If not Catholic, Why are you on this forum?

[Church_Militant]

Fredricks:

Eucharist is in the Bible. You guys just do not do what it says. Early on, it was a meal, that is the way it was set up. Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles.

Phooey!

Cite proof from primary sources or deny the assertion.

I don’t believe you can provide them and then I don’t believe that the citations will prove to be in context.

The usual way it works with such statements.
Bring it on…

 

[BryPGuy89]

Tallyhoe:

Just because some one is on this website, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO BECOME A CATHOLIC. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING TO LEARN ABOUT A DIFFERENT CULTURE OR RELGION. I was planning a trip to Turkey. I was learning all that I could about their culture, custom and religion. Does it mean i want to become a Muslim? ABSOULTELY NOT. So please do excuse those few curious people who want to learn.

I think the original post was more directed in the direction of why many protestants call out Catholicsa and say they’re wrong and refuse to hear their beleifs.

 

[RyanL]

Freddy,

You’re killing me!

You said:

Catholicism proof texting the OT and applying assorted verses about the Ark, and not others, does not persuade me.

Then, regarding 2 Maccabees, you said:

do not hint, throw a quote

LOL!

You also said:

  	 				Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles

And also said:

  	 				BUT how can you expect me to believe something that no one writes about until, 300 years later??

But I’m gonna’ go out on a limb and say even if they did write about it immediately after (see: St. Ignatius and Jane Francis above), you still won’t believe it!

I asked:

Could you please cite the verse which tells us (1) who can marry two Christians and (2) what words they’re supposed to say?

You replied:

does not say, must not be vitally important

I won’t tell your wife! If she found out that your vows aren’t important, I’m pretty sure you’d be in the doghouse!

Let’s put it into practice, though:
Man: Wanna’ be married?
Woman: I suppose.
Is that a valid Christian marriage? Says who? Who says that a JOP can marry you in the eyes of God? Who grants him that authority? What if you’re married by a pagan witch doctor? Is that a valid marriage? If not, sex within it is fornication, and could very possibly result in eternal damnation - if it isn’t fornication, what says? Where is it written that pagan witchdoctors can marry people in the eyes of God? How do you know that it’s valid in the eyes of God and that God won’t view it as fornication?

I’d say that’s pretty darn important!

You said:

No disrespect.
We have a picture [of the Black Madonna] in our foyer.

Why is that any more disrespectful than a white one? Are blacks less-human? Does it somehow “sully” Christ or the Blessed Mother to depict them as black but not “sully” them to depict them as white? They’re Middle-eastern Jews!

Regarding the Trinity, you quoted some Scripture passages. Great - they demonstrate nothing to support an exclusively Trinitarian theology! All of your citations could (and have been) just as easily used to support Modalism (link to a non-Catholic explanation). You could also cite Scripture to prove the non-Divinity of Jesus (See this link). Bottom line - you’re relying on tradition to read the Scriptures with a Trinitarian lense! It’s not clear! If it were, none of these heresies would have even gotten off the ground - see the idiots at this site for Biblical support for the Arian heresy.

Bottom line: your “simple” version of the Trinity is based on Tradition, not Scripture Alone. You have to read the Scriptures knowing God is a Trinity to see the clearly Trinitarian passages - and guess what? That’s exactly what Sacred Tradition is! It’s a way of reading the Scriptures as the Apostles meant them to be read!

Know what else? The same folks who brought you the Trinity and the Canon of Scripture also brought you hits like the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Baptismal Regeneration, etc., etc. Why would you trust them to get the nature of God and the Canon of Scripture (NT only) right but not the nature of the Sacraments?

Can you see why this makes no sense, and why I’d say “you’re killing me”?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Oh, and one more thing:

Frederick:

                                                        BUT how can you expect me to believe something that no one writes about until, 300 years later??

For starters, your math is off.

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so y**ou should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. **

Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 A.D. 300]).
At most, this is 250 yrs later, not 300.

Second, we don’t have complete records from the first few centuries of Christianity (we don’t even have the original manuscripts of the New Testament itself) - it’s entirely possible that Mary’s assumption was written about prior to 300 AD (which, BTW, is prior to the Canon of Scripture being defined - so before we have a Bible, we have the assumption of Mary). All that you could honestly assert is that we have no surviving records of it, and really that’s an argument from silence (which cannot ultimately prove your point).

What is more persuasive, however, is the absence of any objection to the teaching. In a time when we have people fighting vigorously over the Divinity of Christ, someone says, “the Blessed Mother was bodily assumed into heaven,” and no one bats an eye - no one objects! It’s kinda’ like they all just said, “Ok - that sounds right.” It’s treated like common knowledge - no one objects!

Doesn’t that strike you as just a little odd?

And doesn’t it also strike you as a little odd that almost every early Christian writer dedicates considerable ink to the Blessed Mother? I wonder why that is…
Sub Tuum Praesidium:

WE FLY TO thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

Hmm…again, no one objects…odd, isn’t it? Oh, and isn’t this within your self-imposed traditional time limit?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BrianH]

Fredricks is not anti-black. He phones his Mom and Dad every week like any dutiful son.
BH

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

Fredricks is not anti-black. He phones his Mom and Dad every week like any dutiful son.
BH

Roger that!

It just struck me as odd that he would imply that we should take offense at a black depiction of Jesus and the Blessed Mother…did I read it wrong?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

Eucharist is in the Bible. You guys just do not do what it says. Early on, it was a meal, that is the way it was set up. Eucharist is a later development that cannot be traced to the Apostles.

Actually this is incorrect. Reread Corinthians. The love feast was seperate from communion. The Eucharist (thanksgiving) is not a later developement. In reading Ignatuis he certainly speaks quite clearly about it, and this is the disciple of John.

Either John didn’t know how to teach his pupils or we have a problem with his teachings (which would have to include his writings) However sinse Ignatius was made a Bishop by the apostles it is certain they had confidence in his understanding.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Anonymous_1]

1, To convince Protestants to not change.
2, To debate Catholics
3. I have run my course with others(LDS, Orthodox, Atheists, Baptists), not much left.
4. Its a high quality board

and what beliefs or religion do you subscribe to?

 

[Eden]

Roger that!

It just struck me as odd that he would imply that we should take offense at a black depiction of Jesus and the Blessed Mother…did I read it wrong?

God Bless,
RyanL
[/quote]

I understood that he gave a link to the article on the Black Madonna in New York because he was losing on the Assumption debate and wanted to discredit Mary in the eyes of his “wavering brethren”. Are they upset by “Africans”?

Does Christ care what color skin His followers have or what color skin one might depict His mother as having? No. So, what is the point of posting about it? The greatest irony of all is that the early Black Madonnas were dark because of changes over time in wood and paint pigments or from the soot and residue of candles. The name “Black Madonna” did not originally mean “African”. The purpose of posting that link is shameful.

 

[Eden]

Anonymous_1:

and what beliefs or religion do you subscribe to?

We’ve been told that it is a secret.

 

[zingo227]

I like reading the posts here for many reasons…

1. the depth of information here is fairly good compared to many protestant boards, also seems to be more percentage of serious posts
2. y’all don’t cut islam any slack here, many protestant/mixed boards are infested with “let’s all sing kumbaya” types & self-haters, it is amazing some of the anti-Christian drivel being spewed even by Christians, but that’s just my opinion of course
3. I like the Catholic theology & it’s historical & biblical basis
4. the forum software itself good, generally low graphics, works OK using 56k dialup internet, clean & organized

 

[Linnyo]

Eden:

That is a very weak response. You have nothing to say to:

1) Some truths of Tradition are directly stated in Scripture, such as God’s creation of the world.

**2) Other truths of Tradition are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. **For example, while the Bible doesn’t come out and say that the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a force, it is implied in numerous passages, such as those in which the Spirit is depicted as speaking to people (e.g., Acts 13:2), and the biblical authors meant us to understand this.

**3) Some truths of Tradition can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them. **For example, Christ having both a human will and a divine will can be inferred from his being “true God and true man” (CCC 464). Various biblical passages state or imply that he is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.

**4) A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can’t be proved from the text alone. **The Immaculate Conception may be reflected in what Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:28, and the Assumption may be reflected in the wings the woman is given in Revelation 12:14, but you couldn’t prove these truths from the text alone.

5) Some truths are presupposed by Scripture, such as many of the particulars of how the sacraments are celebrated—their proper form, matter, ministers, and recipients. The sacraments are mentioned in the Bible, but the biblical authors didn’t give many details about their administration. They assumed that the reader would look to the practice of the Church for the answers to these questions. For example, the sacrament of reconciliation is discussed, but the words that need to be used to make an absolution valid are not.

6) Some truths are not in Scripture at all; not even a piece of the truth in question is indicated. As we saw earlier, the truths that public revelation is ended and that there will be no more apostles fall in this category.

The belief that public revelation is ended and there will be no more apostles is not significant?

Are you denying that the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity developed over time and is not explicit in scripture?

Take the hint! He/she doesn’t want to talk to you. He/she finds what you have to say uninteresting! :yawn:

 

[Eden]

Linnyo:

Take the hint! He/she doesn’t want to talk to you. He/she finds what you have to say uninteresting! :yawn:

Considering how many times Fredericks responds to my posts, I disagree.

You are mistaking an inability to reply to my post with a disinterest in replying to my posts.

 

[Fredricks]

I understood that he gave a link to the article on the Black Madonna in New York because he was losing on the Assumption debate and wanted to discredit Mary in the eyes of his “wavering brethren”. Are they upset by “Africans”?

First of all, I would like to think Dr. Howard for emailing me. I am taking a break but I cannot stomach this. Your assuming the very worst in people is also unacceptable. Eden. I had been talking about Mary and I had said that it was a sore point for Catholics and was being very respectable. I said no disrespect and posted a link to the blessed Mother found in our foyer at church. The point of posting it was to clearly show my respect.
I clearly said it was in our foyer. How dare you say such things?
I am African-American. I cannot believe the vitirol from you.
I applaud the charity of some of the posters on here but you have overstepped the line. This is unacceptable and you should be reprimanded for such horrible comments.

Washington Fredricks Carver

I do not mean any of this to the charitable posters who represent their faith with class. I will go back to my self imposed break but thank you again for bringing this to my attention. It is slander and I have never been treated this poorly, even by atheists! How dare you.

 

[SemperJase]

Fredricks:

First of all, I would like to think Dr. Howard for emailing me. I am taking a break but I cannot stomach this. Your assuming the very worst in people is also unacceptable. Eden. I had been talking about Mary and I had said that it was a sore point for Catholics and was being very respectable. I said no disrespect and posted a link to the blessed Mother found in our foyer at church. The point of posting it was to clearly show my respect.
I clearly said it was in our foyer. How dare you say such things?
I am African-American. I cannot believe the vitirol from you.
I applaud the charity of some of the posters on here but you have overstepped the line. This is unacceptable and you should be reprimanded for such horrible comments.

Washington Fredricks Carver

I do not mean any of this to the charitable posters who represent their faith with class. I will go back to my self imposed break but thank you again for bringing this to my attention. It is slander and I have never been treated this poorly, even by atheists! How dare you.

I understand that you and Eden seemed to clash. But there clearly was a misunderstanding between your posts. I was confused by your link to the black madonna and didn’t understand what you meant by “we have a picture in our foyer”.

I don’t think her post was a remark against african-americans. Please keep in mind that the anonymous nature of this board and the fact that writing does a poor job of conveying tone contributes to misunderstanding on message boards. Not knowing your background contributes to misunderstanding the intent of your post as well. If anything, her response shows a lack of racial bias while misunderstanding the intent of your post. At least we catholics have that going for us.

I take it your name is in honor of the great American inventor George Washington Carver? Any relation?

 

[Alfie]

Eden:

On the Assumption of Mary:

The problem with showing Mary’s Assumption, (or the deaths of Mary or most of the Apostles, for that matter), in the Bible, is that the Gospel record ends before any of these events occurred. The Assumption is, however, implicit in Revelation Chapter 12 (see Queen of Heaven).

http://www.geocities.com/aprofaith/Imm_concep.jpgMary’s Bodily Assumption is also a long-standing teaching of the Ancient Churches. The celebratory festival in August dates from at least the 400s in Palestine, and had reached Gaul by the 500s. The setting of a Festival Day for a doctrine is evidence not only of a strong and almost universally-held belief in that doctrine, but also of a long-standing belief - since it is rare for Festival to be celebrated for a belief or incident for which there is not some long attestation. As a comparison, the date of December the 25th for the celebration of Christmas was set only in 354 AD by Pope Julius I.

Early references to the Assumption of Mary include Timothy of Jerusalem in around 380 AD, who wrote: “Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,”

Gregory of Tours in 580 wrote: “Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after childbirth, was, as we have said before, carried to Paradise preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs.”

Apocryphal writings detailing the Assumption have been dated back to the 200s. Although other early references are few, the fact that the Celebration of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven was not opposed in what was a highly disputatious age, argues strongly for a general acceptance and belief in the doctrine.

The fact that the Christian Community has believed from the earliest days that Mary was taken bodily into heaven can also be proved from the fact that no-one ever claimed to have her relics.

From the times of the persecutions, relics of the Saints had an immense value. Christians would often risk their lives to collect the remains of martyrs from the Arena and preserve their relics. In later days, having the body of a holy Saint in your church could make your city wealthy. St Peter’s body has the greatest church in the world built on top of it. Thomas a Becket drew enormous pilgrim crowds to Canterbury. St James drew millions to Compostella. Any Church or city that could have claimed to hold Mary’s body, or even a single bone from her finger would have at once become one of the richest and most popular places of pilgrimage in the world. In fact about 400 AD the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. He was informed that there were no relics of Mary.

So valuable were relics that many were accused of fraudulently manufacturing them just to draw pilgrims and create wealth. Yet from the earliest days no-one has claimed to have the body of the Virgin Mary - or even as much as a single small bone. Why not? Because her body was hard to find? Not really. Plenty claimed to own part of the True Cross or even the Crown of Thorns. So why did no-one claim to have Mary’s body? There is one reason. Quite simply because no-one would have believed them. From the earliest days of the Church everyone KNEW that Mary’s body was not on earth. Every Christian knew that she had been assumed bodily into heaven. If there had been room for any argument about that fact, if there had been room for the slightest doubt, then some church somewhere would have claimed to have had Mary’s body.

www.geocities.com/aprofaith/virgin.htm

Excuse me, in verse 12 it says the woman fled into the wilderness. Was there a re-assumption to the earth by Mary? According to verse 12 and 13 Mary would have to be on the earth during the time of tribulation. Why? The woman is the church not Mary. The Bible says that women will be saved through childbirth. That is symbolic of the birth of Jesus and nothing else.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Your assuming the very worst in people is also unacceptable. Eden.

You said “No disrespect” and then give a link to a “Black Madonna”. What conclusions did you expect to be drawn from your statement “no disrespect”. Your way of phrasing indicates that you knew it could be taken as disrespect but posted the link anyway.

Can you please explain your point in posting the link?

 

[Eden]

Alfie:

Excuse me, in verse 12 it says the woman fled into the wilderness. Was there a re-assumption to the earth by Mary? According to verse 12 and 13 Mary would have to be on the earth during the time of tribulation. Why? The woman is the church not Mary. The Bible says that women will be saved through childbirth. That is symbolic of the birth of Jesus and nothing else.

How could the flight of the woman be understood as Mary?

*Answer: *The meaning is obscure. Some have taught it refers to the Assumption.19 The fact that she was taken up on the “wings of the great eagle” might mean she went up by the power of her Son, while He Himself earlier “was taken up to God and to his throne”-the Ascension. The same interpreters then would make the mysterious 1260 days refer to all the time from the Assumption to the end of the world. Noting the 1260 days equal about 31/2 years, they would equate that number to the “time and times and half a time,” which would also total 31/2. Others would say the flight refers to the flight into Egypt.

www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfmWorkNum=213&ChapNum=29

 

[Alfie]

Eden:

On the Assumption of Mary:

The problem with showing Mary’s Assumption, (or the deaths of Mary or most of the Apostles, for that matter), in the Bible, is that the Gospel record ends before any of these events occurred. The Assumption is, however, implicit in Revelation Chapter 12 (see Queen of Heaven).

http://www.geocities.com/aprofaith/Imm_concep.jpgMary’s Bodily Assumption is also a long-standing teaching of the Ancient Churches. The celebratory festival in August dates from at least the 400s in Palestine, and had reached Gaul by the 500s. The setting of a Festival Day for a doctrine is evidence not only of a strong and almost universally-held belief in that doctrine, but also of a long-standing belief - since it is rare for Festival to be celebrated for a belief or incident for which there is not some long attestation. As a comparison, the date of December the 25th for the celebration of Christmas was set only in 354 AD by Pope Julius I.

Early references to the Assumption of Mary include Timothy of Jerusalem in around 380 AD, who wrote: “Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,”

Gregory of Tours in 580 wrote: “Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after childbirth, was, as we have said before, carried to Paradise preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs.”

Apocryphal writings detailing the Assumption have been dated back to the 200s. Although other early references are few, the fact that the Celebration of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven was not opposed in what was a highly disputatious age, argues strongly for a general acceptance and belief in the doctrine.

The fact that the Christian Community has believed from the earliest days that Mary was taken bodily into heaven can also be proved from the fact that no-one ever claimed to have her relics.

From the times of the persecutions, relics of the Saints had an immense value. Christians would often risk their lives to collect the remains of martyrs from the Arena and preserve their relics. In later days, having the body of a holy Saint in your church could make your city wealthy. St Peter’s body has the greatest church in the world built on top of it. Thomas a Becket drew enormous pilgrim crowds to Canterbury. St James drew millions to Compostella. Any Church or city that could have claimed to hold Mary’s body, or even a single bone from her finger would have at once become one of the richest and most popular places of pilgrimage in the world. In fact about 400 AD the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. He was informed that there were no relics of Mary.

So valuable were relics that many were accused of fraudulently manufacturing them just to draw pilgrims and create wealth. Yet from the earliest days no-one has claimed to have the body of the Virgin Mary - or even as much as a single small bone. Why not? Because her body was hard to find? Not really. Plenty claimed to own part of the True Cross or even the Crown of Thorns. So why did no-one claim to have Mary’s body? There is one reason. Quite simply because no-one would have believed them. From the earliest days of the Church everyone KNEW that Mary’s body was not on earth. Every Christian knew that she had been assumed bodily into heaven. If there had been room for any argument about that fact, if there had been room for the slightest doubt, then some church somewhere would have claimed to have had Mary’s body.

www.geocities.com/aprofaith/virgin.htm

In Verse 12 why is the dragon in heaven with Mary? If she is the Queen of heaven how does the dragon have the power to persecute her? Why doesn’t she just go to God the Father about the dragon? If she is fleeing into the wilderness is that in heaven?It says the dragon threw a third of the stars down to the earth with the woman. The woman is on earth not heaven.

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

You said “No disrespect” and then give a link to a “Black Madonna”. What conclusions did you expect to be drawn from your statement “no disrespect”. Your way of phrasing indicates that you knew it could be taken as disrespect but posted the link anyway.

Can you please explain your point in posting the link?

He said they had a picture in their foyer. Why would they have a picture in their church if they disrespected her?

Try reading next time.

"I do not usually discuss Mary with you guys. I offend you when I give my views. Rest assured, I believe everything the Bible says about her and I mean no disrespect but only the utmost respect."
Fredricks

No disrespect on Mary guys. Sincerely. Just trying to be clear about what we think. I always get uptight talking about this because this cuts to the core of your belief system and it always ends bad based upon personal experience.
Fredricks
Prophetic words my friend and mentor.
BH