I'm getting tired of hearing from Protestants that we worship Mary and the saints!

[Peter_J]

P.S. I see that a couple of new posts showed up here while I was writing that last one. Sorry for any redundancy.

 

[Leeann]

Well, you know, we do think that it was ‘recorded in Scripture’. . .by St. Luke. . .
And we also think that not every teaching of Christ is 'recorded in Scripture" but that some teachings were carried on through oral teaching. . .this being one of them.

After all, the concept of the Trinity being three Divine Persons in One God --Father, Son and Spirit coequal–is not explicitly found in Scripture.

There are implicit bits. . .one can make a case for prefiguring in the Old Testament. . .but there is absolutely no Scripture that specifically defines the Trinity as we understand it.

How do you understand it?

1 John 5 V7:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Pretty explicit verse of scripture.

 

[onenow1]

This I can see, “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” clearly stipulating that this was from birth. Where is this said about Mary? I would think that if Scripture was to say this specifically about John then why oh why wouldn’t it be said about the Mother of Christ?

Quote= onenow1 It was.

Luke 1
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus

Notice God’s greeting from Gabriel, full of grace ] He didn’t say Hail Mary did He, I think this is very telling in light of the use of the word full.

Comment: It wasn’t necessary to be as explicit with Mary, after all she is the Mother of God.

Peace, onenow1

 

[hays1122]

This I can see, “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” clearly stipulating that this was from birth. Where is this said about Mary? I would think that if Scripture was to say this specifically about John then why oh why wouldn’t it be said about the Mother of Christ?

Have you looked up information on Mary and apparitions?
I think you’ll understand a lot more if you read these documents on Mary appearing to people and what they had to say.
Try this website:

In Defense of the Cross

Come Back and Inherit the Kingdom of God. Features Apparitions of Christ & Mary, Photos of Signs, Wonders, Miracles, Powerful Prayers, Prophecy

indefenseofthecross.com

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Not exactly, you need a VERY important sperm to carry a human. Reproduction 101 anyone? That egg could be ANYONE depending on which guy’s sperm enters it.

I’m talking about the specific egg that became Jesus.

One of Mary’s eggs was fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

All Mary’s eggs existed at her birth.

 

[LilyM]

How do you understand it?

1 John 5 V7:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Pretty explicit verse of scripture.

‘One’ certainly doesn’t mean co-equal - husband and wife are ‘one flesh’ - that doesn’t mean they’re the same nor that each exactly corresponds in all respects to the other.

And there is a lot of scripture about Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus saying ‘I do nothing on my own’, Jesus saying He is returning, after the resurrection, to ‘my God’.

Non-Christians (and non-Trinitarian Christians) have used these passages for centuries to claim that Jesus isn’t divine.

 

[hays1122]

‘One’ certainly doesn’t mean co-equal - husband and wife are ‘one flesh’ - that doesn’t mean they’re the same nor that each exactly corresponds in all respects to the other.

And there is a lot of scripture about Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus saying ‘I do nothing on my own’, Jesus saying He is returning, after the resurrection, to ‘my God’.

Non-Christians (and non-Trinitarian Christians) have used these passages for centuries to claim that Jesus isn’t divine.

There is a problem with the way people can take versus to say what they want them to say.
These are the versus that tell me that God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.
God is the “I am “, Jesus is the word,the Holy Spirit is God’s breath.
Scripture that shows the trinity is the real thing.
God
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Jesus
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:14
And the Word was MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This explains that Jesus is God’s “word”. A part of God.
Holy Spirit
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
God’s breath,his spirit gives life.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he BREATHed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost”
Jesus breathed on the disciples and they received the Holy Ghost. God’s spirit.
There is God,his word and his spirit,Father,Son,Holy Ghost.
Seems so clear to me.

 

[LilyM]

There is a problem with the way people can take versus to say what they want them to say.
These are the versus that tell me that God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one.
God is the “I am “, Jesus is the word,the Holy Spirit is God’s breath.
Scripture that shows the trinity is the real thing.
God
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Jesus
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:14
And the Word was MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This explains that Jesus is God’s “word”. A part of God.
Holy Spirit
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
God’s breath,his spirit gives life.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he BREATHed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost”
Jesus breathed on the disciples and they received the Holy Ghost. God’s spirit.
There is God,his word and his spirit,Father,Son,Holy Ghost.
Seems so clear to me.

Except those verses tell you no such thing in and of themselves, especially when placed alongside the verses that I’ve mentioned and others I could mention.

And if the Bible is your only guide you can’t simply ignore those verses that potentially contradict your beliefs, can you?

They tell no such thing, that is, to those who, unlike yourself, don’t believe in the Apostolic extra-biblical Tradition of the Trinity, and thus don’t read those passages through the interpretive lens provided by Apostolic Tradition. You’re already a member of the club, just acknowledge it and go for the full membership

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, where is your shame?

Keep reading down. I apologized for misunderstanding her post. I thought she was “jumping on the bandwagon” of the pack of lies that was quoted in her post.

 

[guanophore]

The ones that communicated to me their understanding of some of the teachings of their church are longtime Catholic adherents and members of the Catholic church, itself, - however you wouldn’t be aware of that…because as usual guanophore…you make false and incredible accusations and put your keyboard into action before your brain or manners.

IT is true that I missed some of the posts. I also misunderstood your “bandwagon” reference, thinking that you were agreeing with the pack of lies you quoted in your post. However, I have offered you an apology. What else can I do?

Having gone back to read the thread, I do understand that you are trying to understand the behavior of some possibly misdirected Catholics in your life. There are Catholics that do not have an appropriate relationship to Mary, and I recognize this too. Some of the attitudes and actions you have described are signs of that.

I have a lapsed Catholic friend who now calls herself a Pagan who believes that the Virgin of Guadalupe is a goddess. She only goes to Mass on her feast day, and prays to her as to a goddess.

Leeann:
Well, you know, we do think that it was ‘recorded in Scripture’. . .by St. Luke. . .
And we also think that not every teaching of Christ is 'recorded in Scripture" but that some teachings were carried on through oral teaching. . .this being one of them.

After all, the concept of the Trinity being three Divine Persons in One God --Father, Son and Spirit coequal–is not explicitly found in Scripture.

There are implicit bits. . .one can make a case for prefiguring in the Old Testament. . .but there is absolutely no Scripture that specifically defines the Trinity as we understand it.

1 John 5 V7:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Pretty explicit verse of scripture.

IT seems explicit to those who are reading it with the Trinity in mind. However, for those who have rejected the Trinity, it seems to them like “three” instead of one.

 

[guanophore]

Not exactly, you need a VERY important sperm to carry a human. Reproduction 101 anyone? That egg could be ANYONE depending on which guy’s sperm enters it.

This is true, but Jesus took his flesh from Mary’s flesh. That means, the egg from which He sprang was already in Mary from the day her ovaries were formed.

God predestined Mary for her role, that is why it was not necessary to preserve her whole hereditary line from sin.

The doctrine of the Immaculate conception was developed out of the response to the heresy of gnosticism, which denied the value of flesh, and purported that Jesus “passed through” Mary, but was not truly “in the flesh” since flesh was considered evil.

the Church responded that Jesus was flesh of her flesh, and that he took on human nature, as well as flesh. He was born “of the Virgin”, from her flesh.

 

[guanophore]

I’m confused—:doh2: We know the Scriptures as divine revelation and now you say that divine revelation is not confined to a book. What specific divine revelations are you referring to? A couple of examples would help…

I have been telling you for the last two years that Divine Revelation is not confined to a book. Why don’t you people talk to each other? Or at least, read what the other’s have posted.

Sacred Tradition is the portion of the Divine revelation that is not found in the Bible.

You have been given multiple examples, the table of contents of the bible being one. That the doctrines of Mary have been held and taught continually by the Church from the beginning is another. You reject these things. You cannot understand them because you don’t believe that Sacred Tradition exists. You agree that God led the Church to identify the books of the NT, but you reject the basis upon which this was done. You imply that Jesus was lying when he promised to lead the Church into “all truth”.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4275813]I have been telling you for the last two years that Divine Revelation is not confined to a book. Why don’t you people talk to each other? Or at least, read what the other’s have posted.

Sacred Tradition is the portion of the Divine revelation that is not found in the Bible.

You have been given multiple examples, the table of contents of the bible being one.

The table of contents of the Scriptures is of divine revelation? Which came first: the books of the Bible or the table of contents?

That the doctrines of Mary have been held and taught continually by the Church from the beginning is another.

This is not true. You don’t have the assumption taught in the Scriptures or her immaculate conception. These were later developments that took centuries to develop.

You reject these things.

So should you for the reasons given…

You cannot understand them because you don’t believe that Sacred Tradition exists.

You keep claiming that Sacred Tradition exist but when i ask for verification of it from the church itself its not to be had as far as i can tell…

You agree that God led the Church to identify the books of the NT, but you reject the basis upon which this was done.

What basis are you talking about?

You imply that Jesus was lying when he promised to lead the Church into “all truth”.

There are some serious problems with this claim. Look at church history and it has to make you wonder if this is true.

 

[RNRobert]

The table of contents of the Scriptures is of divine revelation? Which came first: the books of the Bible or the table of contents?

How do you know there are supposed to be 27 books in the NT, not 25 or 30? And how do you know which books are to be in the NT?

This is not true. You don’t have the assumption taught in the Scriptures or her immaculate conception. These were later developments that took centuries to develop.

The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation also took centuries to develop. Should we throw them out too?

There are some serious problems with this claim. Look at church history and it has to make you wonder if this is true.

Just because some sinful men were in charge of the Church at times that not nullify Christ’s claim to guide the Church. In fact the miraculous thing is that the Church has persisted through the centuries despite all the attacks from within and without.

 

[Lilyflower]

I am fed up with the false misconceptions by Protestant Christians who insist that we worship Mary and the saints. I will put this in plain English.

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary and the saints. It is veneration and honor due to them because they lived out the life that Jesus Christ taught them! They are also in Heaven with God. They are much closer to God than you and me.

Who are you to judge us that we worship saints and Mary? Do you think you an expert in Catholicism. Do you have proof from a Catholic document permitting the worship of saints and Mary?

You won’t find it. We believe these saints are more alive than you and me. It benefits us to ask the entire of the people of God to help us while we are still in this world which is full of temptation and sin. We ask the saints to “pray for us.”

Many times here on Catholic Answers Forums. Some Newbie self-proclaimed Christian declares, I say many Catholics worship Mary. Not all do, and maybe it’s not in the instruction manual, but many do. Every Catholic will come to these idoloters’ defense and say, “Oh, it’s not worship, it’s veneration.” Sorry, not buying it, and nobody should.

Oh, please. You will probably start searching for the truth and use Catholic prayer books on saints and Mary as proof text. Prayer Books however, are not Church documents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church forbids worshipping idols. Worship is due to God alone.

Must we Catholic force you to type, “Catholics do not worship Mary.”

If you continue on this persistence, I might as well say that “Protestants worship the Bible, or the roof during their Sunday worship at Church.”

After all they raise hands up towards the ceiling. So they worship ceilings of the Church. Of course, I don’t think they worship ceiling just because they had their hands raised up high in adoration.

Alas, it is so often cited in my neck of the woods.

Recently a neighbouring Sacristan told me a woman told him that he should leave the Catholic Church and join one which worships Jesus Christ instead of Mary.

She believed that it was central to Catholic dogma to worship Mary and it was forbidden for Catholics to worship Jesus.

He said she was astonished to learn that every aspect of Catholic worship, prayer and meditation was Christ centred and Christ focussed. It was all to much for her. She was in noticeable shock as this was not what she had been taught about Catholics.

Blesssings and peace

 

[justasking4]

RNRobert;4277686]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The table of contents of the Scriptures is of divine revelation? Which came first: the books of the Bible or the table of contents?
RNRobert
How do you know there are supposed to be 27 books in the NT, not 25 or 30? And how do you know which books are to be in the NT?

There were various “tests” each book of the NT that had to pass to be included in the canon. If there were more then the church either missed them somehow (which is impossible) or God has hidden it from the church for reasons unknown. Those that believe in Sola Scriptura know that the Scriptures are sufficent for salvation and growing to maturity in Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is not true. You don’t have the assumption taught in the Scriptures or her immaculate conception. These were later developments that took centuries to develop.

RNRobert
The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation also took centuries to develop. Should we throw them out too?

No. There is excellent scriptural support fot the Trinity and the Incarnation while there is not for the marian doctrines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There are some serious problems with this claim. Look at church history and it has to make you wonder if this is true.

RNRobert
Just because some sinful men were in charge of the Church at times that not nullify Christ’s claim to guide the Church.

If Christ is supposed to protect the church from error then He must stop all the leaders from sinning and making errors in judgement. Take Peter for example. After he professed Jesus as being the Christ in the next instance he denies him and rebuked. Paul also rebuked him. If such a thing can happen to an apostle it can happen to anyone in leadership.

In fact the miraculous thing is that the Church has persisted through the centuries despite all the attacks from within and without.

True. However it has not come through unscathed.

 

[RobHom]

After all, the concept of the Trinity being three Divine Persons in One God --Father, Son and Spirit coequal–is not explicitly found in Scripture.

There are implicit bits. . .one can make a case for prefiguring in the Old Testament. . .but there is absolutely no Scripture that specifically defines the Trinity as we understand it.

How do you understand it?

1 John 5 V7:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Pretty explicit verse of scripture.

1 John 5:7 makes it pretty clear, and here is another:

Matthew 28:19

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

[guanophore]

The table of contents of the Scriptures is of divine revelation?

We have been over this, and over this. Please confer with your homies that are using the login. Or do a search of justasking4 and canon. You will find hundreds of posts on dozens of threads.

However, for the sake of the lurkers, I will repeat myself. There were over 400 literary works that were commonly used or claimed to be inspired, The church waded through them, using Sacred Tradition as a guide, and chose the 27 books that belonged in the NT. They then published the table of contents for the NT. This was done under the guidance of the HS, who was sent to lead the Church into all truth, and with the authority given to the Church by Christ.

Which came first: the books of the Bible or the table of contents?

The books were inspired-inerrant as soon as they were written, because they contained the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. What has any of this got to do with the subject? Are you trying to derail another thread?

This is not true. You don't have the assumption taught in the Scriptures or her immaculate conception. These were later developments that took centuries to develop.

Well, we read it differently.

So should you for the reasons given…

ja4, you are treading on dangerous ground here. It is not proper for you to come on a Catholic forum, and tell Catholics that they should reject their faith for reasons you have made up. CAF is here to answer genuine questions about the Catholic faith, not as a venue for you to foment discord and apostasy.

You keep claiming that Sacred Tradition exist but when i ask for verification of it from the church itself its not to be had as far as i can tell...

I should think your New Testament, which is 100% Sacred Tradition would be a beginning. However, you cannot accept anything from the Catholic Church, even Christ!

What basis are you talking about?

The Church used Sacred Tradition to identify the books that belonged in the canon.

There are some serious problems with this claim. Look at church history and it has to make you wonder if this is true.

No, I don’t wonder anymore. I used to, but after much study and prayer, by the grace of God, I began to see the real church, and understood that it is not made up of the fallible men who put her teachings to shame, but that her Head is Christ, and that He gave Himself up for her, and that her soul is the HOly Spirit, and that these divine elements are what protect the church from error.

There were various “tests” each book of the NT that had to pass to be included in the canon. If there were more then the church either missed them somehow (which is impossible) or God has hidden it from the church for reasons unknown.

How do you figure that? How could it be “impossible” for the church to “miss”. Almost every post of yours affirms that this is what happens all the time!

Those that believe in Sola Scriptura know that the Scriptures are sufficent for salvation and growing to maturity in Christ.

Why are you here at CAF, then, if you have sufficiency? Why are you trying to get this thread off topic?

No. There is excellent scriptural support fot the Trinity and the Incarnation while there is not for the marian doctrines.

Since you find the scriptures sufficient, why would this concern you? What keeps you from being able to just let go of it?

If Christ is supposed to protect the church from error then He must stop all the leaders from sinning and making errors in judgement./quote]

This is not how He set it up, ja4. He gave all of his children free will, and said that their choices would not be taken away from them. All of us have the ability to turn our backs on God.

He set it up to function as a unified whole, with all the Apostles together, and the Rock of Peter as the visible unifying element. This is the way the Church functions. The Church does not fall apart because Peter makes a mistake, or any other one person makes a mistake.
justasking4;4277769:

Take Peter for example. After he professed Jesus as being the Christ in the next instance he denies him and rebuked. Paul also rebuked him. If such a thing can happen to an apostle it can happen to anyone in leadership.

This is absolutely true, which is why Jesus set things up so that the Church would still be preserved if this should happen. He is no dummy you know.

True. However it has not come through unscathed.

Clearly, the Body of Christ suffers when those attached to her commit sin. Paul is clear about this when he chastizes the Corinthians for joining the members of Christ to a prostitute. It wounds everyone.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4277985]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The table of contents of the Scriptures is of divine revelation?
guanophore
We have been over this, and over this. Please confer with your homies that are using the login. Or do a search of justasking4 and canon. You will find hundreds of posts on dozens of threads.

However, for the sake of the lurkers, I will repeat myself. There were over 400 literary works that were commonly used or claimed to be inspired, The church waded through them, using Sacred Tradition as a guide, and chose the 27 books that belonged in the NT. They then published the table of contents for the NT. This was done under the guidance of the HS, who was sent to lead the Church into all truth, and with the authority given to the Church by Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Which came first: the books of the Bible or the table of contents?

The books were inspired-inerrant as soon as they were written, because they contained the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. What has any of this got to do with the subject? Are you trying to derail another thread?

My-our point :crutches: is that the table of contents in and of themselves is not inspired but rather a product of how we organize the Bible. I didn’t realize how confused you are on this…

 

[RobHom]

My-our point :crutches: is that the table of contents in and of themselves is not inspired but rather a product of how we organize the Bible. I didn’t realize how confused you are on this…

You ask a foolish question, get a reasonable answer to each and every one of your questions, then you immediately head for low ground …

Truly, we do realize that your playbook includes the page that advises you that when you are losing ground rapidly, your only hope is to attempt to discredit someone in a vain attempt to bolster your baseless argument.

Repetitive redundancy is a disease.