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

[hays1122]

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

I totally agree with your sentiment. Many a time I have thought about the fact that " I am who I am in religion because that’s all I was taught". If my grandfather and parents had been Jehovah witnesses, I’d be in here trying to convince you that Jesus is actually the Arch Angle Michael.
How many people can sit in any church and say,“I don’t believe a word of this” and have people accept them. They will be ostracized. If I walk into a Catholic church and refuse to say the hail Mary or take the rcia classes, I won’t be accepted. We have to be “a member of the club” no matter where we go.

 

[LilyM]

I totally agree with your sentiment. Many a time I have thought about the fact that " I am who I am in religion because that’s all I was taught". If my grandfather and parents had been Jehovah witnesses, I’d be in here trying to convince you that Jesus is actually the Arch Angle Michael.
How many people can sit in any church and say,“I don’t believe a word of this” and have people accept them. They will be ostracized. If I walk into a Catholic church and refuse to say the hail Mary or take the rcia classes, I won’t be accepted. We have to be “a member of the club” no matter where we go.

Not quite correct - the numerous converts here on CAF can testify that it’s far from a certainty that you’ll believe what your parents believed or taught you - or even what you yourself believed or were taught by others 10 or 20 years ago.

So yes, most all teaching comes from somewhere, and there’s nothing wrong with that, even scripture itself has the Ethiopian acknowledging to Philip that he needs an authoritative teacher to help him understand the scripture he’s reading.

But it’s not just a matter of blind acceptance for many of us - neither those who leave a church and then revert, nor those who change churches. Most of it comes after a heck of a lot of thought and study, oftentimes we do part of it solo before we go to a teacher.

 

[guanophore]

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…

The contents - those books that belonged in the NT, had to be infallibly determined by the Church.

In the beginning, the collection of books was not bound together, like it is today. All the words were in capital letters, and there were no title pages, chapters, verses, or a table of contents. All these things were added by the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

How many people can sit in any church and say,“I don’t believe a word of this” and have people accept them. They will be ostracized. If I walk into a Catholic church and refuse to say the hail Mary or take the rcia classes, I won’t be accepted. We have to be “a member of the club” no matter where we go.

Do you really believe what you have written here? Do you think that you will not be accepted? Do you realize that Catholics do not pray the Hail Mary during Divine Liturgy?

Do you realize that taking RCIA is not required for you attend?

 

[LilyM]

Do you really believe what you have written here? Do you think that you will not be accepted? Do you realize that Catholics do not pray the Hail Mary during Divine Liturgy?

Do you realize that taking RCIA is not required for you attend?

Nor are we required to pray the Hail Mary at any other time, in fact. You won’t be ostracised for refusing to do so. And it is correct that in Catholic churches (as I hope in ALL churches calling themselves Christian) visitors are welcome at any time, whether or not they are believers.

I think hays meant to say ‘If I call myself Catholic and refuse …’ - even then it’s not true. As I said, the Hail Mary is entirely optional, and many of us cradle Catholics never went through RCIA, some never go through any formal religious instruction at all.

 

[RNRobert]

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.

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

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

I suppose he came here to “enlighten” us benighted Catholics with “gospel truth.”

 

[guanophore]

many of us cradle Catholics never went through RCIA, some never go through any formal religious instruction at all.

I think this is a tragedy. All Catholics should be indoctrinated by Fr. Corapi

I think it is the appalling lack of catachesis that spawns issues such as the topic of this thread. Catholics ignorant of their own faith(I used to be one ), practicing improperly, and unable to make a defense of their faith.

 

[LilyM]

I think this is a tragedy. All Catholics should be indoctrinated by Fr. Corapi

I think it is the appalling lack of catachesis that spawns issues such as the topic of this thread. Catholics ignorant of their own faith(I used to be one ), practicing improperly, and unable to make a defense of their faith.

Well, there are many saints from times past who never received formal education of any kind, religious or otherwise, and yet managed to know and practice the Faith nonetheless.

And there are also many periods in times past where most Catholics were, as today, ignorant of and unable to defend their faith - hence so many heresies and schisms have been able to take root.

The Church survived them and will survive the current crop, no doubt. I doubt that increased intellectual knowledge of the faith is going to do very much to sway any unbeliever, as we see on these fora time and again.

 

[guanophore]

Well, there are many saints from times past who never received formal education of any kind, religious or otherwise, and yet managed to know and practice the Faith nonetheless.

Yes, but there was not the daily dose of error that exists today. Between the secular smut on the airwaves (I guess you have to say digital channels now) and the plethora of anti-Catholic rhetoric everywhere, it is much easier for Catholics to be pulled away from the faith.

And there are also many periods in times past where most Catholics were, as today, ignorant of and unable to defend their faith - hence so many heresies and schisms have been able to take root.

The Church survived them and will survive the current crop, no doubt. I doubt that increased intellectual knowledge of the faith is going to do very much to sway any unbeliever, as we see on these fora time and again.

No, but it would definitely protect Catholics from the sucking vaccuum of Bible fundamentalist who are able, with a few verses, to plant doubt into their minds.

 

[RobHom]

Yes, but there was not the daily dose of error that exists today. Between the secular smut on the airwaves (I guess you have to say digital channels now) and the plethora of anti-Catholic rhetoric everywhere, it is much easier for Catholics to be pulled away from the faith.

True enough…but I think that I read somewhere that “other churches”…are losing people as well. But it appears that the Catholic Church is growing. I know our parish is. Our Masses are full…and this was in the summertime, when 40 to 50% of our population migrates back north…and there are many younger people as well.

No, but it would definitely protect Catholics from the sucking vacuum of Bible fundamentalist who are able, with a few verses, to plant doubt into their minds.

Again I agree. And it is incumbent upon those who know to share their knowledge as much as possible. I also think that while kindness and charity are important…being forthright and even forceful at times in dealing with the opposition is entirely proper. It should not be mistaken by others that kindness and charity are “weaknesses”.

Too bad we can’t recruit a few good “Jesuits” to join us here!

 

[Peter_J]

justasking,

Is there any way I can send you a PM?

(Just asking.)

 

[Leeann]

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.

Yes! Another good one!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, that is why we say it is implicit.

But tell me where it says that the Father, Son and Spirit are equally three Divine Persons in One God.

It doesn’t. It really doesn’t. We understand (because the Spirit has guided us to it) that this is truth.

In fact, when it comes to the Creed, the Catholics and Orthodox do not agree with whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son. This is hundreds of years after the scripture of ‘baptize them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

If the Christian church (Catholic and Orthodx, no protestants as yet) did not agree on whether the Spirit proceeded from Father and Son, or Father alone, this indicates that the doctrine of the Trinity is by no means so clear or so ‘Scriptural’ as you indicate. Remember, you are coming from hundreds of years where this has been clearly taught. It was NOT so clearly taught in the earliest years though what was taught was as ‘correct’ to the limited knowledge then. There is no change–no Dynamic Duo or Fab Four. . .but the persons to whom St. Paul spoke would not have understood the Trinity as being Three Divine Persons in One God. They would have understood God as Father and Jesus as Son, and the Spirit would have been a mystery. They would have accepted the baptism in the ‘names’ without trying (at that time) to debate on whether this meant the Spirit was God too.)

 

[Lilyflower]

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace

 

[Leeann]

Yes, that is why we say it is implicit.

But tell me where it says that the Father, Son and Spirit are equally three Divine Persons in One God.

It doesn’t. It really doesn’t. We understand (because the Spirit has guided us to it) that this is truth.

That’s the way it was for me too! He’s an amazing God

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;4280298]Yes, that is why we say it is implicit.

But tell me where it says that the Father, Son and Spirit are equally three Divine Persons in One God.

It doesn’t. It really doesn’t. We understand (because the Spirit has guided us to it) that this is truth.

How did the Spirit guide the church to this? On what basis was the Trinity grounded?

 

[guanophore]

How did the Spirit guide the church to this? On what basis was the Trinity grounded?

The same way the Teaching is grounded to this day, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium.

 

[SIA]

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace

not true at all. To say that Mary is the Mother of God is to say that God begun with Mary which is totally ridiculous. Mary was the Mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

not true at all. To say that Mary is the Mother of God is to say that God begun with Mary which is totally ridiculous. Mary was the Mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

No, to say Mary is the Mother of God is to affirm that Jesus is God.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

not true at all. To say that Mary is the Mother of God is to say that God begun with Mary which is totally ridiculous. Mary was the Mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

It’s a mistake for you to conclude that “Mother of” means “Creator of” or “Originator of”. The term *Theotokos *rightly and correctly defines Mary’s role as “God-bearer”. When we use the term “Mother of God” we are professing the divinity and the humanity of Jesus that came into the world through her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. …And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Luk 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
Luk 1:32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High…
Luk 1:35 …The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Just out of curiosity how do you explain Jesus referring to himself numerous times as “son of man”?