that my response is weak, but I find this funny, since I responded to show how weak your argument about these alleged parallels is. Instead of responding to my point, you simply discredit my response. How about asking a mathematician about the probability that a particular phrase could be used several times in a book the size of the Bible? I found it rather interesting to find that “the house” occurs in 1016 verses in the Bible. They must all be connected to prove Mary is what you say she is, huh?

If you think what you’ve just said is in anyway indicative of what I’m getting at by statistical probability then you are not only lacking in knowledge of Catholic teaching but you are weak in mathematics. I’m no math whiz, but the way the passages are constructed concerning the Ark in 2 Sam 6 and the passages in Luke chapter 1 it is quite clear that they are connected. You are the only person I have ever met that I have discussed this with that cannot connect the dots. It is as plain as day. If you do not like the fact that these typologies exist then your argument is with scripture and not me. Paul uses typology when he connects Adam and Jesus. Should anyone, therefore, use the same kind of reasoning you have used to dismiss the connection Paul makes? Paul is an apostle and an inspired writer and we obviously wouldn’t doubt him, but your logic would disqualifiy Paul’s connection and all of the other wonderful typologies in scripture. There is no reason for you to argue the scriptural connections. They are there and it is plain to see. If you don’t care for the conclusions the Church draws from the connections, then that is another point of discussion, but for you to suggest that they are not connected is off the mark.

 

[rod_of_iron]

elgom:

When you get to heaven and let’s picture it as God’s house with a front door. You go up to the door and ring the doorbell. A woman answers the door. It is Jesus mother. Do you venerate her with a kiss and thank her for her yes and tell her as the angel said “Blessed are you among women” or do you push on past her, dis her and run only to her son.

Where do you get the idea that Mary is going to be waiting at the gate to heaven? I’ve always heard that Peter was at the gate.

elgom:

At that point I think he will be so shocked at how you treated his mother and the Father who created her from all time to be so special to carry, nourish and love his son and us…I think you should consider what the real truth here is.

So, are you saying that our salvation depends upon how we treat Mary? Forget about faith, repentance, and baptism? Just treat His mother with respect? That’s quite an alternate gospel you seem to be teaching. Paul warned the Galatians about the dangers of teaching a different gospel than the one Jesus taught.

elgom:

Do you know that the protestant religions have digressed very much from their founding father. Martin Luther honored our Lady and prayed the rosary and wanted all to do so. He believed in her Immaculate Conception.

Luther objected to the granting of indulgences. That’s why he challenged the church. He was taught by the Catholic church; no wonder he still prayed the rosary and believed the other unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic church. But the more the Protestants separated themselves from the Catholic church, the more they came out from under the misconceptions of the Catholic church.

elgom:

I can think of no other way in which the devil would be so happy as to hurt Jesus by having congregations of people all over the world protesting and showing disrespect for his mother.

I can think of a better way. If the devil can get you to focus on Mary, rather than your focusing entirely on Christ, the devil will be overjoyed.

elgom:

I pray that some of the people on this thread will pray that the Holy Spirit will soften their hearts to love with all tenderness the beautiful mother that God has given all of us.

I pray that the Catholic church will focus entirely upon Christ, rather than looking upon Mary first.