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

[onenow1]

I thought i would address your comment about 30,000 denominations in Protestantism. This is what you wrote:

"Well YOU could read the BIBLE. (small book many big words, twisted and distorted by protestants!)
However, I already gave you proof!
In the OT, your 5th Commandment,(Catholic’s 4th) it says: Honor thy Father and Mother. You do realize in Hebrew tradition at that time, thy Father and Mother meant all enders? They are your parants in the jewish religion. All united right? You do know that don’t you? So what God actually say was: Honor your elders!

Don’t believe me? OK , ask some protestants to verify that for you since you appear to think Catholics lie. By the way, ask many protestants You all don’t follow Gods teachings and all get confused. After all 33,000 false denominations not counting the 28,000 sub-denominations of the faith. If you are a southern baptist. You are a mamber of about 1,350 different denominations teaching 43 or more major differences in beliefs. Asking a Catholic would be much easier, We all beleve the same things. (In various degree I must add to not lie)".

Lets see how many Catholic denominations there are.
"Roman Catholics (242 denominations)

Now for the “Roman Catholic” denominations. These appear to be broken down by various rites:

Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
Byzantine-rite (jurisdiction for more than one ethnic group)
Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rite)
Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
Ethiopic (Alexandrian rite)
Greek (Byzantine rite)
Hungarian (Byzantine rite)
Italo-Albanian (Byzantine rite)
Jurisdiction for both Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Catholics
Latin-rite Catholic
Malankara (Syro-Antiochian, Eastern Syrian), Syro-Malankarese
Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian)
Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking)
plural Oriental (jurisdiction for several Eastern rites)
Romanian Byzantine rite
Russian (Byzantine rite)
Ruthenian (Byzantine rite)
Slovak (Byzantine rite)
Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian)
Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian, West Syrian)
Ukrainian Byzantine rite"

The source for this is from World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).

The idea that in the Catholic church is one unified whole does not match up to reality…

Hope this helps—

Ja4 I believe they all believe in the one holy cathokic and apostolic church under Christs Rep. Peter.

Peace onenow1

PS I have indeed attended the Byzantine Rite and have been instructed that catholics may indeed attend all that are in union with that your list describes. Further if I were in a town where there was no catholic church, I was indeed taught I may go to an Orthodox Church for my Sunday obligation. Hope this helps ja4.

Peace, onenow1

 

[happilycatholic]

Okay, shake it off…that one made me mad JustAsking. You really should do some research so that you can form an intelligent opinion of any particlar religion if you are going to take a stab like you just did.

Cheap. Do better next time.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Now for the “Roman Catholic” denominations. These appear to be broken down by various rites:

Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
Byzantine-rite (jurisdiction for more than one ethnic group)
Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rite)
Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
Ethiopic (Alexandrian rite)
Greek (Byzantine rite)
Hungarian (Byzantine rite)
Italo-Albanian (Byzantine rite)
Jurisdiction for both Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Catholics
Latin-rite Catholic
Malankara (Syro-Antiochian, Eastern Syrian), Syro-Malankarese
Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian)
Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking)
plural Oriental (jurisdiction for several Eastern rites)
Romanian Byzantine rite
Russian (Byzantine rite)
Ruthenian (Byzantine rite)
Slovak (Byzantine rite)
Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian)
Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian, West Syrian)
Ukrainian Byzantine rite"

The source for this is from World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).

The idea that in the Catholic church is one unified whole does not match up to reality…

Hope this helps—

These are not “Roman” Catholic denominations. These are all Catholic Churches that share the exact same Catholic Faith. A different Rite does not mean their beliefs are different. Go to any of these Churches and ask for a Catechism and they’ll hand you the same book you’d get at a Latin-Rite Church.

Conversely, we have Independent Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Separate Baptists, United Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Irregular Baptists ( that one is a joke), American Baptists, German Baptists, Ana-baptists, Landmark Baptists, 7th Day Baptists… and even within one variety of Baptist their beliefs are not totally consistent, since they all believe in Individual Soul Liberty - that you can read the Bible and come to your own conclusions. (However, I’ve learned that if you read the Bible and decide to take it literally when it says, for instance, that baptism saves you and washes away your sins, your Individual Soul Liberty is taken away and you must agree that baptism is merely a symbolic gesture that the new believer makes when they ask Jesus into their hearts, even though this is not found anywhere in Scripture.)

 

[reteeks21]

RobGentner:
**Hi happily

There you go, trying to talk sense to Protestants. It doesn’t work. I am expecting them to attack your intelligently, thoughtfully, and extremely accurate information and questions like a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy.

I told you are the Secret Catholic Meeting, that is wouldn’t work, But would you listen to me? ( I wonder if they have meetings? No wait They don’t agree with anything except attacking th CC!)

Anyway as planned, the other Catholics have their bibles open ready to defend you. We will praying the rosary for the ability to ward off their attacks. (Protestants: Rosary n. A bunch of beads joined together, Used to pray to the Blessed Mother Mary. ) Oh heck, me and my big mouth! They will think we worhip Mary. Hey Heretics: We don’t! Please, SOB!!!, don’t ask me AGAIN!

God Bless!**

Sounds like you’re the shark. Not all of us attack your church, and not all of us say you worship Mary. Some like to attack; that’s true, but your gross assertions make any sort of decent conversation nearly impossible. You want charity and respect? Give some yourself

By the way. How can you end with “God bless” while talking about other people like that? That seems kind of contradictory. But what do I know. I’m just a typical, shark-like protestant.

 

[justasking4]

happilycatholic;4319317]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Acts 1:24-
And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen

happilycatholic
Okay good. This is the verse where they are choosing a replacement for Judas.

In my Bible, just like yours, it says, “Lord”, you know the thoughts of everyone…" In another Bible it may say “Holy Spirit”, in another “Our Heavenly Father”.

If you remember, this discussion started over referring to the Virgin Mary as the “Seat of Wisdom”.

How is it that you accept all titles given to The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, but you don’t accept Mary as the Seat of Wisdom? You will not find the title given to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit known as “The Trinity” in the Bible.

I accept these titles-names for God because that is the way the Scriptures refer to them. The term given to all 3 is called the Trinity. The term rightly applies to God.
The term Seat of Wisdom for Mary is a term never used of her in the Scriptures and implies far more to her than the Scriptures grant. Mary in and of herself possesses no wisdom in the sense that it has its orgin in her.

Besides you are calling the Seat of Wisdom a title where I would think of it more as a description because it is a metaphor, not a “name” like Yaweh, or Jesus or Redemer or so on

.
These titles have a specific function in exalting Mary to a status that goes beyond what the Scriptures say about her. We must not go beyond what the Scriptures say otherwise we are speculating and misleading people.

You like to take the Bible literally when it serves your argument, but when it does not you use a different argument altogehter.

Depends what you are referring to. All doctrines etc must be compared to what the Scriptures say. If the doctrine (in this case titles) do not match with the Scriptures then they are to be rejected.

This one I suppose will be the Mary vs. Jesus argument which I believe it’s blasphemy to put Jesus on the opposite side as His mother.

It is wrong to say things about Mary that the Scriptures do not.

I am learning that you like to try and prove an argument with an argument. The fact is that the Holy Sprit is referred to by many names and it is not inappropriate to refer to Mary by something other than the name given her in the Bible, your Bible.

True. It is inappropiate to refer to Mary with titles of deity or implied deity.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

The bottom line is this, do you think you will fall out of Grace with Jesus if you pray and sing songs of praise to Mary, his mother? Or is it more likely that you’ll find favor with Him if you do?

Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 about being led astray from devotion to Christ. You cannot be deovted to Christ and someone else at the sametime. The Scriptures are clear about this.

Don’t mistake my questions for a challenge to convence or convert. Not my vocation. I’m just asking.

I expect to be challenged. What is unusual so far with you is that you have not blasted me… View attachment 4360

 

[happilycatholic]

I expect to be challenged. What is unusual so far with you is that you have not blasted me… View attachment 4360

Oops. I did that, a little. In the very last of my posts. Sorry, but when you attack my Church I get a little defensive.

I respect your views even though I may not agree with them. I have no intentions of attacking anyone because they believe differently than I.

 

[justasking4]

happilycatholic;4319348]You didn’t get this from a catholic site. This is from a non denom site.

This does not mean its not true though.

The following is a definition of Rite: (Notice the part where it says, “It cannot be changed by the Chruch…”!!!

Do your home work!!!

A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence – of matter, form and intention – derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).

Look at the source for this study on the various rites and denominations in Christianity. The author of this work breaks down the various denominations in Protestant and Catholic denominations. What the study shows is that the Catholic church is not one unified whole where everyone believes and practices all the same things. You may want to read this study. Its an eye opener.

 

[justasking4]

RobGentner;4319353]

Originally Posted by justasking4

Hi The100thTime,

How are you?

I am late for work. But had to reply.

We all teach the same bacis facts, The Mass is the same! We don’t make things up, We follow the Pope, We follow Jesus, we have been here for 2,000 years. Some of the differences.

God Bless you for you feeble attempt to make Catholics and Protestant look the same. It is impossible. But you did try.

I have to run.A little advise, Try to cut back on your drinklng (Others have been talking!!)!
You may all share some basic beliefs just all Protestants share some basic essential beliefs. You also though have all kinds of different beliefs about the Scriptures, what they mean etc. Don’t think i want to make Catholics and Protestants look the same. That is not possible…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I accept these titles-names for God because that is the way the Scriptures refer to them. The term given to all 3 is called the Trinity. The term rightly applies to God.

But it’s a term not found in Scripture! You’re going beyond Scripture when you use the word Trinity!

The term Seat of Wisdom for Mary is a term never used of her in the Scriptures and implies far more to her than the Scriptures grant. Mary in and of herself possesses no wisdom in the sense that it has its orgin in her.

You didn’t understand the explanation at all, did you? Mary in herself bore Wisdom, aka Jesus Christ. Do you think she never held Him in her arms?

.

These titles have a specific function in exalting Mary to a status that goes beyond what the Scriptures say about her. We must not go beyond what the Scriptures say otherwise we are speculating and misleading people.

Then you’d better stop using the word Trinity.

Depends what you are referring to. All doctrines etc must be compared to what the Scriptures say. If the doctrine (in this case titles) do not match with the Scriptures then they are to be rejected.

Again, you’d better stop using the word Trinity.

It is wrong to say things about Mary that the Scriptures do not.

Better not use the word Trinity when referring to God, then, since Scriptures do not. When a person writes a biography about someone, does the biography contain every single thing the author knows about that person? Is it possible that the Apostles who knew Mary, knew a bit more about her than what they wrote down?

True. It is inappropiate to refer to Mary with titles of deity or implied deity.

Mary is not divine and is never referred to as such. When you see something that says “deity” to you, perhaps stop to think that the divine part of the title has more to do with Christ than His mother, as in Seat of Wisdom.

Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 about being led astray from devotion to Christ. You cannot be deovted to Christ and someone else at the sametime. The Scriptures are clear about this.

So I should not be devoted to my husband and children? It’s not Scriptural? Don’t you think that my devotion to my family is because of my devotion to God, and not in place of it?

The last recorded words we have spoken by Mary in Scripture is the command, “Do whatever He tells you.” Mary always points us to her Son, and does nothing to draw us away from Him.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

You may all share some basic beliefs just all Protestants share some basic essential beliefs. You also though have all kinds of different beliefs about the Scriptures, what they mean etc. Don’t think i want to make Catholics and Protestants look the same. That is not possible…

What are the essential beliefs? Where does Scripture tell us what beliefs are “essential” and which ones are “non-essential”?

 

[happilycatholic]

Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 about being led astray from devotion to Christ. You cannot be deovted to Christ and someone else at the sametime. The Scriptures are clear about this.

Actually that verse pertains to an address as to the problems the Corinthians were facing with false prophets/apostles. I have to believe that Paul would’ve had no problems with someone making up a song about the Virgin Mary being the Mother of Jesus and them singing that song. Not exactly what I would consider false prophesy.

Besides the New Testiment in and of itself is a prophesy of “things to come”, the New Covenant. Singing to the Virgin Mary is not contridictory to anything contained in the NT or the covenant Christ made with His people.

 

[onenow1]

What are the essential beliefs? Where does Scripture tell us what beliefs are “essential” and which ones are “non-essential”?

=onenow1, This is were sola fails.

 

[happilycatholic]

JustAsking:

I want to pose a yes or no question to you.

Do you think you will fall out of Grace with Jesus if you sing songs of praise to His Mother?

Yes or No.

 

[happilycatholic]

=onenow1, This is were sola fails.

Sola scriptura fell on its face when parts of the scripture were removed and Traditions were ceased by non-catholics. It was then buried by individual interpretation which is nothing more than individually defined beliefs which cancels sola scriptura.

It’s a flawed theory that cannot even become doctrine because by its nature it cannot be followed.

 

[guanophore]

So, by the truth that you know, all of those people were not getting the “full” message of what was necessary for their salvation when they heard Jesus speak.
He just left them with a “bit of the gospel”…commanded them to repent and believe in “a bit of the gospel”….extra stuff will come later……if they were still alive by then that is….

They got all they needed at the time, which was “believe in the One who was sent”. The details about what that entailed were left to the Apostles, to whom he explained everything privately.

As for the ORAL Gospel containing all your “current Traditions” and the “Magisterial teachings” – if they veer away – or add to the gospel that was taught and preached – it’s not the same gospel – it’s “another gospel”.

I agree. This is why the Catholic Church cannot accept the theology devised by the Reformers. We are not allowed.

Gal 1:6- 12
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 **But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. **9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

There is a key notion here, that is “what you have received”. When people replaced the Apostolic succession with Sola Scriptura, each one then went into scripture and obtained for himself (herself) instead of receiving what had been passed down from the Apostles. This is why, from day to day, we see more and more spinoffs in faith communities. They are not attached to what was handed down.

Paul was addressing the Galatians with regards to false teaching that had crept in,the Galatians had **already “received” the gospel **the important stuff.

I agree. What they were taught was to hold fast the the traditions, whether by word of mouth, or in writing.

I believe He is alive and well and speaks volumes on a daily basis to those who know and hear His voice.

We are in agreement on this point. So, how come if Catholics write volumes of books, it is “of men” and invalid, but you can have “volumes on a daily basis” and what you receive is valid?

I also believe what He said:

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. He commissioned them to teach, baptize and to observe all things that He had commanded them. And they did, at that time (not things that would later be divulged to them or to anybody else) **but the necessary things for the salvation of mankind. **His promise to ‘be with them always’ – or as it is translated in the passage above – ‘to the consummation of the world’ – stood true to them, as it is evident by their writings that they were doing what He had commanded them to do….nothing more and nothing less.

Most of what you say here is accurate, except that there were things that had to be brought back to there rememberance, and there were things that had to be worked out, based on His teachings. He authorized the Apostles to apply what He had given them, and to make rulings (this is what keys, binding and loosing are all about). He said “I will build my Church”, not “it is already done being built”.

 

[guanophore]

However when the pure gospel message began to become contaminated with extra “conditions” that watered down His blood sacrifice, veering from the “truth” and becoming “another gospel” with added rules and regulations in how salvation may be obtained….I’d say that promise would be nullified and voided by Him immediately, wouldn’t you?

No, people falling from the truth does not nullify the promises of God. He is always faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. However, what you represent here is a rationalization used by the reformers who wished to have noble grounds to separate from the Apostolic authority appointed by Christ.

For instance – Jesus never stated ever that **in order to obtain salvation **you must belong to the “Catholic church” or any “one church” at all…and neither did any of His Apostles. I’d say that was a BIG alteration to His original commission and establishment of the church as is was known back then.

You would say this because you do not understand the Teachings. There is only One Church. Therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of the One Church, His Body. He does not have “bodies”. there is only One faith. All who are in Christ are members of His One Body.

The difference is – that the gospel that Jesus preached and taught to His Apostles was sufficient for those they preached too back then - for their “salvation”….why would they leave out any **pertinent information **with regards to a person’s salvation?

Because salvation is not something that happens once in time, for all time. It begins at baptism, progresses throughout our lives, and is consummated when we are united to Him in heaven. There is a lot that can happen to a person through the course of a lifetime, and the gospel message must be applied to our daily experiences.

The **gospel of Jesus **is as sufficient for those who hear it today- as it was back then.

It is. It includes “all that Jesus began to do and to teach until He was taken up”. It also includes the practices committed to the Apostles, some of which are not written in the Scripture, or about which the writing is ambiguous enough that persons separated form teh Apostolic succession can be led astray.

Because it is the pure, unadulterated truth.

Yes, but it gets passed through adulterated fallen people.

This “oral gospel” that you refer too (containing your traditions) does not **bring into affect “our salvation**” –

Then why does Jesus tell the Apostles that they had been “made clean” by His words?

if that were true, then what you are implying is that all of those people that Jesus himself preached too and all those that the Apostles preached too and all those who, over the centuries, who missed out on the “developing revelations” and dogmas,

You are clearly misunderstanding Catholic teaching, Leeann. The development of doctrine has to do with us, not with the Revelation. It is our understanding that grows, not the one single divine deposit of faith that cannot change.

The Catholic church does not teach “developing revelations”. All public revelation that must be embraced by the faithful is the single and complete deposit of faith that closed with the death of the last Apostle. It is no wonder you are so hostile toward Catholicism if you have such grave misunderstandings of what we believe.

the developing revelations and dogmas that the Catholic church’s Magisterium has been gathering and intertwining within the Gospel

This is another misunderstanding of dogma. Dogma is the application of the once and for all revelation to the present day and time. If there were no development of doctrine or dogma, you would have no Christianity.It was developing doctrine and dogma that defeated the early heresies, preserved, canonized and promulgated the Holy Scriptures, and preserves the Holy Faith of the Apostles from the enemy.

I hope you are open minded enough to learn about what Catholicism really is, since you seem to be clinging so strenuously to your faulty ideas about it.

 

[justasking4]

JustAsking:

I want to pose a yes or no question to you.

Do you think you will fall out of Grace with Jesus if you sing songs of praise to His Mother?

Yes or No.

I can’t answer unless i give you the reasons why.

 

[RobGentner]

**Hi Lee, :tiphat:
And you my dear are one funny woman!!.:clapping: I know you enjoyed writing that stuff. I can just see you as you wrote them things with a big grin on your face. Feel better?
We have our differences. But actually we all love God and Jesus so we can’t be all bad.

Thanks for the laughs. I needed them! My transmission on my truck went out garage said it will cost +/- $1700 to fix. My Rolex broke and is in the shop! Some of the Catholics hereattacked and insulted ME? SOB!!! :crying:

It looks like Obama may win. I read in the bible about an anti-christ, there have been rumors! In my ancesters homeland, we had a bright young leader that said he could turn our country around. He spoke of being guided by Jesus! After they elected Hitler, everything went well, until Satan corrupted his mind and he went insane. But that is another story!

Many people are joking here now. The thread is going to disappear soon and all the wit will go into storage.

**

 

[justasking4]

Sola scriptura fell on its face when parts of the scripture were removed and Traditions were ceased by non-catholics. It was then buried by individual interpretation which is nothing more than individually defined beliefs which cancels sola scriptura.

It’s a flawed theory that cannot even become doctrine because by its nature it cannot be followed.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Most of what you say here is accurate, except that there were things that had to be brought back to there rememberance, and there were things that had to be worked out, based on His teachings. He authorized the Apostles to apply what He had given them, and to make rulings (this is what keys, binding and loosing are all about). He said “I will build my Church”, not “it is already done being built”.

Exactly! Scripture tells us that the foundation of the Church is Christ and His Apostles. Now, I’m not too bright in the ways of construction, but it seems to me that the foundation for a building doesn’t look like the finished building; but, without the foundation, the building wouldn’t be very sturdy.