Former Catholics - Mary worship

[Maria_Monte]

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’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.

 

[Dorothy]

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.

It sounds like they were very poorly catechized and that the faith was not discussed with their parents.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

I don’t think the intentions of the Church, nor is it in her authority, to ‘elevate’ Mary anywhere.

What the Church has done is recognize both what God has done through her and how she conformed herself to God’s will. I see a particular recognition of this in Scripture

Luke 2:51
“And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.”

Why does Luke specifically say Mary kept these things in her heart? Joseph was involved in the incedent(s) just like her. But Mary was Full of Grace unlike Joseph. Joseph was a righteous man indeed, but was he glorified in the same way Mary was? Did Scripture record that his soul magnify God?

So again, I don’t think the recognition and honor the Church gives to Mary is because she was more of a parent to Jesus. Her Motherhood to Jesus was both in the flesh and in the Spiritual ministerial way, which is how all Christians after her share in her motherhood. But motherhood and fatherhood are very different. We as Christians, are all ‘feminine’ in relation to God, because we receive Him… He does not receive us.

Hi rcwitness,
Whilst it is true that the ‘church’ is exemplified as the chaste Virgin’,‘a bride adorned for her husband’ ,and this is for a number of noble ,and spiritual feminine attributes,the fact that Christ Jesus the Lord is Male ,I am sure you would agree :is not without great significance also.

Furthermore the ‘woman’ of Revelation 17 ,because of ignoble and contrasting feminine characteristics ,is as such,referred to as an harlot,and indeed ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS’
(Verse 5) .However,this same’ woman ',is also ( compared with) a 'city ’ ( verse 18)

“And the woman which thou sawest is that great city”.

Rcwitness would you accept that for very different reasons,we in the same manner, see
‘the bride’ ( of Christ) is also in scripture seen depicted and made to appear in the likeness of a city ?

"And I John saw the holy city,new Jerusalem,coming down from God out of heaven,prepared as a bride adorned for her husband’(Rev 21:2)

Then the OT saints of old ,and the NT ‘church ,which are encompassed in this same ’ holy city’ are now viewed from a purely male perspective.

“I will shew thee the bride,the Lamb’s wife”(verse 9)

“at the gates twelve angels,and names written therein,which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel”(verse 12)

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations,and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”(14)

That 'we receive ’ Christ,as you say ,and that through his mercy,and by his grace,is very true.
But as is seen in John 6:37, he in the same unfathomable mystery( I believe to be seen in the Father’s election) he also receives us.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out”(KJV)

Undeniably Mary is seen ,in her unique role ,in the eternal purpose of God ,as that chosen vessel by which ‘Christ come in the flesh’,should be made manifest,and as such most of the scriptural attention is based around her.
But for me I would also like to say that Joseph ,for the pressures ( within and without) that he was to endure ,would have also,in like manner ,of necessity " been full of the HolY Spirit"

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Translation are translations, while Interpretations are Interpretations.

We search the Scriptures in the frame of what has already been established through Church Interpretation. Not all subtle meanings and hidden wisdom has been illuminated in the written Word. We feed on this because it gives us joy. It is limitless fountain.

Bernard, we truly have this communion in common. But an authorative Interpretation must hold us accountable. That doesn’t mean this authority can or has interpreted all meanings, but what it has interpreted cannot be contradicted.

Dear rcwitness ,I appreciate your diplomacy and search for common ground ,I too,in my imperfect way,and knowing only to well myself :'the tongue ’ ( as well as the ‘pen’ or finger) to be an ‘unruly evil’(James 3:8). and will hopefully carry on in your own same ,and pleasant manner.

Yes we have more in common ,I believe,than that which you have hinted at.
Although I would disagree with any an isolated authority separated from that which I believe is seen ,forever laid in ‘concrete’ ,as is seen in the ‘twelve foundations’ ‘the twelve apostles of the Lamb’( Rev21:14)
I still believe in ’ succession’. That God has raised up and gifted to the ‘church’,holy men,afore ordained and prepared , by himself,like unto Paul,and that throughout history,I do not doubt.There may have been substantial intervals ,at times,just as the prophet ‘Malachi’ was the last in the OT,400 years before John the Baptist was to appear,so great periods where none were given :I also would hold.
Although I would not claim to be infallible ( in my judgement) ,I certainly would not exclude such as Augustine with some of his remarkable observations in his ’ confessions’ ,as ,for his time ,such a gift.Such men like the unknown Catholic author of " the cloud of unknowing",some centuries ago,indeed I believe,in contradiction to the books title,shows great spiritual awareness and I would say displays a knowledge and communion which is without any ’ cloud’ of obscurity.

As a former RC myself,I know it is extremely difficult for you to accept,any authority ,save that which you naturally accept as your own,but I would again point out ,that even throughout your own times( of what you would claim) was sent authority: it would take the most obstinate view of what you would term ’ church history’,to claim a seamless ,and uninterrupted flow (of successors to Peter) and in your claim for sole ‘authority’,and without pointing to the most obvious discrepancies,your view ,in my opinion is also somewhat intermittent .

In short then, my view is not a (my)translation without sound ,authoritative,sent,chosen men embodying in their persons the holy of the scriptures,either,but very much,and throughout history ,I would lay claim to such a Godly heritage also.

I would also like to say that independent,from ,but subservient to this same sent authority ,from on high ,do we not see that indwelling authority,given to all that truly believe?

1John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,and ye need not that any man teach you:but the same anointing teacheth you all things"KJV

 

[rcwitness]

Undeniably Mary is seen ,in her unique role ,in the eternal purpose of God ,as that chosen vessel by which ‘Christ come in the flesh’,should be made manifest,and as such most of the scriptural attention is based around her.
But for me I would also like to say that Joseph ,for the pressures ( within and without) that he was to endure ,would have also,in like manner ,of necessity " been full of the HolY Spirit"

Thanks for the kind intent for fellowship.

You have indeed wrote much. I think the fact that Mary, like you say, had a unique role in what she was given, also honored the role and gift she was given. This means she held onto the grace given her, just as she “kept all these things in her heart”. She never ‘rose’ above her Lord to bask in His glory, but recognized His goodness in her, and “magnified Him” with praise.

Likewise, when she saw a need in the wedding at Cana, she petitioned for her Son to resolve the matter. Jesus’ reply to her, and her reaction is so interesting to me! “O woman, what do you have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” And she only addresses the servants of the wedding to obey Him. This is profound. Jesus calls her Woman to acknowledge her role deeper than just His physical mother. She is calling on His divine intervention as Messiah. She does not plead with Him, but only tells others to “do whatever He tells you.” This opens His hour!

Again, it is not Joseph we see initiating His public ministry, but Mary. And not by authority of His physical mother, but Spiritual motherhood of the guests.

As a former RC myself,I know it is extremely difficult for you to accept,any authority ,save that which you naturally accept as your own,

1John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,and ye need not that any man teach you:but the same anointing teacheth you all things"KJV

Authority is not always simple as merely doing what the Church says. We follow Gods authority by obeying the Holy Spirit. We acknowledge the Holy Spirit’s guidence through Church leaders. This takes humility and Spirit of servitude. But we always have a duty to receive proper Confirmation for our decissions. We acknowledge that a priest, bishop, deacon, or brother in the faith may not always be speaking from God. Our Consceince, our knowledge of Teaching, our measure of obedience to our pastor, and prayerfull reliance of the goodness of God’s protection all should be used to Confirm our faith and works.

This passage from John is definitely interesting! It takes wisdom to see what he is saying. I take it as needing to rely on the Holy Spirit to know the hidden wisdom in all things. It certainly cant mean we shouldnt rely on anything but our own intuition and conclusions. If we dont need anything but our anointing to Teach us, why do we need the Bible? Because the Bible, or anything true will not be received into our hearts without the Holy Spirit giving us the proper understanding of it. Faith is not blind.

I personally dont doubt some people give inappropriate devotion to Mary. Just like we can idolize sports players, or food, or pets, or vehicles, etc. But it gets more shadowy when it comes to abusing a relationship with Mary. It becomes a frame of heart that we are not worthy of Jesus outside a devotion to Mary. We cannot make her a high Priestess. But we can seek her intercession when in need of recourse to Jesus. This can be a fine line, yet who is led by their anointing from God will be obedient to Him when turning to Mary for assistance. Just as we turn to our pastor and elders for a holy prayer with justified faith that “The prayer of a righteous person has great power in its effects… And covers a multitude of sins.”

 

[Cube2]

What do you mean when you say: the Catholic Traditions contradict 100% with the apostolic tradition as we can deduce from the writings of the Apostles?

Joe, I wish to respond to just a few at a time.
The Catholic practices that are not in the bible are supported by traditions and sometimes dogmas.
Examples;

1. the doctrine of transubstantiation was not part of the early church practice. It was introduced in the Catholic Church after 1000AD as per the church history. The implication is the presence of Jesus himself in the Eucharist. This contradicts the Apostle Paul’s teaching which is symbolic and in remembrance of Christ.
2. The Bible does not refer to Mary as the Mother of God. The Apostles including Peter never did so. From the chronology of events in the RCC, the name ‘Mother of God’ was introduced later. In any case, the title of ‘Mother of God’ was being used by pagans in Egypt as they had female deities.
3. The coronation of Mary as the Queen of Heaven is not Biblical. No one time did the Apostles refer to Mary as the Queen of heaven or Queen of the Apostles etc. It emanates from the traditions and dogmas. The same title was used in pagan worship in Babylon.
4. Invoking the saints (the dead) in prayer or as ‘patron saints’ was not an apostolic tradition. John the baptist died while Jesus was starting his ministry and he never said that he could be invoked as a saint to pray for us. It is not Biblical. It was introduced by the RCC after 700AD.
5. Adoration of the Eucharist is as result of tradition but not supported by Jesus himself or by the apostles. It is a tradition which is neither Biblical nor Apostolic.
6. Celibacy is neither Biblical nor Apostolic. In 1Tim:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

The list is long but all affirms that these traditions contradicts the apostles teachings.

The Mass is all about worshiping God, with the Holy Eucharist being the source and summit, and sure Mary and the saints are mentioned. We are on the same page; cool!

The central theme of mass is the sacrifice of transubstantiation. The very first apostles including Mary mother of Jesus used to eat together in memory of Christ but not as transubstantiation. the understanding of Jesus being present in the host is a new teaching which contradicts the original teaching of Christ.
Invoking Mary & saints in worship is foreign as Mary and the first apostles used to meet frequently and pray together. They never invoked Mary in their worship. Their mode of prayer and the RCC’s mode of prayer are very parallel.

Scripture cannot interpret itself obviously, so who was charged with the mission of determining if a teaching is contradictory to the apostolic teachings? Not me, that is for sure…LOL

The original hearers of the words of Jesus understood everything. The problem was when it came to new cultures and languages.
Paul when commissioning Timothy told him; 2Tim:2:2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
The early church spread through raising disciples, who made other disciples. Scripture is not a jargon as we are made to believe, No, it is simple and with the guidance of the HS, one can understand by himself. For a teacher, one should use Bible commentaries, maps and other relevant historical materials.

Which is why Ignatius of Antioch, student of the apostles, used the word catholic to describe Jesus’ church.

What period did he live? The period matters, as the word catholic came to be used as the new name for the new religion of the Roman Empire.

How do you know that the written code has not been altered in some way, as you claim about tradition?

Well, even if it has been changed, what is left in the 27 books of the New Testament is so consistent that its sufficient to make somebody understand God’s purpose of sending Jesus on earth.

If the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Catholic church into all truth then neither sacred tradition nor sacred scripture can be trusted, in terms of being the authentic word of God. We believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, and that the HS continues to preserve truth within Jesus’ church, ergo: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, (God) come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”

The book of Acts records an important event: Acts:6:2: Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Acts:6:3: Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. Acts:6:4: But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
Acts:1:14: These all (Apostles) continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
2Tim:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This gives a picture of the Apostolic ministry of the first Church. Traditions were not a pertinent part of the Apostles reference.

All catholic traditions are found either explicitly or implicit, in sacred scripture.
.

 

[joe371]

Joe, I wish to respond to just a few at a time.
The Catholic practices that are not in the bible are supported by traditions and sometimes dogmas.
Examples;

1. the doctrine of transubstantiation was not part of the early church practice. It was introduced in the Catholic Church after 1000AD as per the church history. The implication is the presence of Jesus himself in the Eucharist. This contradicts the Apostle Paul’s teaching which is symbolic and in remembrance of Christ.

Paul never refers to the Eucharist as being symbolic. Actually just the opposite: “For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgement on themselves”. it’s - this is my body - not, this is a symbol…

1. The Bible does not refer to Mary as the Mother of God. The Apostles including Peter never did so. From the chronology of events in the RCC, the name ‘Mother of God’ was introduced later. In any case, the title of ‘Mother of God’ was being used by pagans in Egypt as they had female deities.
2. The coronation of Mary as the Queen of Heaven is not Biblical. No one time did the Apostles refer to Mary as the Queen of heaven or Queen of the Apostles etc. It emanates from the traditions and dogmas. The same title was used in pagan worship in Babylon.

Was Jesus God when Mary carried Him in her womb, and as a man after being conceived? If yes then she is the mother of God. Cut and dried my friend. That pagan stuff is irrelevant to Christianity; never understood - even as a protestant - why people bring it up when discussing Mary, the mother of God.

It’s blasphemy to worship Mary, as per the CC.

Mary is presented as the queen of heaven in Rev. 12.

1. Invoking the saints (the dead) in prayer or as ‘patron saints’ was not an apostolic tradition. John the baptist died while Jesus was starting his ministry and he never said that he could be invoked as a saint to pray for us. It is not Biblical. It was introduced by the RCC after 700AD.
2. Adoration of the Eucharist is as result of tradition but not supported by Jesus himself or by the apostles. It is a tradition which is neither Biblical nor Apostolic.

Saints in heaven are not dead - right?

Scripture: " I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Their souls live on in heaven and the book of rev. has them offering up their prayers for us, and we need them. What is not biblical is sola scriptura, so I am assuming you do not embrace it?

“And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.” Rev.

Apostolic tradition is, however, biblical.

I have actual quotes from people who were taught by the apostles, regarding the Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Jesus and if it does, upon the words of consecration, become Jesus’ flesh and blood, then we should adore the Eucharist. They would certainly be in a better position than you or I to know. No one prior to the reformation, believed what you believe about the Eucharist being merely symbolic.

1. Celibacy is neither Biblical nor Apostolic. In 1Tim:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Should I trust your interpretation, my interpretation, or the Holy Spirit guiding Jesus’ church, into all truth? Can you name any protestant man-made traditions that were believed by no one for the first 1500 years?

 

[Cube2]

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.

The biggest question is what is worship.
In the 10 Commandments we see;
Exod:20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, …
Exod:20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,…

We see a brief description of what is worship in this passage. There are other references of how people worshiped God in the old Testament.

In our time, what we do at sacred places is called worship. Worship can also be extended to other places.
We worship by singing, kneeling, bowing, praying, making a joyful noise like clapping etc.
When worshiping, these actions are directed to God. The Christian God is Tri-une, that is Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
God says, “thou shall not have any other god before me”. In worship, if these are directed to another person or object, then its worshiping them.
When prayer and adoration are directed to Mary or angels or saints, it out rightly becomes worship to them. God says he is a jealous God and does not share his glory with anyone.
In the Catholic churches and shrines, there is a statue of Mary. Sometimes people kneel before the statue and recite the rosary or some other prayers. It may be said that its not worship, or is a lesser kind of worship that is not like the one offered to God but the difference is the same. The same kneeling is the same that is given to Jesus or the Father.

In the Catholic prayer of confession, Mary, Angels and saints are mentioned in that ranking. Mary is specific, while angels and saints are generalized. Prayer of 'Hail Mary full of grace…, the rosary with “Mary mother of God - Pray for us” shows that Mary is intertwined in daily prayer together with God (the trinity).
This is where the issue is; if you are worshiping the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you are also worshiping Mary as she is also mentioned together with them.

 

[Cube2]

Was Jesus God when Mary carried Him in her womb, and as a man after being conceived? If yes then she is the mother of God. Cut and dried my friend. That pagan stuff is irrelevant to Christianity; never understood - even as a protestant - why people bring it up when discussing Mary, the mother of God.

The reference of Mary as the mother of God came after 300 AD.
There is no place in the New Testament where such a title was used. Jesus as part of the Trinity is the creator. Mary being the mother of God has a paganistic connotation of being equal with God. A god bears a god.

Mary is presented as the queen of heaven in Rev. 12.
That is a Catholics interpretation of scripture to support a dogma. If you read the whole chapter of Rev 12, you realize that its more than an individual. Where is she taken for 3 and a half years.

I have actual quotes from people who were taught by the apostles, regarding the Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Jesus and if it does, upon the words of consecration, become Jesus’ flesh and blood, then we should adore the Eucharist. They would certainly be in a better position than you or I to know. No one prior to the reformation, believed what you believe about the Eucharist being merely symbolic.

I doubt your claim. The book of Acts gives a narration of what the apostles practiced and there is no clue of such an understanding.
Apostle Paul teaches thus:
1Cor:11:20: When ye come together therefore into one place, is this not to eat the Lord’s supper. 1Cor:11:21: For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken…

1Cor:11:24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cor:11:26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

The Lord’s supper is one command given by Jesus in memory of him. Its like taking an oath of allegiance which if you go against it, you are guilty.

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Apostle peter (the 1st pope) was married. Apostle Paul gives instructions of appointing bishops and other church leaders.
The Council of Nicea of 325AD decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry.
The Catholic doctrine of celibacy is not as you have stated. Pope Siricius, 385AD left his wife in order to become pope. He was not a eunuch. Eunuchs of Jesus time were castrated men who could not experience the sexual emotions.

 

[Cube2]

Was Jesus God when Mary carried Him in her womb, and as a man after being conceived? If yes then she is the mother of God. Cut and dried my friend. That pagan stuff is irrelevant to Christianity; never understood - even as a protestant - why people bring it up when discussing Mary, the mother of God.

The reference of Mary as the mother of God came after 300 AD.
There is no place in the New Testament where such a title was used. Jesus as part of the Trinity is the creator. Mary being the mother of God has a paganistic connotation of being equal with God. A god bears a god.

Mary is presented as the queen of heaven in Rev. 12.

That is a Catholics interpretation of scripture to support a dogma. If you read the whole chapter of Rev 12, you realize that its more than an individual. We are told that she fled into the wilderness where God has prepared a place for her to be fed for 1,260 days.
Rev:12:14: And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, …
Is Mary still in the wilderness as we are not told what becomes of her.
Is 1,260 days literal or symbolic?

I have actual quotes from people who were taught by the apostles, regarding the Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Jesus and if it does, upon the words of consecration, become Jesus’ flesh and blood, then we should adore the Eucharist. They would certainly be in a better position than you or I to know. No one prior to the reformation, believed what you believe about the Eucharist being merely symbolic.

I doubt your claim. The book of Acts gives a narration of what the apostles practiced and there is no clue of such an understanding.
Apostle Paul teaches thus:
1Cor:11:20: When ye come together therefore into one place, is this not to eat the Lord’s supper. 1Cor:11:21: For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken…

1Cor:11:24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cor:11:26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

The Lord’s supper is one command given by Jesus in memory of him. Its like taking an oath of allegiance which if you go against it, you are guilty.

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Apostle peter (the 1st pope) was married. Apostle Paul gives instructions of appointing bishops and other church leaders.
The Council of Nicea of 325AD decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry.
The Catholic doctrine of celibacy is not as you have stated. Pope Siricius, 385AD left his wife in order to become pope. He was not a eunuch. Eunuchs of Jesus time were castrated men who could not experience the sexual emotions.

 

[YADA]

…Apostle peter (the 1st pope) was married. Apostle Paul gives instructions of appointing bishops and other church leaders.
The Council of Nicea of 325AD decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry.
The Catholic doctrine of celibacy is not as you have stated. Pope Siricius, 385AD left his wife in order to become pope. He was not a eunuch. Eunuchs of Jesus time were castrated men who could not experience the sexual emotions.

Your interpretations of scripture and the support for the view points expressed are late in time - in the immediate 500 years and less … and we are supposed to follow yours?

And your interpretation of the passage on Eunuchs - and the differences between them - is so simplistic and devoid of depth - it clearly represents the problems with your biblical interpretations, biblical exegesis, theological understanding and cultural norms for the Hebrew people and early Christians …

These types of arguments coupled with study of history in general, Hebrew and Christian history in particular, study of the Bible and early Christian writings and the fruits of what Protestantism has yielded in confusion and contradictory beliefs and practice - is why I am a Catholic today …

By the way - I have never - not once - worshiped Mary nor any Saint …

I have learned from their example of following Christ … I have asked for them to pray for me - to place my intentions before the Lord - just as I ask any other followers of Christ to pray for me … and just as I pray for others -

I am confident they pray for me - in reality they pray more faithfully for me then I probably manage for those I pray for …

And I hope and pray that I will join them in that heavenly prayer mission someday

 

[marywarfield]

The biggest question is what is worship.
In the 10 Commandments we see;
Exod:20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, …
Exod:20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,…

We see a brief description of what is worship in this passage. There are other references of how people worshiped God in the old Testament.

In our time, what we do at sacred places is called worship. Worship can also be extended to other places.
We worship by singing, kneeling, bowing, praying, making a joyful noise like clapping etc.
When worshiping, these actions are directed to God. The Christian God is Tri-une, that is Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
God says, “thou shall not have any other god before me”. In worship, if these are directed to another person or object, then its worshiping them.
When prayer and adoration are directed to Mary or angels or saints, it out rightly becomes worship to them. God says he is a jealous God and does not share his glory with anyone.
In the Catholic churches and shrines, there is a statue of Mary. Sometimes people kneel before the statue and recite the rosary or some other prayers. It may be said that its not worship, or is a lesser kind of worship that is not like the one offered to God but the difference is the same. The same kneeling is the same that is given to Jesus or the Father.

In the Catholic prayer of confession, Mary, Angels and saints are mentioned in that ranking. Mary is specific, while angels and saints are generalized. Prayer of 'Hail Mary full of grace…, the rosary with “Mary mother of God - Pray for us” shows that Mary is intertwined in daily prayer together with God (the trinity).
This is where the issue is; if you are worshiping the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you are also worshiping Mary as she is also mentioned together with them.

Wow you’ve given us a lot to think about.
So let’s start here. Kneeling.
So we kneel before a statue and we should rightly
be kneeling before God correct? Therefore in your
world we are worshipping a false God.

So in those Eastern Churches you honor Mary by
kissing her icon and stand for the rest of the liturgy
and never kneel- what are they doing?

And in your Protestant Churches who also don’t kneel
but jump, twist, leap and dance- what are they doing?

And those Protestant Churches where they pray the
Rosary to Mary but dont kneel before God- what are
they doing?

 

[adf417]

The biggest question is what is worship.

The reason I started this thread.

In the 10 Commandments we see;
Exod:20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, …
Exod:20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,…

We see a brief description of what is worship in this passage. There are other references of how people worshiped God in the old Testament.

Jesus also gave us a new way to worship in the NT so we would not have to rely on the old ways which always seem to confuse people. :hypno:

In our time, what we do at sacred places is called worship. Worship can also be extended to other places.
We worship by singing, kneeling, bowing, praying, making a joyful noise like clapping etc.
When worshiping, these actions are directed to God. The

These are certainly efficacious ways of worshiping and I think we should keep using them at all times but I hope you are not limiting me as to how I worship God. There are other ways. Maybe an infinite number of ways.

Christian God is Tri-une, that is Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
God says, “thou shall not have any other god before me”. In worship, if these are directed to another person or object, then its worshiping them.

When prayer and adoration are directed to Mary or angels or saints, it out rightly becomes worship to them.

Sorry but I don’t think you get to determine what worship is.:nope:

God says he is a jealous God and does not share his glory with anyone.
In the Catholic churches and shrines, there is a statue of Mary. Sometimes people kneel before the statue and recite the rosary or some other prayers. It may be said that its not worship, or is a lesser kind of worship that is not like the one offered to God but the difference is the same. The same kneeling is the same that is given to Jesus or the Father.

When Catholics begin to eat her [Mary] body or drink her blood then you can start worry. Until then all you are doing is putting limits on our worship. If worship to you is how you describe it then so be it but don’t think God can’t expound on how we are to worship Him.

In the Catholic prayer of confession, Mary, Angels and saints are mentioned in that ranking. Mary is specific, while angels and saints are generalized. Prayer of 'Hail Mary full of grace…, the rosary with “Mary mother of God - Pray for us” shows that Mary is intertwined in daily prayer together with God (the trinity).
This is where the issue is; if you are worshiping the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you are also worshiping Mary as she is also mentioned together with them.

Tell me Cube, what do you tell a person ,who uses the same bible as you do, tell you that you are worshiping wrong? You are not worshipping correctly.

Peace!!!

 

[YADA]

Cube2 - You said the

… Eunuchs of Jesus time were castrated men who could not experience the sexual emotions.

The Scripture passage reads

"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Your response dictates that ALL eunuchs are those who have been made [by castration] eunuchs by others … and clearly - the passage does not support your claim …

Jesus states - clearly here that some people are born in a state that equates to being a eunuch … they are not physically made one by castration nor any other man imposed means … Jesus lists this as the first form of being a eunuch …

Jesus states that there are those who choose to live like eunuchs …and why does Jesus state that they choose to live like eunuchs? FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN … these are men who do not mutilate themselves - nor do they have others mutilate them - No - they choose to forego sexual relations in order to serve God with a single purpose - to serve God - body and soul … this is a great sacrifice … we commonly refer to them as consecrated virgins … you should read about the vows to the Lord in the book of Numbers … read some of the Essenes ‘rules’ found in the Dead Sea Scrolls … it is an ancient custom

They may be in a minority - but in truth - there are men and women within the history of the Hebrew peoples and Christianity who choose to serve God in a chaste state. They choose to live this way … Jesus speaks of them in the third example …

You only read, comprehend and spout the second case - eunuchs made so my mutilation …

I ask you - what does that say for your interpretation of scriptures?

What I see is that you - Cube2 - are allowed to cherry pick your passages - ignore those that are inconvenient and shout to the world that your interpretation is the only correct one …

Exod:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, …

Take this instruction to not make any craven image … you would say that verse makes statues sinful …

So - when the people became ill in the desert - what was Moses and Aaron instructed to build? What instructions were given to the people? and what was the result?

Quote or Describe for me what God instructed regarding the building of the Ark of the Covenant? Describe the Temple in Jerusalem please …

 

[SteveVH]

The reference of Mary as the mother of God came after 300 AD.

So did the discernment of the canon of Scripture which you now hold as your sole authority. If the Church was wrong about Mary, how do you know it wasn’t also wrong about the canon of Scripture?

There is no place in the New Testament where such a title was used. Jesus as part of the Trinity is the creator.

Irrelevant. There is no place in the New Testament where the word “Trinity” is used either. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The title “Mother of God” given to Mary says more about Jesus than it does about her. Jesus is God and Mary is his mother. She is, therefore, the mother of God.

Mary being the mother of God has a paganistic connotation of being equal with God.

So you say. And yet the Catholic Church has never taught this. Quite the opposite. Therefore your argument, once again, is irrelevant. Instead, why don’t you learn what the Church actually teaches about her? If you disagree, fine, but there is no sense in making an argument against something the Church has never taught. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings.

Steve

 

[joe371]

Cube2

The reference of Mary as the mother of God came after 300 AD.
There is no place in the New Testament where such a title was used. Jesus as part of the Trinity is the creator. Mary being the mother of God has a paganistic connotation of being equal with God. A god bears a god.

Jesus is God (2nd person of Holy Trinity) and Mary is the mother of Jesus; therefore she is the mother of God. Mary being the mother of God has nothing to do with paganism.

That is a Catholics interpretation of scripture to support a dogma. If you read the whole chapter of Rev 12, you realize that its more than an individual. We are told that she fled into the wilderness where God has prepared a place for her to be fed for 1,260 days.
Rev:12:14: And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, …
Is Mary still in the wilderness as we are not told what becomes of her.
Is 1,260 days literal or symbolic?

Regarding the Eucharist: if you choose to believe that Jesus allowed idolatry (that is what it would be if you were right about the Eucharist) to exist in His church for 1500 years, that is your prerogative.

Rev. is clearly talking about Mary who is the queen mother of Jesus, who is the King of kings: “A great sign appeared in heaven; the imagery is clear: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head”.

I realize that this is also an allegorical statement.

In the OT the king’s mother is the queen; same here with the King of kings. Here, it’s quite obvious that the woman is Mary: "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

We, the church, are spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus; we are also Mary’s offspring, as per scripture, and therefore Mary is our spiritual mother: Heb-2-11 - Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

In a world with so many churches and so many sola scriptura advocates, who can we trust, in terms of doctrinal truth, in your opinion? It’s certainly not me or you.

 

[joe371]

SteveVH;11990716]So did the discernment of the canon of Scripture which you now hold as your sole authority. If the Church was wrong about Mary, how do you know it wasn’t also wrong about the canon of Scripture?

Irrelevant. There is no place in the New Testament where the word “Trinity” is used either. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The title “Mother of God” given to Mary says more about Jesus than it does about her. Jesus is God and Mary is his mother. She is, therefore, the mother of God.

So you say. And yet the Catholic Church has never taught this. Quite the opposite. Therefore your argument, once again, is irrelevant. Instead, why don’t you learn what the Church actually teaches about her? If you disagree, fine, but there is no sense in making an argument against something the Church has never taught. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings.

Steve

 

[Cube2]

And your interpretation of the passage on Eunuchs - and the differences between them - is so simplistic and devoid of depth - it clearly represents the problems with your biblical interpretations, biblical exegesis, theological understanding and cultural norms for the Hebrew people and early Christians …

These types of arguments coupled with study of history in general, Hebrew and Christian history in particular, study of the Bible and early Christian writings and the fruits of what Protestantism has yielded in confusion and contradictory beliefs and practice - is why I am a Catholic today …
B:thumbsup:

Ok, instead of twisting the issue to my presumed poor theological understanding etc, it would be beneficial to state your excellent biblical exegesis etc of the passage.
Just do that we see!

 

[joe371]

Ok, instead of twisting the issue to my presumed poor theological understanding etc, it would be beneficial to state your excellent biblical exegesis etc of the passage.
Just do that we see!

It’s not about you being right, YADA being right or me being right; it’s about truth, and Jesus left us with a way to know truth when we disagree and reach an impasse; what is it?

 

[Cube2]

Jesus is God (2nd person of Holy Trinity) and Mary is the mother of Jesus; therefore she is the mother of God. Mary being the mother of God has nothing to do with paganism.

Jesus does not start with Mary, He was from the beginning. Jesus is incarnate, that is taking a human nature. Mary is not the mother of God. Our God is a Trinity, and when we say Mary is the mother of God, we err as God is not synonymous to Jesus.
By God, we are simply saying that Mary is the mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the Eucharist: if you choose to believe that Jesus allowed idolatry (that is what it would be if you were right about the Eucharist) to exist in His church for 1500 years, that is your prerogative.

The line of believe is suspect.
During the last supper, Jesus said this is my body, then ate it. Thus he ate his body and drank his blood. Was his body in the bread by then?
The disciples also ate the bread and drank the wine while still with Jesus. Was Jesus in the bread and at the same time with them, or both?

Acts:1:14: These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Acts:2:46: And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Mary was in the company of the first Apostles, and they ate the Lord’s table together. If they perceived that Jesus was in the bread, it must have been a bitter reminder to Mary that she was eating her son every time.
The Apostles saw Jesus die and rise again, they could not have perceived that he was in the bread whereas they knew that he had ascended to heaven.

Rev. is clearly talking about Mary who is the queen mother of Jesus, who is the King of kings: “A great sign appeared in heaven; the imagery is clear: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head”.

I realize that this is also an allegorical statement.
In the OT the king’s mother is the queen; same here with the King of kings. Here, it’s quite obvious that the woman is Mary: "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

If its obvious, what would be the objective of it being put in the Revelation. Unless Jesus wanted to prove to the world that Mary is in heaven and is the queen of heaven. Otherwise, nothing else is deduced from the whole chapter.

However, some sections are intentionally omitted in this interpretation.
Rev:12:6: And the woman fled into the wilderness… for 1,260 days
Rev:12:14: And to the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

What is this wilderness place?
What is these 1,260 days?
Is the woman still at her place in the wilderness?
Does the woman has wings?

We, the church, are spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus; we are also Mary’s offspring, as per scripture, and therefore Mary is our spiritual mother: Heb-2-11 - Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

This is one of the latter doctrines that were adopted in the Catholic church among many others. The book of Acts narrates the deeds of the Apostles. As Mary was still alive, converts never considered her as their spiritual mother. They were baptized in the name of Jesus and were filled with the Holy Spirit. They looked unto Jesus, the beginner and finisher of their faith.

In a world with so many churches and so many sola scriptura advocates, who can we trust, in terms of doctrinal truth, in your opinion? It’s certainly not me or you.

In the book of Revelation, there are names of 7 different churches.
Apostle Peter wrote to believers scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. There were churches there.
Apostle Paul opened very many churches, and even wished to go to Spain and preach the Gospel there.

The objective is not about the number of churches as the the command of Jesus in Matt:28:19: is to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The main Question is whether they uphold the teaching of Christ. The Bible is sufficient to make a believer know Christ and reach heaven.