My Problem with the Catholic Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jlaymon2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have recently left the church because of this issue. I hope someone can prove me wrong.

The Catholic Church believes that Mary is sacred and holy. They have statues of Mary in their churches, even though this is against God’s commandment.
No, you left the Catholic Church because you no longer believe it teaches truth. So your opening statement is false.

The Catholic church does belief that Mary is sacred and holy, which are synonyms, I believe, and phrased oddly, for a Catholic. If you believe the Church’s teaching, then you should have no problem with Marian theolgoy. Yes they have statues of her in their churches (your wording makes me wonder, to be blunt, if this is not a cut and paste from Protestant anti-Catholic tract). I assume not, but it has happened on CAF.

I love my wife. I have a picture of her on my desk. Does that make me an idolater? The picture is an image, graven chemically on paper. Are photographs evil? If I looked at it and blew kisses at it and hugged it, would she be jealous if she knew that? I would not leave our marriage because I like her picture. Your post reminds me of this argument.

Oh, and I am not Catholic.
 
Anytime I come up with a theological novelty it turns out to be exactly that.😊

We get into the question of how to exegete. If it can only be taken literally, then Catholic theology just took a hit. If it can be taken figuratively, then no. Your argument is not the standard “your interpretation is against CT so it must be wrong” but relies on a wider context of what “mother” may mean in the OT.
Well done.

Now show why, in the context of this passage, the interpretation cannot be literal.
For the reason Randy gave in post #25. And for the same reason that his “follies” and “wrongs” were not literally His own.
 
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5
**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.


“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Hi!! I really liked this post, and, as you may have seen, I started a thread addressing this issue. I was wondering if you could post this there as well.

Now for a response…maybe this was proven in your post and I’m not seeing it, but it doesn’t look like you proved that Simon wasn’t Jesus’ brother, if you could clear that up I would be very happy. Thanks!! 🙂
 
Hi!! I really liked this post, and, as you may have seen, I started a thread addressing this issue. I was wondering if you could post this there as well.

Now for a response…maybe this was proven in your post and I’m not seeing it, but it doesn’t look like you proved that Simon wasn’t Jesus’ brother, if you could clear that up I would be very happy. Thanks!! 🙂
There are four Simons mentioned in the New Testament. Simon the Zealot is the only likely candidate to be the “brother of Jesus,” (since Simon Peter is usually referred to either as Peter or as Cephas) - the other two are not from Gallilee at all. But weren’t the Zealots more common to the south of Israel, rather than the north?
 
Over the Ark, at the two extremities, were two cherubim, with their faces turned toward one another (Leviticus 16:2; Num. 7:89
The Hebrews did not use these images in the way Catholicism uses theirs; as a matter of fact, the only one that would have seen them in the course of the Jews practicing their religion would have been the High Priest once a year. They were out of view of the general public.
The saints are even more alive in Heaven than they were on earth and so can hear our prayers.
This rationale is faulty. The resurrection has not taken place yet, and while those in heaven may be praying for us in general (much as we do those half the world away) they cannot hear us; they would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to do so. Those are attributes of God alone.
As far Mary remaining a virgin, it’s supported by scripture
Actually, Matthew 1: 24-25 says “Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”
Mary was not stained by original sin. Otherwise how could she have carried God inside her?
If one is going to use this logic, then Mary’s mother would also need to be sinless, and likewise also her mother, ad infinitum, because a sinful person cannot carry a sinless one, right? This logic taken to its logical conclusion would require the world to be sinless before Jesus could be born - when it’s the reason He came.

The truth is that God used ordinary men and women to carry out His will throughout history. A list of Jesus’ ancestors includes a murderer (David) and a prostitute (Rahab).
Nowhere does the Bible tell us that we CAN’T pray to Mary
Nowhere do we have an approved example of praying to anyone other than God. When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, He said to pray like this: “Our Father”

Mary did give the wisest advice. “Do whatever He tells you”. Jesus said “Come to me”.
 
The Catholic Church believes that Mary is sacred and holy.
You must be pretty holy to carry God in your womb wouln’t you think?

The ark of the New Covenant is indeed sacred
Catholics also call the bible sacred too (Biblia Sacra)
They have statues of Mary in their churches
And there are statues of Presidents in Washington DC and Kings and Queens in London.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
An image of the person who gave birth to the Word made flesh is graven. :eek:

This ties in with the previous verse. Statues are fine as long as you don’t worship them as a God. Catholic do not worship Mary nor statues of her. We honour her, Christ honoured her to you know.

Do you have photos of deceased loved ones at home? Statues (Gnomes?) in your garden? Figurines on your shelves? A NATIVITY set at Christmas.

The verse escapes me at the moment but didn’t in fact God ask Moses to make a statue of a serpent, which would heal people. It was destroyed only when people began worshiping it.

Saint Basil said “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it” (2132 CCC).
They pray to Mary. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to pray to Mary,
They pray to Mary because they believe that she intercedes for us. This is not supported by any Scripture, but Scripture states that Jesus intercedes for us.
The angels and saints in heaven are alive (Jn 6:54, Jn 5:24), they are not oblivious to what goes on here on earth (Matt. 18:10, Lk 15:10) and intercede for us to God (Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3-4). All though there is only one mediator, (1 Tm. 2:5) Christ, the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 19:15), God likes to share His greatness (Rev. 12:7–9), in fact Paul calls us ‘God’s co-workers,’ (1Cor 3:9). All of this does not equal us with God, it means simply that we work together with Him to further His kingdom. Intercession is good and acceptable to God (1 Tim 2:1-4) especially the prayer of a just person which avails much (Jm 5:16).

Origen: “But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Jerome: “You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?” (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

Augustine: A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers (Against Faustus the Manichean [AD. 400]).

TRANSFIGURATION contact with the dead Matt. 17:3

Thus in the Psalms we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2).
Catholics believe that Mary never sinned. Again, this is not supported by any Scripture.
Kecharitomene (Lk 1:28) means that Mary was endowed with a permanet fullness of grace in the past (sometime before the angel’s visit) with the effects ongoing throughout her life. And it is grace unless you transalte charis as favor in which case Paul would read ‘justified by favor.’

In lay terms this means Mary is full of grace, which keeps the greek vocative.

Even Luther said "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil” (Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 43, 40.)

St. Thomas Aquinas said a similar thing in his Summa.

If we are justified (freed from sin) by grace and Mary has always been full, how could she sin?

Nowere in the bible does it say MARY actually ever sinned. And by the way in birth Jesus recieved Mary’s DNA did he not.
Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”
This in from a letter to the Romans NOT Nazareens and I believe it refers to specific Greeks and Jews in Rome.

Paul says that the Romans (3:22) are filled with ALL knowledge. Did they know every itty bitty little thing there is to know

Matthew 24:39 says the flood took them ALL away, yet Noah and his family survived.

Matthew 3:5 says that ALL Judea came to see him, but surely not literally every single Judean came to see him.

In fact in Romans 15:19, Paul says that MANY were made sinners, not all.
They believe that Mary was always a virgin
Mt 1:25 the until in greek deals with the time upto the birth of Christ and NOT after.

Brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic could mean cousin or close family friend. When the OT was put in greek cousins etc were still refered to as brothers and this tradtion continued into the NT.

In Genesis 14:12 Lot is referred to as the son of Abram’s brother but two verses later he is referred to as Abram’s brother.

In Acts we read of 11 Apostles and the Mother of Jesus and his brothers in the upper room. We are told they numbered 120. Take away Mary and the Apostles and it leaves 108.

Mary had 109 children over 30 odd years. I don’t think so.

Only Jesus and Jesus ALONE is ever called A son (singular) of Mary/Joseph.
 
This thread should have been entitled, “My Problem with the Biblical Mary.”
 
  • A man i justifed by works and not by faith alone St James ch2
  • If I have all faith and not charity, I am nothing St Paul 1 cor 13
  • Faith hope charity - the gretest is CHARITY St Paul 1 cor 13
  • Hold onto tradion wether written or oral St Paul 2 Thess 2
  • Not everyting written down, not enough books to contain it all St John Jn 20:30, 21:25
In “THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY” A.D. 383 St Jerome against Helvidius wrote…

“2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.”

St Augustine
15:5 On Marriage and concupisence 419 AD

"[5] …as the heretic Jovinian did, when the holy bishop maintained the permanent virginity of the blessed Mary even after child-bearing, in opposition to this man’s [Jovinian the heretic] impiety.

Holy Virginity 4:4 A.D. 401

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave”

Heresies 56 A.D. 428

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”

St Ambrose
2:6 To Marcellina his sister – Concerning Virgins Book II 377 AD

"6. LET, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. "

Letters 63:111[A.D. 388]

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son”

St Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theolgica Question 28. The virginity of the Mother of God

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.”

St Origen
Commentary on Matthew 2:17 A.D. 248

“Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity”

St Athanasius
Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 A.D. 360

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary”

St John Chrysostom
Gospel of Matthew A.D. 370.

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.”

St Basil
Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 ante A.D. 379

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin”
 
Jesus was rejected by His relatives, yes. But your response doesn’t cut it. It specifically mentions “my mother’s sons” - not step brothers or cousins. We see nothing in Scripture about Joseph having children from a prior marriage. You are arguing from speculation.
It’s not really speculation. Under Jewish law when a couple married any children one spouse had were automatically considered to have been legally adopted by the other - becoming in law that spouse’s children, even if they weren’t the spouse’s biological children.

Jesus was legally every bit as much Joseph’s son, upon his marriage to Mary, as any child he might’ve fathered himself. And Joseph’s children, likewise, would’ve been every bit as much Mary’s children, legally speaking, as Jesus.
 
. . .This rationale is faulty. The resurrection has not taken place yet, and while those in heaven may be praying for us in general (much as we do those half the world away) they cannot hear us; they would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to do so. Those are attributes of God alone.
We enjoy Communion with one another - including “our brothers and sisters who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith” - because of our Communion with THE Communion of the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Being in Christ we are in union with all that is His - including His Mother (who, btw, was taken up to Heaven body and soul). So in the Beatific Vision Christ (, within Whom the Blessed are MORE, not less, in union, shows the Blessed the petitions of the brethren on earth, as in God all things are seen, since God is All in all. This is not difficult for God to do. Indeed, a Christianity that does not admit of this intimate communion among members of the one body is very two-dimensional.
Quote:
As far Mary remaining a virgin, it’s supported by scripture
Actually, Matthew 1: 24-25 says “Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.”

This common objection has been addressed numerous times, including here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4476458&postcount=22
If one is going to use this logic, then Mary’s mother would also need to be sinless, and likewise also her mother, ad infinitum, because a sinful person cannot carry a sinless one, right? This logic taken to its logical conclusion would require the world to be sinless before Jesus could be born - when it’s the reason He came.
Catholicism doesn’t teach the necessity of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; it teaches the fittingness of it. This briefly addresses your point:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

Mary was Baptized into Christ in a mysterious way in the very act of God creating her (the Immaculate Conception). Not even Christ’s mother was saved apart from Him and the merits of His Cross God could not provide Jesus with a singular, unfallen human nature and STILL have Jesus have some connection to the rest of; us. However, by applying the merits of Christ to His mother “outside of time” (and so Baptizing her into Christ in advance), Jesus was able both to come from the line of Adam (through Mary) AND take on an undamaged humanity like that of Adam (and Eve) before the Fall. Indeed, this was clearly God’s plan from the start, per Genesis 3:15, which places “the woman” (a New Eve) in opposition to the serpent, bringing the Messiah out of that, the Seed of the woman pitted against the seed of the serpent. Otherwise, Jesus would not have taken on a sinless and uncorrupted human nature, but our fallen nature, and so He could not have been the New Adam, but a fallen son of Adam like all the rest of us.

Keep in mind that the sin which plunged humanity into darkness was that of Adam, not of Eve. Eve did sin first; but until Adam, as head of the human family, joined her in sin (instead of remaining faithful and interceding for her), humanity as a whole was not cut off from God, and this is the problem which the New Adam came to repair. Since woman was not the cause of mankind’s final break with God, God takes the creation of woman and re-builds the human race from her (a New Eve - Mary), using her to bring the New Adam (the God-man) into the world which, in the very same dynamic, makes this New Eve’s sinlessness possible. This is why St. Ireneaus (a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) writes in 180 A.D:
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.
IOW, because of Eve’s disobedience, sin came into the world - into the human experience; yet because of Mary’s faith (because of her “yes” to God in Luke 1:38), the Messiah came into the world, i.e., into the human experience. Just as humanity itself was not plunged into sin until Adam himself sinned, so humanity itself was not redeemed from sin until the New Adam Himself (Jesus Christ) died on the Cross and rose again. So, this is all a perfect parallel. Mary is the New Eve to Jesus’ New Adam. This is what Christians have always believed. If this is not the case, then Genesis 3:15, which is the protoevangelium, the first prophecy of the Messiah, is rendered meaningless.
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”
What we know of Jesus is what teaches us these things about Mary, aside from the witness of the Apostles.
These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

What pagans were having an interest in Church affairs? :confused:

What Christians would have listened to them, anyway? They had no authority. :confused:

The Council of Nicea was a Council of Catholic Bishops. They were Catholic and they were Bishops before the calling of that Council. They didn’t suddenly pop into existence at the Council.

Constantine had also legalized Christianity before the Council took place, too, since it was because of the fact that Christianity was legal, that it was able to take place, in the first place.
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
And yet no where in scripture does it say “Scripture is to be blindly followed” or that “scripture is the only thing given to us by God” or even that oh so fun sola scriptura garbage.
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
Jlaymon2,

When you compare the two passages in Luke 1 (the Visitation of Mary) and 2nd Samuel (David going to Judea to retrieve the Ark), are you saying the similarities are just coincidence?

When the Angel Gabriel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her, he uses the exact same Greek word that is only referenced to the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant… this is all a coincidence?

If you haven’t honestly studied that, then I think you’ve made a very rash judgment with the above phrase.
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
Jlaymon2,

Have you studied in the OT how the mother of the King is the Queen in ancient Israel? Do you wonder why all but 2 mothers of the Judean kings are listed? Why did the inspired authors make a point of including this detail?
 
I thank you for all of the posts. I am sorry to say that I have heard all of these explanations many times before. To me I must on scripture, no where in scripture does it say “Mary was without sin” no where in scripture does it say “Mary was the ark of the New covenant” no were in scripture does it say “Mary ascended and was crowed queen of heaven”

These are all legalities and theological assumptions that the pagans formed during the Nicean Creed when Constantine legalized Christianity. Not scriptural or historically accurate.
Well, let’s look at the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Could you please point to any encroachments of paganism in the above?

It seems that your faith is being ill-formed by your new Nazarene association and not by the Church that Christ Himself founded and preserves without error. You base your understanding on the unhistorical belief that whatever is taught must be found explicitly in Scripture; and it seemsthat your understanding is also based on the idea that Catholicism quickly went off the rails when overwhelmed by pagan thought. These articles ably address this:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

bringyou.to/apologetics/ConstantinePaganChristian.htm?d581b500

When you are willing to accept a Fundamentalist approach to Marian doctrines that sees Marian theology and devotion as arising from paganism, then you really haven’t too much further to go in seeing Jesus as just another manifestation of Horus - after all, if Mary is just devotion to Isis played-out within a Christian context, then what keeps one from saying that Jesus is just a Christian myth conflated with Horus?
 
For Protestants, they have no view of the sacraments. So their highest form of worship is prayer.

That is why for them, it is like sacrilege if we pray to Mother Mary or the saints.
 
For Protestants, they have no view of the sacraments. So their highest form of worship is prayer.

That is why for them, it is like sacrilege if we pray to Mother Mary or the saints.
Watch out. Many Protestant Religions teach that their are two Sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top