D
davidv
Guest
rod of iron:
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
rod of iron:
I’ve already supplied the verse that shows that Peter was in Rome. Go back and read my earlier posts. Both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and Peter’s bones are in Rome. Now you may not like those facts either but they are true.
Paul went to Jerusalem because that is where Peter happened to be at the time. That does not mean that Peter never went to Rome. And why would Peter have to write a letter to the Roman? If he were in Rome he would be preaching and wouldn’t need to write a letter to the Romans. Moreover, we don’t even know that he didn’t write a letter to the Romans. We simply don’t have a copy if he did. Even Paul speaks of a letter that he wrote that was lost. Please note that we have to letters that Paul wrote to the Corintians, but in 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul says, " I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;" We do not have a copy of the letter to which he refers.
We do not know the timing of Paul’s letter to the Romans vs. when Peter was in Rome and there is no reason to believe that Paul was being rude even if Peter was there. If Peter, as you pointed out, traveled to Antioch then he traveled to many other places between there and Jerusalem and perhaps surrounding Antioch, yet Paul doesn’t make a point of giving him an acknowledgment in all his letters. He doesn’t do that for James, John, and the other apostles either. There is no necessity for Paul to do so and you are merely speculating to suggest that Paul would have been somehow disrespectful to Peter because he didn’t mention Peter in his epistle to the Romans.
I respect you effort but I really think these kinds of arguments are futile because they are your speculations. You place your speculations on the same level, or perhaps a higher one, than that of the testimony of the ancient Church.
Your understanding of James having primacy in the book of Acts is erroneous. Peter made the declaration concerning circumcision and at the end of the coucil James, the bishop of Jerusalem affirms Peter and makes a further statement concerning the care of widows and orphans. i could go on but I’m out of time. I appreciate the exchange.
Where does it say in scripture that someone who is a bishop of a local church is not also an evangelist? Where in scripture does it say that an evangelist is always traveling? Does the current Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome, travel and evangelize? Just answer the questions honestly and you will see that Peter is both pastor and evangelist and that your argument does not support your contention.
I’ve already supplied the verse that shows that Peter was in Rome. Go back and read my earlier posts. Both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and Peter’s bones are in Rome. Now you may not like those facts either but they are true.
Paul went to Jerusalem because that is where Peter happened to be at the time. That does not mean that Peter never went to Rome. And why would Peter have to write a letter to the Roman? If he were in Rome he would be preaching and wouldn’t need to write a letter to the Romans. Moreover, we don’t even know that he didn’t write a letter to the Romans. We simply don’t have a copy if he did. Even Paul speaks of a letter that he wrote that was lost. Please note that we have to letters that Paul wrote to the Corintians, but in 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul says, " I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;" We do not have a copy of the letter to which he refers.
We do not know the timing of Paul’s letter to the Romans vs. when Peter was in Rome and there is no reason to believe that Paul was being rude even if Peter was there. If Peter, as you pointed out, traveled to Antioch then he traveled to many other places between there and Jerusalem and perhaps surrounding Antioch, yet Paul doesn’t make a point of giving him an acknowledgment in all his letters. He doesn’t do that for James, John, and the other apostles either. There is no necessity for Paul to do so and you are merely speculating to suggest that Paul would have been somehow disrespectful to Peter because he didn’t mention Peter in his epistle to the Romans.
I respect you effort but I really think these kinds of arguments are futile because they are your speculations. You place your speculations on the same level, or perhaps a higher one, than that of the testimony of the ancient Church.
Your understanding of James having primacy in the book of Acts is erroneous. Peter made the declaration concerning circumcision and at the end of the coucil James, the bishop of Jerusalem affirms Peter and makes a further statement concerning the care of widows and orphans. i could go on but I’m out of time. I appreciate the exchange.
D
davidv
Guest
rod of iron:
Yes, our salvation depends on how we treat Mary and any other of our neighbors. Jesus commands us to love others as He loved us, Jn 13:34. If we mistreat Mary, then we disobey God and put our salvation in jeopardy.
J
jimmy
Guest
rod of iron:
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.
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.
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.
If your seriously worried about the word bishop then read Clement. Someone on this post mentioned it earlier. It mentions bishops. It is irrelevent though.
There are people that go to the countries of the world where the Catholic religion is not as large so that they can teach people. How do you think the Catholic church is in China and in Africa as it is?
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.
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.
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.
If your seriously worried about the word bishop then read Clement. Someone on this post mentioned it earlier. It mentions bishops. It is irrelevent though.
There are people that go to the countries of the world where the Catholic religion is not as large so that they can teach people. How do you think the Catholic church is in China and in Africa as it is?
J
jimmy
Guest
Rod of Iron
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?
There is nowhere that says the Pope has to be a stationary minister. Look at John Paul II. He is definitely not stationary. He Has travelled hundreds of thousands of miles while hes been Pope, all with the point to preach.
***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.
It may be rude for him not to salute Peter when writting in Romans but it would be extremely evil for him to write and salute Peter fully knowing that by doing this he is putting Peter in danger of death.
***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.
Yes it does depend on how we treat Mary. You must treat everyone with love, which is just as important as faith and baptism. He who has no love has no knowledge of God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8
If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who doesn’t love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? **1 John 4:20 **
It sounds like you are preaching a new gospel, one without love.
***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.
The protestants strayed so far from the truth when they left the Catholic church. They all consider themselves there own pope.
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?
There is nowhere that says the Pope has to be a stationary minister. Look at John Paul II. He is definitely not stationary. He Has travelled hundreds of thousands of miles while hes been Pope, all with the point to preach.
***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.
It may be rude for him not to salute Peter when writting in Romans but it would be extremely evil for him to write and salute Peter fully knowing that by doing this he is putting Peter in danger of death.
***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.
Yes it does depend on how we treat Mary. You must treat everyone with love, which is just as important as faith and baptism. He who has no love has no knowledge of God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8
If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who doesn’t love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? **1 John 4:20 **
It sounds like you are preaching a new gospel, one without love.
***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.
The protestants strayed so far from the truth when they left the Catholic church. They all consider themselves there own pope.
J
jimmy
Guest
***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.
The devil would be glad if we worshipped Mary, but since we don’t worship her then that does not matter. He is also glad when he can make people think that t can be equal to God by becoming gods themselves.
I pray that the Catholic church will focus entirely upon Christ, rather than looking upon Mary first.
Thankyou for the prayers but we already focus entirely on Christ. We pray to Mary to become closer to Christ. As I said earlier when we pr to Mary we focus on the Mysteries of Christ and the resurection.
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?
I would be willing to bet you that John Paul II covered more of the world than Peter ever did to preach the gospel. Maybe there was no reason for Peter to write to the Romans.
The devil would be glad if we worshipped Mary, but since we don’t worship her then that does not matter. He is also glad when he can make people think that t can be equal to God by becoming gods themselves.
I pray that the Catholic church will focus entirely upon Christ, rather than looking upon Mary first.
Thankyou for the prayers but we already focus entirely on Christ. We pray to Mary to become closer to Christ. As I said earlier when we pr to Mary we focus on the Mysteries of Christ and the resurection.
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?
I would be willing to bet you that John Paul II covered more of the world than Peter ever did to preach the gospel. Maybe there was no reason for Peter to write to the Romans.
P
Panis_Angelicas
Guest
rod of iron:
When today’s Bishop of Rome visits another place, say the United States, for example, do not all the other bishops come and greet him?
If Peter visited Jerusalem, would not the neighboring bishops also come to greet him, if possible? I think sooooooooo!
Oh, how did we get doing this again???
This thread is supposed to be about disrespect being shown to Christ’s Mother!
Rod, if you want to go on a different tangent, then please start a new thread, ok?
Pax Christi. <><
Tell that to Pope John Paul II, Bishop of Rome!
So, Peter never went anywhere without it being recorded in the Bible? Which makes the Bible, not the Word of God, but rather, St. Peter’s travel itinerary?
When today’s Bishop of Rome visits another place, say the United States, for example, do not all the other bishops come and greet him?
If Peter visited Jerusalem, would not the neighboring bishops also come to greet him, if possible? I think sooooooooo!
Why would a pastor need to write to his flock? He could preach to them, instead!
Unfortunately, you and Jesus differ on this point. Jesus founded His Church upon Peter. Perhaps that’s why Peter is almost always listed first in the Bible, to show his primacy, and Judas is always listed last.
Oh, how did we get doing this again???
This thread is supposed to be about disrespect being shown to Christ’s Mother!
Rod, if you want to go on a different tangent, then please start a new thread, ok?
Pax Christi. <><
J
jimmy
Guest
Its not only that he is always listed first. If you look in Acts it is clear that he is looked upon as there leader. Like when the apostles are walking through the town it is Peters shadow that they want to pass over the sick. It is always Peter who gets up and speaks. Peter is theone who speaks when they choose a successor to Judas. Peter is the one who speaks when they are taken before the sanhedrin. It is Peter that speaks on pentacost. The rest of the apostles are rarely even mentioned.
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
rod of iron:
So, where is the scripture THAT IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY even suggests that this was a false prophecy? Blessed does not mean divine, so don’t try to say she might have been refering to herself in a idolotrous way. The scricpture is there, put in by Luke, the gospel of Luke included in the canon of scripture. It says what it says and is not contradicted by any other scripture. We call her blessed, you do not, which of us is more closely following scripture?
Additionaly, the kione greek translated “full of grace” or “highly favored” is an adjective in “perfect” form. Meaning, Gabriel is refering to an action **ALREADY DONE IN THE PAST AT SOME POINT. **In other words, Mary, by God’s desire, was already in God’s grace before the historical act of the redemption which occured some 33 years later. It is this understanding of language and context that the Church partly bases the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Rod, in another post you suggested that Blessed Mary may have been doing a false prophecy ( I couldn’t find the particular post, but this one does nicely)
So, where is the scripture THAT IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY even suggests that this was a false prophecy? Blessed does not mean divine, so don’t try to say she might have been refering to herself in a idolotrous way. The scricpture is there, put in by Luke, the gospel of Luke included in the canon of scripture. It says what it says and is not contradicted by any other scripture. We call her blessed, you do not, which of us is more closely following scripture?
Additionaly, the kione greek translated “full of grace” or “highly favored” is an adjective in “perfect” form. Meaning, Gabriel is refering to an action **ALREADY DONE IN THE PAST AT SOME POINT. **In other words, Mary, by God’s desire, was already in God’s grace before the historical act of the redemption which occured some 33 years later. It is this understanding of language and context that the Church partly bases the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
1
1962Missal
Guest
rod of iron:
Justin
Relevance? Romans was written ca. A.D. 57. Peter was martyred in Rome ca. A.D. 64. It does not follow that Peter had been in Rome that entire time. Nor is it necessary for Peter to have actually been the founder of the church in Rome for him to have left the successor to his office as head of the Church Universal as Bishop of Rome.
So the people who lived in geographical and historical proximity (the Mediterranean in the first three centuries A.D.) can offer no historical testimony? Remember, we accept tons and tons of secular history without Biblical documentation. Why should St. Peter’s martyrdom at Rome be denied when the uninspired record of the fact is at least as good as that which we have for much reliable secular history? What is it about the martyrdom of St. Peter that makes its documentation in the God-breathed Scriptures necessary for its truth to be known? We know that the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. without the testimony of Scripture to confirm it. Do you doubt that, too?
Justin
C
chimakuni
Guest
“I pray that the Catholic church will focus entirely upon Christ, rather than looking upon Mary first.” quote rod of iron
rod of iron - how little you know of the Catholic Church!
The Catholic Church is the ONLY church that was founded by Christ - He is still in the Church in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our worship. Our focus is on Christ. We honor His Mother, Blessed Virgin Mary, as He did. We are called to be Christlike, are we not?
Have you ever attended a Mass? If you have not, I challenge you to. If you have, please tell me where and when in the liturgy that we do not put Christ first.
God Bless you - my joy, rod of iron!
rod of iron - how little you know of the Catholic Church!
The Catholic Church is the ONLY church that was founded by Christ - He is still in the Church in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our worship. Our focus is on Christ. We honor His Mother, Blessed Virgin Mary, as He did. We are called to be Christlike, are we not?
Have you ever attended a Mass? If you have not, I challenge you to. If you have, please tell me where and when in the liturgy that we do not put Christ first.
God Bless you - my joy, rod of iron!
J
Jennifer123
Guest
rod of iron:
How do you think the Church can be found on every continent?
J
Jennifer123
Guest
rod of iron:
Where is that in the Bible?
T
thomist
Guest
For those who disagree with the Catholic non-negotiables (= ‘dogmas’) about the Blessed virgin Mary, there is NO scripture that will convince them. Save bytes, don’t bother. Rather, start with the fact of the Church: FIRST there is a church, THEN - over a 20-70 year period - the New Testament is written. The ONLY writings from that period that are canonical were those approved as such BY THE CHURCH!! As the ending of St. John’s rendition of the Good News says, if everything Chrict revealed were written down in detail, “I don’t suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written” (Jn 21:25).
Thus, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is the Authority of the Church. If the God’s vision of the Catholic Church is accepted, then so are ALL her non-negotiables. Nowhere in all of Protestantdom is there ANY serious consideration of this issue - because when a person studies it prayerfully, s/he winds up becoming Catholic.
As for Jesus’ blessed Mom (and - by adoption - OURS!), the best explanation of the Church’s dogmas about her is in the magisterial works of John Paul II. His writings are scripturally sound, historically accurate and give a wonderful explanation of our beliefs about her. If protestants don’t read these, ‘yo well’. But remaining ignorant of the facts doesn’t win any argument. Reading the pope’s reflections on Mary will at least give an accurate, and very clear, exposition of our faith about her.
Thus, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is the Authority of the Church. If the God’s vision of the Catholic Church is accepted, then so are ALL her non-negotiables. Nowhere in all of Protestantdom is there ANY serious consideration of this issue - because when a person studies it prayerfully, s/he winds up becoming Catholic.
As for Jesus’ blessed Mom (and - by adoption - OURS!), the best explanation of the Church’s dogmas about her is in the magisterial works of John Paul II. His writings are scripturally sound, historically accurate and give a wonderful explanation of our beliefs about her. If protestants don’t read these, ‘yo well’. But remaining ignorant of the facts doesn’t win any argument. Reading the pope’s reflections on Mary will at least give an accurate, and very clear, exposition of our faith about her.
K
kevinfraser
Guest
Jesus promised he would VOMIT from his mouth the lukewarm. You got me a little hot, “Anglo-catholic,” whatever THAT contradiction in terms of a disguise is supposed to mean–lowercase ‘c’ or not.
The blessed Virgin Mary scoured the gutters of the earth to find me, took me by the hand and led me to her Son Jesus, the LAMB OF GOD. By suggesting to others that she is ANYTHING less than the one and only most perfect and sinless human mother of the one and only most perfect and sinless human and DIVINE Son of God, then my brother in Christ, you have stepped into a trap laid for you by “the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.”
TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONING GOD’S WISDOM IN CHOOSING MARY AS THE HEAVENLY BRIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
You question God’s Holy judgement, (or maybe you only meant to question His taste) as to who was the best human mother He ever created and reserved from before time exclusively for His only Begotten Son. You deny that God made Blessed Mary His Human-only Masterpiece, The New Eve, the antidote to the fall, infinitely second only in every perfection given to her by God and preserved by her so she could become the living and formative temple of Our Human and Divine Lord Jesus Christ, The New Adam, The Alpha and the Omega. You are suggesting God got it wrong, and so His Mother deserves no dulia from us! Is that really what you meant to do?
If you deny that God’s trust for Blessed Mary is so great He has seen fit in His infinte wisdom to make her the dispenser of all His Graces, to dispense them as she sees fit, don’t believe me, you truly should ask Him. Emphasis on TRULY. But first, a word FOR one of our sponsors:
Mother Mary, please make my prayer perfect and pleasing to our Lord Jesus, to draw “Anglo-catholic” into your loving care as you drew me. I consecrate “Anglo-catholic” to the perfect Immaculate Heart given you by God and preserved by the perfect choices of your entire Holy life to avoid all sin for the sake of and only by the infinite merits of Jesus Our Lord and Saviour. Please pray with me, now:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
AMEN.
Heavenly Father, Jesus My Lord, Holy Paraclete, be with me as I seek your truth. Please, Lord, I call upon you to protect me from my own sinfulness and foolishness. Please keep me from falling into any error or misunderstanding. If You did not make Your Holy Mother Blessed Mary the most exalted and lovable of all your merely human creatures, then do not suffer me to love and honor her perfectly, as Jesus did, so to follow the commandments perfectly. If Jesus did all things perfectly as he told us from the Cross, then show me how rebuking a mother is perfect. God, is dishonoring Jesus’ Mother in this way Your Will? Lord, if you rebuked her request in the Wedding at Cana, then why was your Holy Will her request in the next moment? If she was just a sinner like me, then how shall I imitate how you honored her? Did you, in your infinite and perfect wisdom prevent her from falling into the pit of sin by a special miracle of your Divine Will, that Catholics call ‘Immaculate Conception’? God, did Truth contradict Truth to stain your only Son Jesus with the sin of Adam? If it is Your Eternal and Unchanging Truth, that you in your infinite and perfect wisdom chose to defile your Son Jesus by trapping his Most Holy and Perfect Eternal reality in the womb of a sinful woman for nine months, if you willed that the Messiah would be the offspring of God the Holy Spirit and a mere sinful human woman who was nothing special, if His Truth was in made in any fraction from Satan’s lies, and not purely and only from your Love of Him and of us through the willing motherly acceptance of the only truly sinless virgin you ever created, then Lord please help my unbelief.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
AMEN.
The blessed Virgin Mary scoured the gutters of the earth to find me, took me by the hand and led me to her Son Jesus, the LAMB OF GOD. By suggesting to others that she is ANYTHING less than the one and only most perfect and sinless human mother of the one and only most perfect and sinless human and DIVINE Son of God, then my brother in Christ, you have stepped into a trap laid for you by “the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.”
TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONING GOD’S WISDOM IN CHOOSING MARY AS THE HEAVENLY BRIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
You question God’s Holy judgement, (or maybe you only meant to question His taste) as to who was the best human mother He ever created and reserved from before time exclusively for His only Begotten Son. You deny that God made Blessed Mary His Human-only Masterpiece, The New Eve, the antidote to the fall, infinitely second only in every perfection given to her by God and preserved by her so she could become the living and formative temple of Our Human and Divine Lord Jesus Christ, The New Adam, The Alpha and the Omega. You are suggesting God got it wrong, and so His Mother deserves no dulia from us! Is that really what you meant to do?
If you deny that God’s trust for Blessed Mary is so great He has seen fit in His infinte wisdom to make her the dispenser of all His Graces, to dispense them as she sees fit, don’t believe me, you truly should ask Him. Emphasis on TRULY. But first, a word FOR one of our sponsors:
Mother Mary, please make my prayer perfect and pleasing to our Lord Jesus, to draw “Anglo-catholic” into your loving care as you drew me. I consecrate “Anglo-catholic” to the perfect Immaculate Heart given you by God and preserved by the perfect choices of your entire Holy life to avoid all sin for the sake of and only by the infinite merits of Jesus Our Lord and Saviour. Please pray with me, now:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
AMEN.
Heavenly Father, Jesus My Lord, Holy Paraclete, be with me as I seek your truth. Please, Lord, I call upon you to protect me from my own sinfulness and foolishness. Please keep me from falling into any error or misunderstanding. If You did not make Your Holy Mother Blessed Mary the most exalted and lovable of all your merely human creatures, then do not suffer me to love and honor her perfectly, as Jesus did, so to follow the commandments perfectly. If Jesus did all things perfectly as he told us from the Cross, then show me how rebuking a mother is perfect. God, is dishonoring Jesus’ Mother in this way Your Will? Lord, if you rebuked her request in the Wedding at Cana, then why was your Holy Will her request in the next moment? If she was just a sinner like me, then how shall I imitate how you honored her? Did you, in your infinite and perfect wisdom prevent her from falling into the pit of sin by a special miracle of your Divine Will, that Catholics call ‘Immaculate Conception’? God, did Truth contradict Truth to stain your only Son Jesus with the sin of Adam? If it is Your Eternal and Unchanging Truth, that you in your infinite and perfect wisdom chose to defile your Son Jesus by trapping his Most Holy and Perfect Eternal reality in the womb of a sinful woman for nine months, if you willed that the Messiah would be the offspring of God the Holy Spirit and a mere sinful human woman who was nothing special, if His Truth was in made in any fraction from Satan’s lies, and not purely and only from your Love of Him and of us through the willing motherly acceptance of the only truly sinless virgin you ever created, then Lord please help my unbelief.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
AMEN.
G
george_eastlake
Guest
TO ROD
Ignatius of Antioch in the early first century refers to the church as Catholic, the first time it’s actually written, and seemingly like it was an already well known title. (William Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers). These books are available at any christian store. The NT WRITERS AND THE EARLY FATHERS OVERLAP, a couple of the fathers were contemporaries of the apostles. Anyway it’s good stuff to read. Sola scriptura is a novel thing. Saints are merely recognized as people who lived holy lives by example.We Catholics never worship saints, just recognize and ask them to help us. Peace and love
Ignatius of Antioch in the early first century refers to the church as Catholic, the first time it’s actually written, and seemingly like it was an already well known title. (William Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers). These books are available at any christian store. The NT WRITERS AND THE EARLY FATHERS OVERLAP, a couple of the fathers were contemporaries of the apostles. Anyway it’s good stuff to read. Sola scriptura is a novel thing. Saints are merely recognized as people who lived holy lives by example.We Catholics never worship saints, just recognize and ask them to help us. Peace and love
J
jimmy
Guest
You can get all the early church fathers writing on the internet if you wish. Here are a couple links.newadvent.org/fathers/
ccel.org/fathers2/
biblefacts.org/ecf/index.htm
The last one has a church history by Eusebius. I’m not sure if the others do.
ccel.org/fathers2/
biblefacts.org/ecf/index.htm
The last one has a church history by Eusebius. I’m not sure if the others do.
K
kpnuts2k
Guest
as a bible reading chirstain i have not found anything about amry being with out sin, a virgin after jeus was born or her rising into heavensorry if this offends any one but i would like to see you answer
thanx
kt
XxX
thanx
kt
XxX
V
Vitus
Guest
It’s in Church tradition. Oral tradition was of utmost important for the Jews, as it was for the early Christian church that was born out of Judaism. It wasn’t until Martin Luther 1400 years later that Tradition was devalued. And knowing just how anti-semetic Luther was, it wasn’t suprising he would try and make that change and distance himself in everyway possible from Judaism.
If you stopped worshipping that Bible of yours and read some church history, this answer would be obvious. Mary’s perpetual virginity was taught from the very beginning. In fact, even those involved in the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) 1400 years later all professed the perpetual virginity of Mary. The claim that she was not is a recent and thoroughly unsupported invention.
Again, Church Tradition. The Catholic church does not practice sola scriptura, so repeating over and over again like a child “but it’s not in the bible” is not a valid arguement. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around. Church history and tradition does not begin and end with the Bible.
Just curious, is English your first language?
H
hlgomez
Guest
Rod of Iron,
Emmaus posted a great example of authentic history regarding the successions of Popes starting from Peter. I recommend you focus yourself on the writings of the early Church Fathers, not just the Bible, to get information on early Christian history. It’s a best source and you will not regret it. God bless!
Pio
Emmaus posted a great example of authentic history regarding the successions of Popes starting from Peter. I recommend you focus yourself on the writings of the early Church Fathers, not just the Bible, to get information on early Christian history. It’s a best source and you will not regret it. God bless!
Pio
- Status