Former Catholics - Mary worship

[cmodrmac]

" And likewise, woe betide someone who neglects to pray a rosary or the Magnificat or sing the Immaculate Mary at least once in a while. "

what does the above quote mean-I find it bizarre

---

 

[marywarfield]

Yes it is. Perhaps you are familiar with a prayer known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? A part known as the Confiteor has the following passage in it:

That is what’s commonly known as “praying to Mary” (not to mention all the angels and saints in the Communion of Saints) and it’s part of the Mass which is optional to the priest but compulsory to the people when it is so chosen. So unless you plan to spend your entire life seeking out Masses and priests who do not choose to use the Confiteor, it is compulsory to pray to Mary, to the angels and the saints, and to believe in the Communion of Saints, in order to be a Catholic. And likewise, woe betide someone who neglects to pray a rosary or the Magnificat or sing the Immaculate Mary at least once in a while.

Mea Culpa you are correct! And I am corrected. Lol.

Actually I knew that but blanked it. I was thinking
more along the lines of Rosaries.
Sorry.

 

[babylonfalling]

Are there any former Catholics here that can say you did worship Mary when you were Catholic? If not what do you say to those who believe you did?

Peace!!!

I was a former Catholic for decades before returning to the Church and when I first heard that we worshiped Mary, I couldn’t believe it.

What was striking however is that these folk wouldn’t believe me when I said it wasn’t true, even though they’d never been Catholic. They would take a non Catholic’s word on it, but reject what came straight from the horse’s mouth.

As if I thought she were a goddess worthy of worship on the one hand, but not worthy of acknowledging as a goddess on the other hand?

Or…as if I were worshiping her without knowing it?

It made no sense, I don’t think they were happy hearing that Catholics don’t worship Mary. It was a monkey wrench in what they had heard other people telling them

 

[PJM]

=adf417;12006296]Correct! And for those who view prayer as worship, this statement should shed a little more light on what Catholic worship is and is not.

Peace!!!

ALL Cathoic prayer has as its end GOD.

Which is WHY
[1] “Worship” is taught to be for God alone.

[2] It is MORE accurate to expalin that we pray “**THROUGH” Mary **and the Saints than “to” them; though that too is a corect statement.

 

[babylonfalling]

I’ve run across several people on another forum (which I will not name) that claim to have been former Catholics. When I ask them if they worshiped Mary I am usually completely ignored. Once in awhile I am told something like “I did everything catholics [sic] do” and when I ask what those things are then I am ignored. In fact, I am currently trying to get someone who claims to be an ex-Catholic to tell me what he did during Mass. All he has told me so far is that he was an “alter boy”.

One person did tell me he used to worship statues but then figured out that they couldn’t see or hear him so he left the Church.

When people leave a Church, they need a good reason for leaving, rather than a frivolous reason. In the case of Catholics who left their Church, anti Catholic theology sounds better than “The music is boring”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

You have it correct Bernard when you say "For me … " and "The new Covenant for me … " Your faith is totally one where You interject your personal interpretation upon the scriptures and that interpretation becomes your personal reality … and you are here attempting to tell everyone else they are wrong and you are correct … and even when you are shown that you are in correct - you just change the topic or continue to ignore what is shown you …

This happened when you insisted that all eunuchs of Jesus’ time were men who had been surgically castrated … and when it was pointed out that the very passage you cited as your support in fact described two differing forms - you acknowledged it after a fashion but stayed steadfast in your belief which was just shown to be a fallacy …

The Book of Revelation actually describes - in apocalyptic prose - Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and Crowned as Queen … Like Daniel - Revelation is prophetic and apocalyptic in genre … and that is not the same as being merely a prediction of future events as some would have it … The Gospel of John specifically references Mary as "woman’ at Cana - as do the synoptic Gospels reference Mary as “woman” when she stands at the Cross and is given to John [and us] as mother … These references are packed with meaning as are all of the scriptures … .

Hebrews 4:14 “Seeing then that we have a great high priest ,that is passed into the heavens,Jesus the Son of God”

YADA,regarding your first point ,I have never posted on the subject of celibacy or of being a eunuch ,according to the scriptures.
I am aware however of the post you are thinking was mine.For the record ,I disagreed with his premise as soon as I read it.
But never mind we all make mistakes.
An outstanding point for me ,and perhaps some others ,is that you are yet ,to clarify how it is that your ark ,which you said ,had disappeared upon the earth ,for some considerable time,should suddenly appear in Revelation Chapter 11;that is in heaven?
For this to be a literal ark and is evidence for the premise of a literal Mary ,out of the ’ woman’ of Revelation 12, would not there have to also appear ( in heaven) with it a literal son to Aaron ? For you are no doubt aware 'the lion of the tribe of Juda" ,as a high priest ,could not approach this ark ,only the sons of Aaron ,according to Moses Law.

It is identical in my opinion ,that a literal interpretation by you ,in both chapters is not explicable , the same approach is taken in both,and with such you claim to evidence one literal interpretation with that of the other ,does this not show a shortage of scriptural material in which to justify establishing what is supposed to be literal and what is spiritual in ,as you say 'apocalyptic prose"?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

You should read the Book of Numbers Chapter 30 and attempt to understand the seriousness of Vows of chastity made unto the Lord … a young girl could make a vow while still in her father’s house - unless he countermanded that vow immediately - the vow stood and compelling her to break it made her Father guilty of the sin … similarly if a wife made that vow unto the Lord - her husband must immediately countermand it or be bound to the vow or be guilty of the sin of breaking a vow unto the Lord …

So while I agree that the Husband is the head of the family … your idea that Mary could not make a vow unto the Lord and keep it is a false one … And St. Joseph is given great honor and credit too … St. Joseph is given the title of "the Most Chaste Spouse " … that is just one …

An interesting chapter YADA,
But as you can only presume ‘Mary’ in the seclusion of her room alone ( with God) made such a vow ,then there is still no scriptural testimony on her part ,that such a vow had indeed been made.Further more if this vow was made prior to her being betrothed to Joseph,it would perhaps suggest deceit,and a false premise for the angel to say to Joseph ,not to be afraid to take Mary to be his wife.
In any case, even from your own view point ,Joseph is still ( in Numbers 30) seen to be the head in this instance also.
Unless you are suggesting that Mary made such a vow of chastity, without Joseph’s knowledge,( considering what he was already taking upon himself, in the will of the Lord:in this marriage),then he must at least have heard her make the vow.
In such a case it was in his liberty to annul it verse 8)

“But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it:then he shall make her vow that she vowed ,and that which she uttered with her lips,wherewith she bound her soul,of none effect :and the LORD shall forgive her”

Even if Joseph( in theory) did agree with Mary’s vow of chastity ;in this matter the order of God ,for me ,seems to be upheld.

Verse 13 " Every vow,and every binding oath to affect the soul ,her husband may establish it ,or her husband may make it void"

 

[SyroMalankara]

An interesting chapter YADA,
But as you can only presume ‘Mary’ in the seclusion of her room alone ( with God) made such a vow ,then there is still no scriptural testimony on her part ,that such a vow had indeed been made.Further more if this vow was made prior to her being betrothed to Joseph,it would perhaps suggest deceit,and a false premise for the angel to say to Joseph ,not to be afraid to take Mary to be his wife.
In any case, even from your own view point ,Joseph is still ( in Numbers 30) seen to be the head in this instance also.
Unless you are suggesting that Mary made such a vow of chastity, without Joseph’s knowledge,( considering what he was already taking upon himself, in the will of the Lord:in this marriage),then he must at least have heard her make the vow.
In such a case it was in his liberty to annul it verse 8)

“But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it:then he shall make her vow that she vowed ,and that which she uttered with her lips,wherewith she bound her soul,of none effect :and the LORD shall forgive her”

Even if Joseph( in theory) did agree with Mary’s vow of chastity ;in this matter the order of God ,for me ,seems to be upheld.

Verse 13 " Every vow,and every binding oath to affect the soul ,her husband may establish it ,or her husband may make it void"

Now read that in light of Mary’s fiat, “I am the haidmaid of the Lord…”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Now read that in light of Mary’s fiat, “I am the haidmaid of the Lord…”

Hebrews 11:11 “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed,and was delivered of a child when she was past the age ,because she judged him faithful who had promised”

Yes SyroMalankara 'Mary’s fiat to 'the word ’ of the Lord,by the mouth of the angel,was and is an example to us all.
“Behold the handmade of the Lord;be it unto me according to thy word”(Luke 2:38)

Herself in need of the saviour ,Mary’s obedience ,seen here ,to word of the Lord ,does not, I believe ,make her obedience to her husband ‘to be of none effect’.
Indeed Joseph being a ‘just’ and an holy man( husband) the beautiful presence of the one (obedience to the Lord) does not make the rightful order of the other(obedience to her husband) anything ,in my opinion,but complementary and all together mutually compatible.
Is this not evidenced from the dawn of creation itself,that is with the very first marriage upon the newly created earth.
“and thy desire shall be to thy husband,and he shall rule over thee”(Genesis 3:16)

Sarah, the wife of Abraham ,no doubt was a spiritual mother ( example) to Mary.
Sarah’s own’ fiat ’ to the word of the LORD,must have been the precedence for,and a great source of inspiration for her own humble submission.To me there seems to be a remarkable parallel in both the annunciation to Sarah and that to Mary.
In Genesis 18:12 we see Sarah laughing ( in her tent)at the prospect of a natural child being born to her.
After being questioned ( notice the question is addressed to the husband ) in regards his wife’s unbelieving laugh when she overhead the promise,;Abraham ( and Sarah) heard the following word from the mouth of the LORD:
Verse 14 “is anything to hard for the LORD”
Is it possible that the angel,by the Spirit of God ,when he addresses both Mary and her cousin Elizabeth’s miraculous births,that he is pointing to these very same words?
Luke1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible”

In any case ,do we not see in Sarah calling Abraham her husband , lord,the same scriptural order manifested?

1Peter 3:1 “Likewise ye wives,be in subjection to your own husbands”(KJV)
Verse. 6"Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham,calling him lord:whose daughters ye are,as long as ye do well,and are not afraid with any amazement"

 

[marywarfield]

Hebrews 11:11 “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed,and was delivered of a child when she was past the age ,because she judged him faithful who had promised”

Yes SyroMalankara 'Mary’s fiat to 'the word ’ of the Lord,by the mouth of the angel,was and is an example to us all.
“Behold the handmade of the Lord;be it unto me according to thy word”(Luke 2:38)

Herself in need of the saviour ,Mary’s obedience ,seen here ,to word of the Lord ,does not, I believe ,make her obedience to her husband ‘to be of none effect’.
Indeed Joseph being a ‘just’ and an holy man( husband) the beautiful presence of the one (obedience to the Lord) does not make the rightful order of the other(obedience to her husband) anything ,in my opinion,but complementary and all together mutually compatible.
Is this not evidenced from the dawn of creation itself,that is with the very first marriage upon the newly created earth.
“and thy desire shall be to thy husband,and he shall rule over thee”(Genesis 3:16)

Sarah, the wife of Abraham ,no doubt was a spiritual mother ( example) to Mary.
Sarah’s own’ fiat ’ to the word of the LORD,must have been the precedence for,and a great source of inspiration for her own humble submission.To me there seems to be a remarkable parallel in both the annunciation to Sarah and that to Mary.
In Genesis 18:12 we see Sarah laughing ( in her tent)at the prospect of a natural child being born to her.
After being questioned ( notice the question is addressed to the husband ) in regards his wife’s unbelieving laugh when she overhead the promise,;Abraham ( and Sarah) heard the following word from the mouth of the LORD:
Verse 14 “is anything to hard for the LORD”
Is it possible that the angel,by the Spirit of God ,when he addresses both Mary and her cousin Elizabeth’s miraculous births,that he is pointing to these very same words?
Luke1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible”

In any case ,do we not see in Sarah calling Abraham her husband , lord,the same scriptural order manifested?

1Peter 3:1 “Likewise ye wives,be in subjection to your own husbands”(KJV)
Verse. 6"Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham,calling him lord:whose daughters ye are,as long as ye do well,and are not afraid with any amazement"

I see no where in Scripture where any other child in
the womb leapt for joy in the presence of another pregnant
woman. Not Sarah’s not anyone’s. Just Elizabeth.

As Fr. Hardon states:

"Mary’s role in the Mystery of Salvation.**She was chosen from all eternity to become the Mother of God. She was prepared for this by her Immaculate Conception. The body of whom the Son of God would take His flesh had to be absolutely free from any stain of sin from the first moment of her existence.

Mary was invited by the angel at the Annunciation to become the Mother of the Most High. She gave her fiat on which depended the future redemption of the human race. In order to reassure her that she would conceive without human intercourse, the angel told Mary that her kinswoman, who was sterile, had conceived a son in her old age. Soon after, at Mary’s visitation, Elizabeth exclaimed in grateful appreciation, “How have I deserved that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43).

The moment Mary’s words were heard by Elizabeth, John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb. Why? Because the child in Mary’s womb at her greeting was the all-holy God."

 

[Elizium23]

In any case where in scripture does Mary ( except for that which is common to all believers) have any connection to the Ark,either on earth or with that which it truly represented :in heaven?

The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth has a very close connection to the Ark’s visitation to David, which cannot be denied if you study the Scripture in parallel.

Lesson Three: The Ark of the New Covenant

III. The Visitation

A. Elizabeth and Mary
The news that she would have a child was astonishing enough for Mary. But the angel Gabriel had more good news for her:

“And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God” (see Luke 1:36-37).
Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah were both very old (see Luke 1:7); her pregnancy was nothing short of a miracle, though not a miracle on the same order as the one Mary was about to be a part of.

After this news, the very next thing we read is that Mary decided to visit her cousin Elizabeth.
We’re going to take a close look at this visit, because Luke will use it to show us a very important truth about Mary.

B. David’s Journey and Mary’s Visit
“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth” (Luke 1:39-40, Revised Standard Version; compare the New American Bible translation).

We remember how “David arose and went” to a city of Judah to bring out the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:2, Revised Standard Version; compare the New American Bible translation).
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb” (see Luke 1:41).

In the same way, David “leaped and danced” before the Ark of the Covenant (see 2 Samuel 6:14-16).
When she felt her child leap in her womb, Luke tells us, Elizabeth was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (see Luke 1:41). “And how does this happen to me,” she asked, “that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (see Luke 1:43).

Her words almost repeat what David said about the Ark of the Covenant: “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” (see 2 Samuel 6:9).
Finally, after her glorious hymn of praise to God (which we know, from its first word in Latin, as the Magnificat; see Luke 1:46-55), “Mary remained with her [Elizabeth] about three months and then returned to her home” (see Luke 1:56).

The Ark of the Covenant “remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three months” on its way to Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 6:11).
Luke piles these parallels one on top of another, so that we can’t help noticing the similarity between the Ark of the Covenant’s trip to Jerusalem and Mary’s trip to Zechariah’s house.

To drive the point home even more, Luke makes an interesting word choice in Luke 1:42: he tells us that Elizabeth “cried out in a loud voice” when she expressed her joy at Mary’s arrival.
The word translated “cried out” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. But it does occur five times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and every time it shows up in passages having to do with the Ark of the Covenant, describing the joyful noise God’s people made in celebration of His presence among them.

Elizabeth lifts up her voice in praise of God in the presence of Mary, just as her ancestors (Elizabeth was a Levite and a descendant of Aaron the priest; see Luke 1:5) did in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant.
All these parallels point to one startling truth: Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant bore the tablets of God’s covenant, God’s word in stone. In the New Testament, Mary carries God’s Word in flesh, Jesus Christ, who will bring the New Covenant that Jeremiah foresaw so long ago (see Jeremiah 31:27-34).

 

[Maria_Monte]

I see no where in Scripture where any other child in
the womb leapt for joy in the presence of another pregnant
woman. Not Sarah’s not anyone’s. Just Elizabeth.

As Fr. Hardon states:

"Mary’s role in the Mystery of Salvation.**She was chosen from all eternity to become the Mother of God. She was prepared for this by her Immaculate Conception. The body of whom the Son of God would take His flesh had to be absolutely free from any stain of sin from the first moment of her existence.

Mary was invited by the angel at the Annunciation to become the Mother of the Most High. She gave her fiat on which depended the future redemption of the human race. In order to reassure her that she would conceive without human intercourse, the angel told Mary that her kinswoman, who was sterile, had conceived a son in her old age. Soon after, at Mary’s visitation, Elizabeth exclaimed in grateful appreciation, “How have I deserved that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43).

The moment Mary’s words were heard by Elizabeth, John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb. Why? Because the child in Mary’s womb at her greeting was the all-holy God."

Luke 1:43 parallels 2 Samuel 6:9:

And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? (DRB)

The Ark of the Covenant was left in the hills outside Judea for three months because David was afraid after Uzzah was smitten dead for touching it. Mary visited Elizabeth for three months in the hills outside Judea. David danced before the Ark of the Covenant. John the Baptist danced before Mary.

Mary, containing in her womb the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the eternal High Priest, is truly blessed.

The parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) are amazing.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Luke 1:43 parallels 2 Samuel 6:9:

And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? (DRB)

The Ark of the Covenant was left in the hills outside Judea for three months because David was afraid after Uzzah was smitten dead for touching it. Mary visited Elizabeth for three months in the hills outside Judea. David danced before the Ark of the Covenant. John the Baptist danced before Mary.

Mary, containing in her womb the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the eternal High Priest, is truly blessed.

The parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) are amazing.

Hi Maria,Just like at the cross and the tomb,there are many Mary’s still around and looking on.
Hebrews 9:11"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come,by a greater and more perfect tabernacle,not made with hands,that is to say,not of this building "

Verse 5: “And over it the cherubims of Glory shadowing the mercy seat;”

The OT high priest,who alone could make an approach,(‘not without blood’) unto the ark,himself was,as we all agree , a type ;or a shadow of that everlasting priesthood ,‘after the order of Melchisedec’
When the true appeared ( and ascended) the shadow disappeared.
I believe this is also true of the ark itself.
Do we not see Christ Jesus ,by the offering up of his own self,fulfil and magnify ,that which was concealed within the Ark :the tables of stone, and within his own person ,and by his blood ;and for sins 'of his people established that which was prophesied in fulfilment of his coming?
"he will magnify the law and make it honourable "(Isaiah 42:21)

It is my belief therefore that the law ( that was within the Ark) as it pertains to me,is forever hidden from view ,in the person ( and death) of Christ (Rom10:4)

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth”

That the Ark was also typical of that ‘holy thing’ which should appear,I believe can be seen in many places .
Not least at the tomb ,where a certain ‘Mary’ ( first to see him risen from the dead) was to witness:

(John 20:11&12) “But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ,and as wept,she stooped down,and looked into the sepulchre .
And seeth two angels in White sitting,the one at the head,and the other at the feet,where the body of Jesus had lain” (KJV)

Are not these two angels the very same as that which is pictured by the two’ cherubims of glory’ ,which for so many generations,overlooked the Ark :‘shadowing the mercy seat’?

It is therefore my contention that what ever may or may not be significant in the parallels you have outlined : the focus ought to be,in my opinion ,not the womb ,that succoured him,but that fulfilment of the OT Ark ,who by his person ,dwelt there.
With this view in sight,if the high priesthood is ever preserved by his unending priesthood ;the the Ark ,as such ,is never again to appear also.

If Luke as it is claimed ,is trying so hard to convince us ,that Mary is the new testament ark,
Why does not this same John ,who took her into his own home,for heavens sake,tell us plainly in Revelation chapter 11 and especially ‘the woman’ of chapter 12 ?
Why is it such a big secret ?

 

[KathleenGee]

I think those who spread such ideas that we worship Mary really know little of our faith.

I am making friends with the neighborhood watchman who is so full of the Holy Spirit, a fundamentalist Christian who knows that to be saved, living Christ is constant and daily, a real act of perseverance.

I went back to the Catholic Catechism and went page by page. It contains the fullness of Catholic belief. I noted only a few pages really on Mary. The catechism is so directed at Christ.

I think we have alot of love and devotion to Mary and know her presence among us and her great help in protecting us and bringing us closer to Jesus.

I shared with my new friend what a former pastor shared with me, that the strongest Catholics…Christ centered to be clear…are those who have great devotion to His mother.

Mary always brings us closer to Jesus and to live the will of the Heavenly Father. She is a great source of strength in appreciating and living out chastity.

 

[PJM]

=KathleenGee;12022408]I think those who spread such ideas that we worship Mary really know little of our faith.

I am making friends with the neighborhood watchman who is so full of the Holy Spirit, a fundamentalist Christian who knows that to be saved, living Christ is constant and daily, a real act of perseverance.

I went back to the Catholic Catechism and went page by page. It contains the fullness of Catholic belief. I noted only a few pages really on Mary. The catechism is so directed at Christ.

I think we have alot of love and devotion to Mary and know her presence among us and her great help in protecting us and bringing us closer to Jesus.

I shared with my new friend what a former pastor shared with me, that the strongest Catholics…Christ centered to be clear…are those who have great devotion to His mother.

Mary always brings us closer to Jesus and to live the will of the Heavenly Father. She is a great source of strength in appreciating and living out chastity.

Nicely done, Thank you,

Patrick

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth has a very close connection to the Ark’s visitation to David, which cannot be denied if you study the Scripture in parallel.

Lesson Three: The Ark of the New Covenant

A Christian can not ignore that God entered blessed Mary and she became the Mother of God

 

[Cube2]

the Grace of God with man’s response of Faith and obedience, the same as today.

Agreed! Even the thief on the Cross, one accepted Jesus by faith, the other one denied Him in ridicule.

Right. Always guiding the Church, from the beginning.

In Revelation 1 & 2, we see Jesus correcting the 7 churches. It is possible to err and run short of the glory of God. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, King Solomon disobeyed God etc Judas who was together with Jesus betrayed him. The high priests condemned Jesus to be crucified.
If one does not follow the Word of God, Satan can easily lead him astray. The same Satan temped Jesus but he stood with the Word of God.

Hmm, designated people chosen to do a certain task, who dress according to certain rules; have to do some Liturgical acts, sometimes using incense, etc, where does one see that?

Jesus contracted many times with the pharisees and the high priests.
Jesus endorsed baptism from John the baptist. He endorsed performance of miracles, he endorsed the fear of God, he sanctified the temple by declaring that it was a house of prayer and not of trade.
Jesus at no one point did he burn incense. He stood by the word of God and not by the order of the Levitical priests; he even did not wear priestly robes. His mission was very different. At every time he focused people to God; cf. the Samaritan woman at the well, Nicodemus the pharisee, the parable of ten virgins, the parable of the prodigal son, the test by the pharisees on paying taxes to Ceaser, the temptation by the devil etc All these examples were leading the audience to God. Even the Devil was given scriptures of how to honor God
At the hour of his death, the thick curtain separating the most holy place of the temple was torn into two; what people were shielded from seeing, now they could see it.

Most symbols from the Old Order become personified in the New, e.g. Jesus, Mary, the Church, the Saints, etc

Ok lets review objectively:
Give citation or likeness of Jesus in the Old Testament.
Give a likeness of the Church in the OT
Give a likeness of Mary in the OT. etc
SyroMalankara;11999521:

A single perpetual Sacrifice.

Right! …Everlasting sacrifice!
SyroMalankara;11999521:

The destruction of the Ark was not the end of the old order, the Annunciation to St. Mary is; and the destruction of the Temple was not the end of the old order, the Incarnation is.

Spiritually the timings are very different.
Literally, even at the time of Jesus, the high priest would burn incense one a year in the temple. During Mary’s time the old order was still in progress. btw, the old order is the believe system and practices. We are told that Joseph, Mary and Jesus went on pilgrim to Jerusalem when Jesus was left in the temple. This was part of the old order. Nowadays, we don’t go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Muslims do to Mecca.
SyroMalankara;11999521:

But Jesus and Mary thru Jesus did convert them and their ancestors.

This is new teaching which is neither biblical nor apostolic. Even today, the forgiveness of sins is personal and not enmass. Have you ever tried to change another person’s bad habit or believe? Even when Jesus was on earth not everybody believed him. So to assert that Jesus converted them seems extra judicial. Also to assert that it was Jesus & Mary, while Mary did not die with with Jesus is not biblical nor apostolic.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ok lets review objectively:
Give citation or likeness of Jesus in the Old Testament.
Give a likeness of the Church in the OT
Give a likeness of Mary in the OT. etc

This is pretty basic, look it up online, there are hundreds of likenesses, cited from the time of the Early Church to now!

Spiritually the timings are very different.
Literally, even at the time of Jesus, the high priest would burn incense one a year in the temple. During Mary’s time the old order was still in progress. btw, the old order is the believe system and practices. We are told that Joseph, Mary and Jesus went on pilgrim to Jerusalem when Jesus was left in the temple. This was part of the old order. Nowadays, we don’t go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Muslims do to Mecca.

They burned incense until 70AD when the Temple was destroyed. Using your logic, the old order was in place 40 yrs after the Crucifixion. Catholics and Orthodox - Apostolic Christians - do go to pilgrimage, to this day. The Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch just went together to Jerusalem!

This is new teaching which is neither biblical nor apostolic. Even today, the forgiveness of sins is personal and not enmass. Have you ever tried to change another person’s bad habit or believe? Even when Jesus was on earth not everybody believed him. So to assert that Jesus converted them seems extra judicial. Also to assert that it was Jesus & Mary, while Mary did not die with with Jesus is not biblical nor apostolic.

Nonsense, the earliest Church always connected the Saints with their Master. Protestants divide, Catholics unite!

 

[Cube2]

This is pretty basic, look it up online, there are hundreds of likenesses, cited from the time of the Early Church to now!

Imagine in an exam, you answer; “its very simple, just check the answer on the answer sheet” If its that simple, then just simply present it.

They burned incense until 70AD when the Temple was destroyed. Using your logic, the old order was in place 40 yrs after the Crucifixion. Catholics and Orthodox - Apostolic Christians - do go to pilgrimage, to this day. The Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch just went together to Jerusalem!

About the old order, I agree. It continued because not all people turned to the new order of following the Messiah. The high priests continued with their work, and people continued worshiping in the temple. On the other side the apostles continued preaching the Gospel of Jesus.

Many people go to Jerusalem to see the history. The original pilgrim was mandatory and it was accompanied with sacrifices in the temple. (today Muslims perform the hajj rituals).
Even if the Pope visits Jerusalem, he would not offer similar sacrifices since there is no temple, and we no longer sacrifice animals as it used to be in the old order. Thus its not pilgrim per se.

Nonsense, the earliest Church always connected the Saints with their Master. Protestants divide, Catholics unite!

Everybody is an individual who will go to the judgement seat of God individually.
Also Jesus said about his coming that its not a particular group or area that will be taken.
Luke:17:34-36: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

If its only Catholics who’ll go to heaven, then prove it from Jesus teaching or the initial Apostolic teaching.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

Imagine in an exam, you answer; “its very simple, just check the answer on the answer sheet” If its that simple, then just simply present it.

This isn’t a precise analogy. Think of it like this: this is an open book test. The whole internet is your book. Also, I don’t feel that it’s necessary to regurgitate things readily available from the resources that are open to you. As a forum we try to not repeat unnecessary threads because we have a search tool. Same thing applies here, we shouldn’t have to reiterate hundreds of things on the internet on this thread when the information is so available.