Do we as Catholics worship Mary

[thecoach]

By agreeing with that post, you’ve showed a great amount of ignorance. Anyone can make a straw man with false arguments and knock it down. Are you in any way concerned with bearing false witness…, because you have done so.

please…I dont see you even trying to refute any of it…must be above you

 

[thecoach]

Another of the dangers of do-it-yourself salvation, by interpreting any way you want, instead of how it was intended.

Just as there were false gods being worshiped, there were those who falsely claimed to be the Messiah, there was a false queen of heaven. The false queen of heaven was actually the moon, which they worshiped under that name. God was opposed to all of these.

We know there is a true God, there is a true Messiah, and a true Queen of Heaven. Are you certain that God disapproves of any of these?

Are you then equating the Queen of Heaven with God or the Messiah? You seem to word it as it being an essential of salvation.

 

[MDK]

The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).

Your rendering of the Doctrine of Papal infallibility is incorrect, which is no surprise. Please review this topic before making a post. The Pope is neither perfect, nor impeccable. Infallible is different. Please learn what this means, so perhaps you can post with at least a modicum of accuracy.

 

[rinnie]

Does “your religion” include the Book of Revelation? If it does might I suggest you give a read – check out chap. 20.

Tell me this how do you know what are the inspired Scriptures. The bible dont have an inspired table of contents, Do you believe that the scriptures are the inspired words of Christ?

 

[MDK]

Are you then equating the Queen of Heaven with God or the Messiah? You seem to word it as it being an essential of salvation.

You are quite incorrect. I don’t see how any open minded person would read it that way, only one with some kind of preconceived prejudice. Please reread my post, and if you are willing, please do so honestly. It’s about differentiating the false from the true. I could have also listed that there are false interpretations of Scripture and true interpretations of Scripture. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with that, since false interpretations are what you have promoted.

 

[MDK]

please…I dont see you even trying to refute any of it…must be above you

Before you post ignorantly again, will you please read the posts in which I have refuted some of these falsehoods. There are quite a few errors in the post in which you give your stamp of approval. You don’t seem to be seeking truth in the least, which is no surprise for a non-Denominiational type. It’s much easier for you to just interpret as you wish, instead of interpreting the way the inspired authors intended.

You demonstrate ignorance of the proper teaching of the Sacred Scriptures. Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. If you don’t know Christ, then you don’t know our heavenly family either.

 

[thecoach]

Your rendering of the Doctrine of Papal infallibility is incorrect, which is no surprise. Please review this topic before making a post. The Pope is neither perfect, nor impeccable. Infallible is different. Please learn what this means, so perhaps you can post with at least a modicum of accuracy.

Infallibility does concern with mattes of faith, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. He is not totally off. See,I gave you the fancy latin term, happy now?

 

[thecoach]

You are quite incorrect. I don’t see how any open minded person would read it that way, only one with some kind of preconceived prejudice. Please reread my post, and if you are willing, please do so honestly. It’s about differentiating the false from the true. I could have also listed that there are false interpretations of Scripture and true interpretations of Scripture. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with that, since false interpretations are what you have promoted.

Hardly, but I love debating with big egos such as your own, it makes a bigger splat after the fall.

 

[thecoach]

Before you post ignorantly again, will you please read the posts in which I have refuted some of these falsehoods. There are quite a few errors in the post in which you give your stamp of approval. You don’t seem to be seeking truth in the least, which is no surprise for a non-Denominiational type. It’s much easier for you to just interpret as you wish, instead of interpreting the way the inspired authors intended.

You demonstrate ignorance of the proper teaching of the Sacred Scriptures. Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. If you don’t know Christ, then you don’t know our heavenly family either.

Ok, quite a few errors…I am STILL waiting for you to refute them, or is ad hominem all you think you are good at?

 

[MDK]

Infallibility does concern with mattes of faith, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. He is not totally off. See,I gave you the fancy latin term, happy now?

Once again, you don’t get the proper meaning… but, if you did, then you would be Catholic. It’s not about fancy words, but about the truth. He is off when he says the pope is perfect. This is not true. The Pope even goes to confession. This is the problem with you non-Denominational types, in that you believe you can have a little bit factual and then twist it to your own meanings. Catholics believe in the full truth and seek it.

 

[MDK]

Are you saying here that a catholic must or can go to Mary first who then goes to Jesus in prayer?

Do you ask others to pray for you? If so, you have the capability to understand this. There is nothing that says we have to go to Mary first. There’s nothing that says we have to go to Mary at all. It’s the non-Catholics who distort the true teaching on this, and then try to blame us for what they misunderstand.

 

[thecoach]

Once again, you don’t get the proper meaning… but, if you did, then you would be Catholic. It’s not about fancy words, but about the truth. He is off when he says the pope is perfect. This is not true. The Pope even goes to confession. This is the problem with you non-Denominational types, in that you believe you can have a little bit factual and then twist it to your own meanings. Catholics believe in the full truth and seek it.

Ah, the old leave off the complete quote trick…or are you selectively blind? The quote is “The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).”

So READ in the parenthesis and ANYONE with a whit of sense can see he is referring to papal infallibility. See what happens when you get controlled, you become weak of mind.

 

[MDK]

Ok, quite a few errors…I am STILL waiting for you to refute them, or is ad hominem all you think you are good at?

I think I’ve already done three in a short time. You can’t refute any of them, at least honestly, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you. Part of the error is the foundation on which one believes they can interpret Sacred Scriptures. From this alone, many errors are generated by the person who believes that they can interpret as they wish. It seems to be an endless pool from which errors are generated one after the other, even after the initial conversation has been responded to. Part of the error is also in misquoting the Catholic teachings. You seem to have no problem with this, either.

 

[thecoach]

I think I’ve already done three in a short time. You can’t refute any of them, at least honestly, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you. Part of the error is the foundation on which one believes they can interpret Sacred Scriptures. From this alone, many errors are generated by the person who believes that they can interpret as they wish. It seems to be an endless pool from which errors are generated one after the other, even after the initial conversation has been responded to. Part of the error is also in misquoting the Catholic teachings. You seem to have no problem with this, either.

Three? Are we in the same discussion? You are quite good a rhetoric, that I will give you, I am still waiting for some substance though, like why you misquoted the guy in the first place. And please SPECIFICALLY point out my so-called misquotes, without the rhetoric and fluff.

 

[MDK]

Ah, the old leave off the complete quote trick…or are you selectively blind? The quote is “The bottom line is Marian theology as presented by the RCC is wrought from poor exegesis. Hey, no one is perfect right? Well except God, right? Ahh, herein lies the paradox, in the RCC view no one is perfect unless you’re God or of course the Pope (at least in terms of dogma and doctrine).”

So READ in the parenthesis and ANYONE with a whit of sense can see he is referring to papal infallibility. See what happens when you get controlled, you become weak of mind.

Once again, you don’t see any problem out-and-out lying. My statement wasn’t addressing the entire quote, but the part I did address was done so properly and with focus. It would have been misleading to leave the other part in, because it wasn’t being addressed at that time. The part that was responded to is obvous…, about Papal Infallibility. If you can read properly, which is increasingly doubtful… you’ll see that the poster was claiming the Pope was perfect in terms of doctrine and dogma. Well, this is not true. That’s what was being addressed. When the poster gets the presumption wrong, then you can’t go on well from there.

There is nothing wrong with the exigesis, either. One thing at a time. When one is concerned with Truth, it makes a difference the words that are used. When one is not, they seem to simply throw out anything, and it doesn’t matter… which is what you seem inclined to do without hesitation.

I have high regard for the Eighth Commandment and don’t desire to ignore it, or throw it out. Do you? If so, please show us.

 

[MDK]

Three? Are we in the same discussion? You are quite good a rhetoric, that I will give you, I am still waiting for some substance though, like why you misquoted the guy in the first place. And please SPECIFICALLY point out my so-called misquotes, without the rhetoric and fluff.

There is substance, but the fact that you reject it is clearly evident. The refutations are done directly of the original post, with which you gave your stamp of approval. In this way, I refute both of your misinterpretation. If you reject true teachings of Sacred Scripture, then you certainly won’t like what I have to say, because they uphold and confirm the true teachings of Scripture. Honestly, the only thing you have shown that you believe are substantial are lies and distortion of God’s Holy Word, and denials of the truth. In that case, you’ll never see it. You have to open your eyes and accept the truth… which would lead invariably to Catholicism.

 

[thecoach]

Once again, you don’t see any problem out-and-out lying. My statement wasn’t addressing the entire quote, but the part I did address was done so properly and with focus.thats called misquoting someone It would have been misleading to leave the other part in,why, because then you would have no basis for your attack? because it wasn’t being addressed at that time. The part that was responded to is obvous…, about Papal Infallibility. If you can read properly, which is increasingly doubtful… you’ll see that the poster was claiming the Pope was perfect in terms of doctrine and dogma. Well, this is not true. That’s what was being addressed. When the poster gets the presumption wrong, then you can’t go on well from there. You cant even keep your own fluff straight…youre starting to disappoint me.

There is nothing wrong with the exigesis, either. One thing at a time. When one is concerned with Truth, it makes a difference the words that are used. When one is not, they seem to simply throw out anything, and it doesn’t matter… which is what you seem inclined to do without hesitation. I may have misjudged you…giving you more credit than I think you may be worthy of…

I have high regard for the Eighth Commandment and don’t desire to ignore it, or throw it out. Do you? If so, please show us.

Well, I kinda think yuo did throw it out by falsifying his post by leaving off a part of it THAT WAS IN THE SAME SENTENCE! NIce try at the semantics though, but you should really quit while you have some dignity left.

 

[MDK]

Hardly, but I love debating with big egos such as your own, it makes a bigger splat after the fall.

More of the picture comes clear… projection. Another correction for you as well… you’re not debating an ego. You’re debating love for the only Church built by Christ. You’re debating love for the Body of Christ. You’re debating love of the only Church which is protected from the gates of hell.

By the way, your church was started by man, not by God. Your church is not protected from the gates of Hell. Your church is not free from error in faith and morals (as you’ve clearly shown). It’s sad, but the Devil is pleased by your attacks on the Church built by Christ.

 

[COLOS]

…you’re not debating an ego. You’re debating love for the only Church built by Christ. You’re debating love for the Body of Christ. You’re debating love of the only Church which is protected from the gates of hell.

 

[MDK]

Well, I kinda think yuo did throw it out by falsifying his post by leaving off a part of it THAT WAS IN THE SAME SENTENCE! NIce try at the semantics though, but you should really quit while you have some dignity left.

Typical non-Denominational type… if you distort God’s word, then what will keep you from distorting mine.

I did what I did decently and believe anyone who was at least halfway honest would see it as so. I have tremendous dignity, and am humbly grateful to be in the only Church with the true teachings of Christ. This is my source of pride…, it is in God.