Help...

[beachieca]

I recently talked to a Pastor and questioned him about where certain beliefs of the Catholic faith came from. (yes, I asked a Priest first and he said that most of them came with History and weren’t originally set to be that way. Which only confused me more…) Anyway, the Pastor said that beliefs such as the importance of the Blessed Mother in the Catholic Church came from the mystery religions of Babylon. That those teachings of these Mystery religions were wrong and not at all the teachings of Christ. Instead of banishing those religions the church said that they would incorporate their beliefs somehow so as to appease them. (This Pastor used to be Catholic, by the way). Any help?? Is the right??

 

[jax8686]

well…

1. asking a protestant what it means to be catholic is like asking a dog what its like to be a cat.
2. talk to a better priest, he sounds like my preist, and i dont talk theology with him.
3. what things are you referring to? we have solid justification for all of our beleifs.

 

[mosher]

beachieca:

I recently talked to a Pastor and questioned him about where certain beliefs of the Catholic faith came from. (yes, I asked a Priest first and he said that most of them came with History and weren’t originally set to be that way. Which only confused me more…) Anyway, the Pastor said that beliefs such as the importance of the Blessed Mother in the Catholic Church came from the mystery religions of Babylon. That those teachings of these Mystery religions were wrong and not at all the teachings of Christ. Instead of banishing those religions the church said that they would incorporate their beliefs somehow so as to appease them. (This Pastor used to be Catholic, by the way). Any help?? Is the right??

No, that position cannot be logically held unless one gets their history and theology from Jack Chick. The reality is something quite different. Historically you can see that Marian devotion was found in the early Church, the sacraments etc all come from apostolic times.

 

[Lorarose]

Of course it isn’t right. The teachings come from scripture along with Sacred Tradition. It had nothing to with paganism.
Click on the search function on this forum and use searchwords like Mary, idolotry, Blessed Mother, intercession, Immaculate Conception, assumption, Queen Mother.
Other discussions should pop up that you can read through.
Maybe someone else here can offer you other searchwords to help you out.

 

[Lazerlike42]

No, he is completely mistaken. A really good source to address a lot of these points would be the book Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. It is very good in terms of these sorts of accusations.

The general problem with this sort of arguement is that it is a logical fallacy. The techincal term is post hoc ad hoc ergo hoc. This means that it assumes that just because one thing is similar to something that came before it, that the new thing is based on or comes from the old thing. This is simply untrue. In fact, this same arguement can be applied to general Christianity as well as Catholic Christianity. For instance, the concept of the Trinity is similar to some egyptian gods. The very same arguement your Pastor friend is using is used by atheists all the time to say that the Trinity is simply a Christian adaptation of Egyptian paganism.

If you want to read more, I suggest:

Tracking the First Pagans

Bogus Babylon

Did The Catholic Church Have Its Origins in Paganism?

For Mary, I suggest you read any of these

 

[sadie2723]

beachieca:

I recently talked to a Pastor and questioned him about where certain beliefs of the Catholic faith came from. (yes, I asked a Priest first and he said that most of them came with History and weren’t originally set to be that way. Which only confused me more…) Anyway, the Pastor said that beliefs such as the importance of the Blessed Mother in the Catholic Church came from the mystery religions of Babylon. That those teachings of these Mystery religions were wrong and not at all the teachings of Christ. Instead of banishing those religions the church said that they would incorporate their beliefs somehow so as to appease them. (This Pastor used to be Catholic, by the way). Any help?? Is the right??

First, the pastor that you talked to is not correct. There is nothing in the Catholic faith that cannot be justified in scripture. Nothing. If you wonder where all of the teachings come from, you should check out this site ic.net/~erasmus/BOOKS.HTM

When you get there, you will find some great books that back every teaching up via scripture. Do yourself a favor, and don’t bother talking to a non-Catholic minister about Catholocism. Let’s remember that if that minister knew anything about the Catholic Church he would most certainly not be teaching where he is.

Brad

 

[beachieca]

jax8686:

well…

1. asking a protestant what it means to be catholic is like asking a dog what its like to be a cat.
2. talk to a better priest, he sounds like my preist, and i dont talk theology with him.
3. what things are you referring to? we have solid justification for all of our beleifs.

1.I wasn’t necessarilly asking him what it meant to be Catholic. I was justifying what I believed and that is the answer he gave. Considering the fact that he used to be Catholic I thought he might help in someway…I suppose I was mistaken.
2. Priests…another issue. If the Catholic Faith is supposed to be so strong in what we believe and have back up for all of it, why doesn’t this Priest? For example, I asked him about Mary being sinless since her birth. It says in the Catholic Doctrine (and the Priest re-confirmed this) that Mary is sinless. However, when I told him that, he said that what the Pope and the Bishops and everyone else involved in the decisions of the Doctrine based that off of, was that she could have been sinless. That brings up the issue of if she was given grace before or when Gabriel came to tell her she was going to bear a son, Jesus Christ. My point, is that I don’t see where we have justification that Mary was sinless. In Luke 1:47 she even says “for he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness” To me, thats saying the she is another human being that has sin. Am I wrong? Any way you can clear this up would help out =)

 

[sadie2723]

1.I wasn’t necessarilly asking him what it meant to be Catholic. I was justifying what I believed and that is the answer he gave. Considering the fact that he used to be Catholic I thought he might help in someway…I suppose I was mistaken.
2. Priests…another issue. If the Catholic Faith is supposed to be so strong in what we believe and have back up for all of it, why doesn’t this Priest? For example, I asked him about Mary being sinless since her birth. It says in the Catholic Doctrine (and the Priest re-confirmed this) that Mary is sinless. However, when I told him that, he said that what the Pope and the Bishops and everyone else involved in the decisions of the Doctrine based that off of, was that she could have been sinless. That brings up the issue of if she was given grace before or when Gabriel came to tell her she was going to bear a son, Jesus Christ. My point, is that I don’t see where we have justification that Mary was sinless. In Luke 1:47 she even says “for he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness” To me, thats saying the she is another human being that has sin. Am I wrong? Any way you can clear this up would help out =)

Priests are good people, and in general they are scholars. However, most are not apologists by nature. It is one thing to know things about the church, but it is another thing to be ready to defend it. That is probably why you ran into the issue. My priest is an apologist by nature, but some are not.

 

[Lazerlike42]

OK… first of all, you have to realize that about 40 years ago a lot of folks came in and joined the priesthood for all the wrong reasons. They were the kind of folks who thought they knew better than the Church and wanted to get their own ideas in there instead of trusting in the Holy Spirit. So, they joined the priesthood and 40 years later they are wrecking havoc on the faithful by teaching their own beliefs as though they are true.

In terms of Mary, there are a lot of things you can look at.

For one, you have to realize that a sinless human being is still nothing compared to God. The statement that she is a lowly handmaid is completely true regardless of whether she ever sinned or not.

With that being said, let’s take a peak at other things the BIble has to say.

Let’s begin with Luke 1:28. This is where the famous, “Hail, full of grace” comes from. Now the greek behind this phrase is the word Kecharitomene. Without getting too deep into greek here, what this word works out to meaning is that Mary was graced in the past in such a way that that A) that grace was perfect and B) that grace continues in the present. Because the grace was perfect, it means that there was no “room” for sin. You can dig much deeper into this, and in fact I expect a lot of people to give you that info, and it is readily availible on catholic.com and many other places, so I am not spending too much time on it.

I do want to show a few more uncommon Biblical pieces of info about Mary One of my favorites begins in Genesis chapter 3:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”

So we see that the cuse of birth pain is original sin. Now let’s look at Isaiah chapter 66:

Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.

This is a passage that was always viewed as a prophecy of the birth of Christ. Isaiah tells us that Mary gave birth without any labor pains. If original sin causes labor pains, and Mary had no pains, then she could not have had original sin.

 

[Elzee]

Lazerlike42:

This is a passage that was always viewed as a prophecy of the birth of Christ. Isaiah tells us that Mary gave birth without any labor pains. If original sin causes labor pains, and Mary had no pains, then she could not have had original sin.

This is where I get confused…Genesis says she will suffer pain, but Isaiah says she didn’t…???

 

[Lazerlike42]

It’s also important to realize that the early fathers believed in Mary’s immaculate conception:

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

There is one more that is very, very important:

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

When God made His covenant with the Jews, the Ark of the covenant was the thing that contained the tablets of the law, which was the key to the covenant Obviously, the key to the New Covenant is Christ. He was contained within Mary. The early fathers of the Church taught how Mary was the ark of the New Covenant.

Now the first ark of the covenant had to be completely pure. For instance, it is so holy that it cannot be touched or else you will die. This can be seen in the Bible (for instance 2 Samuel 6:7).

It is also incredibly interesting to compare Mary’s visit to Elizabeth in Luke chapter 1 to what occurs in 2 Samuel chapter 6. Here is a nice comparison from www.scripturecatholic.com:

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Elzee:

This is where I get confused…Genesis says she will suffer pain, but Isaiah says she didn’t…???

Genesis says women will suffer pain because of original sin. Mary didn’t because she had no original sin, which is why Isaiah says she didn’t.