Do we as Catholics worship Mary

[MDK]

Originally Posted by MDK
It’s like St. Peter said to Christ about Him… where else would we go?I believe Peter said that to Christ, not a Pope, therefore, where am I in error? In this case, we have the correct teachings of everlasting life, and His real and true presence in the Eucharist.

Once again, you misrepresent… is this all you can do, because you’re very good at misrepresenting… which again is why you feel more comfortable in a non-Denom faith system than with the true Church.

The quote was obviously about Christ, which is precisely what I said.

I have come to realize you have no interest whatsoever in the truth, as there are specific teachings available to you here.

Some even in the non-Denom world have some desire to seek Christ, rather than to promote a hatred of Christ’s Church. I hope you can come around someday to the truth… I won’t be holding my breath.

 

[rinnie]

Sorry man, I’ve seen no evidence of that so far. It appears as if you actually don’t know very much at all about Catholicism. Funny how many ex-Catholics think themselves experts in a faith that they never truly lived, never truly studied.

Interesting thread.

Exactly, No one wants to take the time to learn the faith, If they could just take half the time they try to rip down the Church and take that time to learn the True teachings of the Church there would be no argument. I dont mind discussing things about our faith, but for goodness sake make it what we practice and believe. Not what people hear or have heard, We spend so much time fighting about what is not true about our church. Like this post do we worship Mary no only God. I mean if I worshiped Mary why would i deny it. We honor her, ask her to pray for us, because we know she is the Mother of Jesus and is Blessed. Who else in the bible is called blessed besides her and Jesus. Blessed are you among Women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Again many People are blessed but who else in the bible do we ever call Blessed are you. Only them two. Why would anyone think that God would not pick a pure and wonderful women to bring in his only Son. Why wasnt . Mary has found favor with God. favor, approval from God. What more do you want. If God approved of her who are we to judge. If God says he listens to the prayers of a righteous man like Job and listens to Jobs prayers, people dont think he would listen to Marys. Please. give me a break!

 

[thecoach]

Exactly, No one wants to take the time to learn the faith,More assumptions. Perhaps you do need to study more If they could just take half the time they try to rip down the Church and take that time to learn the True teachings of the Church there would be no argument.Been there, done that I dont mind discussing things about our faith, but for goodness sake make it what we practice and believe. Not what people hear or have heard, Defended the Catholic faith probably more than you would have EVER been capable of. I just happened to awaken We spend so much time fighting about what is not true about our church. Like this post do we worship Mary no only God. I mean if I worshiped Mary why would i deny it. We honor her, ask her to pray for us, because we know she is the Mother of Jesus and is Blessed. Who else in the bible is called blessed besides her and Jesus. Blessed are you among Women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Again many People are blessed but who else in the bible do we ever call Blessed are you. Only them two. Why would anyone think that God would not pick a pure and wonderful women to bring in his only Son. Why wasnt . Mary has found favor with God. favor, approval from God. What more do you want. If God approved of her who are we to judge. If God says he listens to the prayers of a righteous man like Job and listens to Jobs prayers, people dont think he would listen to Marys. Please. give me a break!

 

[MDK]

Since it was not an error, perhaps you need to do some research yourself, especially between the words petros and petra. I am embarrassed for your lack of knowledge.

Be embarrassed for yourself. Any honest person who knows the common Greek of that time, also knows that Petra and Petros are the same thing…, but one is masculine and one feminine in gender. Also, anyone who knew Greek would realize that the word for small rock would have been rendered as lithos. Also, anyone who truly knew the Scriptures would also know that the book of Matthew was not originally written in Greek, but in Hebrew or Aramaic. Again, anyone who knew the Bible, and who knew the language Christ used, would realize that He spoke to them in Aramaic. Also, anyone who knew the Scriptures would know that Christ changed Simon’s name to Kepha (rock) at that time. It all adds up to the fundamental problem for non-Denoms… again.

 

[ibkc]

Since it was not an error, perhaps you need to do some research yourself, especially between the words petros and petra. I am embarrassed for your lack of knowledge.

No, I am sorry; you simply do not know what you are talking about.

In the first place, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and the name he called Simon bar Jona was “Kepha” which is simply “rock” with no distinction between large and small.

In the second place, the writer of that passage was having to translate “Kepha” into Greek, which uses gender, and he had to contend with the problem of naming and masculine and feminine nouns. “Petra” is feminine, “Petros” is masculine. The writer could not use a feminine word to denote the very male Apostle. “Petros” was his only choice.

In the third place, the distinction between large and small in the two words was present in Attic Greek, but by the first century it had been completely lost, so that “petra” and “petros” were synonyms.

 

[thecoach]

No, I am sorry; you simply do not know what you are talking about.

In the first place, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and the name he called Simon bar Jona was “Kepha” which is simply “rock” with no distinction between large and small. Since the statement was written in Greek, your point is moot

In the second place, the writer of that passage was having translate “Kepha” into Greek, which uses gender, and he had to contend with the problem of naming and masculine and feminine nouns. “Petra” is feminine, “Petros” is masculine. The writer could not use a feminine word to denote the very male Apostle. “Petros” was his only choice.If the intention was what you say, the same word could have been used. This is the same nonsense whenit comes to Jesus having brother. Then you like to have the Greek being a bit ambiguous, for then you can twist it to suit you. Here however, two differnt words are used specifically

In the third place, the distinction between large and small in the two words was present in Attic Greek, but by the first century it had been completely lost, so that “petra” and “petros” were synonyms.

And still doesnt answer as to why this is mentioned only once in four Gospels. Especially since the Gospels were written after the fact. Kind of sinks its importance just a bit,as does the non-leader role of Peter at Jersualem, it was James.

 

[rinnie]

Okay Coach I asked a question in post 244 How about you taking it!

 

[ibkc]

In the first place, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and the name he called Simon bar Jona was “Kepha” which is simply “rock” with no distinction between large and small.

Since the statement was written in Greek, your point is moot

So basically, you’re saying that the word chosen by the author of the gospel trumps the word Jesus actually used. I disagree, but if that’s what you’re working on then that’s what we’ll address.

If the intention was what you say, the same word could have been used. This is the same nonsense whenit comes to Jesus having brother. Then you like to have the Greek being a bit ambiguous, for then you can twist it to suit you. Here however, two differnt words are used specifically.

A) The word Jesus used was neither “petra” or “petros”
B) You’re saying that the author of the gospel should have given Peter a girl’s name. I see you’re from the “Boy Named Sue” school of naming.

And still doesnt answer as to why this is mentioned only once in four Gospels. Especially since the Gospels were written after the fact. Kind of sinks its importance just a bit,as does the non-leader role of Peter at Jersualem, it was James.

Are the gospels inerrant and true, or are they not?

 

[MDK]

ibkc;3955068:

No, I am sorry; you simply do not know what you are talking about.

In the first place, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and the name he called Simon bar Jona was “Kepha” which is simply “rock” with no distinction between large and small.

In the second place, the writer of that passage was having to translate “Kepha” into Greek, which uses gender, and he had to contend with the problem of naming and masculine and feminine nouns. “Petra” is feminine, “Petros” is masculine. The writer could not use a feminine word to denote the very male Apostle. “Petros” was his only choice.

In the third place, the distinction between large and small in the two words was present in Attic Greek, but by the first century it had been completely lost, so that “petra” and “petros” were synonyms.

And still doesnt answer as to why this is mentioned only once in four Gospels. Especially since the Gospels were written after the fact. Kind of sinks its importance just a bit,as does the non-leader role of Peter at Jersualem, it was James.

ibkc and others… my wife is an oncologist, and some patients come to her with cancer that has spread too far and wide for them to address… I think we see the same thing here.

The best we should do is to pray for this exremely wayward non-denominational individual who rejects the true teachings, as we continue to defend the church. This is one of the worst cases I’ve seen of ignorance, and I thought I had seen some exreme cases.

 

[thecoach]

Okay Coach I asked a question in post 244 How about you taking it!

“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?”

This was directed to someone else, but yes of course I believe they are inspired. AS to what actually is, I think in terms of the OT I would take the Jewish canon as credible.

 

[ibkc]

Agreed, MDK. Earlier today I was reading some of his posts in one of the other parts of the forum, and added him to my prayer intentions list. He claims to be ex-Catholic; all I can say is that he has been seriously misled and we should all be praying that he finds his way back.

 

[rinnie]

“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?”

This was directed to someone else, but yes of course I believe they are inspired. AS to what actually is, I think in terms of the OT I would take the Jewish canon as credible.

Okay now what about the NT?

 

[MDK]

“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?”

This was directed to someone else, but yes of course I believe they are inspired. AS to what actually is, I think in terms of the OT I would take the Jewish canon as credible.

The second statement points to the Table of Contents of the Bible, namely which books are included. Do you believe that the TOC of the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit as well, and do you know where the TOC came from.

 

[thecoach]

Agreed, MDK. Earlier today I was reading some of his posts in one of the other parts of the forum, and added him to my prayer intentions list. He claims to be ex-Catholic; all I can say is that he has been seriously misled and we should all be praying that he finds his way back.

Please pray for yourselves, you need it a lot more than I do. MDK, I am STILL waiting for specifics on this FIFTH request. LIke I said, guys, go ahead, stay asleep, it matters not to me.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

“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?”

This was directed to someone else, but yes of course I believe they are inspired. AS to what actually is, I think in terms of the OT I would take the Jewish canon as credible.

which Jewish Canon? The deuterocanonical books are inculded in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews in the first century.

 

[ibkc]

thecoach -
Are the Gospels inerrant, or are they not?

 

[MDK]

Agreed, MDK. Earlier today I was reading some of his posts in one of the other parts of the forum, and added him to my prayer intentions list. He claims to be ex-Catholic; all I can say is that he has been seriously misled and we should all be praying that he finds his way back.

God be with you. I have to meet my wife at mass in a few minutes. I’ll pray for the wayward coach. I’ll also pray for my Catholic bretheren and myself as I regularly do. May God bless you all for the work in protecting His Church and defending truth about His mother, who is also our mother.

 

[MDK]

Please pray for yourselves, you need it a lot more than I do. MDK, I am STILL waiting for specifics on this FIFTH request. LIke I said, guys, go ahead, stay asleep, it matters not to me.

You put so much filth out, like a broken sewer pipe. Go back and look at the post you agreed with in regard to denial of Mary’s place in regard to Christ. When you agree with these lies, you are complicit.

 

[thecoach]

So basically, you’re saying that the word chosen by the author of the gospel trumps the word Jesus actually used. I disagree, but if that’s what you’re working on then that’s what we’ll address.Since we really dont know any EXACT word Jesus used, this is a non-argument.

A) The word Jesus used was neither “petra” or “petros”
B) You’re saying that the author of the gospel should have given Peter a girl’s name. I see you’re from the “Boy Named Sue” school of naming.

Are the gospels inerrant and true, or are they not?

True yesm, your erroneous interpretation, no.

 

[ibkc]

Since we really dont know any EXACT word Jesus used, this is a non-argument.

Jesus called Simon bar Jona a word which means “rock.” Aramaic was the common language of Palestine 2,000 years ago. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Therefore the word would have been “Kepha.” If you are going to argue otherwise, then you are calling into question the inerrancy of Scripture.