Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[kujo313]

He does not “need” us, but he has chosen to depend upon us. we are his feet, His hands, His voice in the world. The Teachings of the Apostles are that Mary was conceived without sin. That is how God chose to do it. I can’t say I understand it either, frankly, the proposal you make seems like it would work the same way.

This is exactly why Catholics say that Mary is our life and our hope. She has overcome, and is sitting down with the Father.
She has demonstrated what can be for all of us.
QUOTE]

Wrong! The Apostles taught fulfilled Scripture in Jesus Christ. There are no writings from the Apostles saying that Mary was conceived without sin. It is the catholic religion that put Mary there, not Jesus. Mary was simply a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.

Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way. She is declared to have been free from all original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first declared in 1854; Catechism 491-492), free from any actual sin during her life (Catechism 411), and perpetually a virgin even after the birth of Jesus (Catechism 499-500).

Mary… was redeemed from the moment of her conception… preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
-Catechism 491

Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
-Catechism 493

 

[Mickey]

The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

You are plagiarizing directly from William Webster. When you copy someones opinions, you are supposed to reference it.

 

[Mickey]

Therefore, the catholic religion could teach what they wanted and nobody could look it up for themselves.

Yet you rely on William Webster to teach you.

 

[Mickey]

The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

This post comes from Christiananswers.net.

 

[Mickey]

[Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way. She is declared to have been free from all original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first declared in 1854; Catechism 491-492), free from any actual sin during her life (Catechism 411), and perpetually a virgin even after the birth of Jesus (Catechism 499-500).

This is also from Chritiananswers.net. I have never seen such plagiarism. Is this not against forum rules when someone does not post references?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is also from Chritiananswers.net. I have never seen such plagiarism. Is this not against forum rules when someone does not post references?

Content rules:

1. Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.
2. Do not post copyrighted material.
3. Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.

Conduct rules:

1. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
2. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

I think the moderators are OK with pasting excerpts of articles between the quote tags as long as links are provided. But you can check by posting to the Staff Chat Forum.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I think the moderators are OK with pasting excerpts of articles between the quote tags as long as links are provided. But you can check by posting to the Staff Chat Forum.

Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:

Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. If you are going to post an article, make sure you are placing it in the correct forum.

Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.

Always provide a link to a publicly available news source.

Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs.

Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1029044&postcount=4

 

[Mannyfit75]

Wow, here comes the Ex-Cathedra of William Webster, the only Anti-Catholic Protestant who totally has no clue on Catholicism.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mommyof02green:
Apparently kujo failed to provide the link, a mistake we sometimes neglect…

 

[Mannyfit75]

guanophore;2249188:

He does not “need” us, but he has chosen to depend upon us. we are his feet, His hands, His voice in the world. The Teachings of the Apostles are that Mary was conceived without sin. That is how God chose to do it. I can’t say I understand it either, frankly, the proposal you make seems like it would work the same way.

This is exactly why Catholics say that Mary is our life and our hope. She has overcome, and is sitting down with the Father.
She has demonstrated what can be for all of us.
QUOTE]

Wrong! The Apostles taught fulfilled Scripture in Jesus Christ. There are no writings from the Apostles saying that Mary was conceived without sin. It is the catholic religion that put Mary there, not Jesus. Mary was simply a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.

Catholic dogma, on the other hand, has exalted her in an irresponsible and idolatrous way. She is declared to have been free from all original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, first declared in 1854; Catechism 491-492), free from any actual sin during her life (Catechism 411), and perpetually a virgin even after the birth of Jesus (Catechism 499-500).

Mary… was redeemed from the moment of her conception… preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
-Catechism 491

Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
-Catechism 493

kujo, if you wish to cite outside sources always provide a link. Moderator’s will probably warm you that posting citations from other websites cannot be cited if you do not provide a link.

 

[Mannyfit75]

guanophore;2249188:

He does not “need” us, but he has chosen to depend upon us. we are his feet, His hands, His voice in the world. The Teachings of the Apostles are that Mary was conceived without sin. That is how God chose to do it. I can’t say I understand it either, frankly, the proposal you make seems like it would work the same way.

This is exactly why Catholics say that Mary is our life and our hope. She has overcome, and is sitting down with the Father.
She has demonstrated what can be for all of us.
QUOTE]

Wrong! The Apostles taught fulfilled Scripture in Jesus Christ. There are no writings from the Apostles saying that Mary was conceived without sin. It is the catholic religion that put Mary there, not Jesus. Mary was simply a sinner saved by the grace of her divine Son.

This is what I call lack of trying at least to understand Catholic doctrine. We do not expect you to agree but you like every other Protestants often say our intepretation is erroneous.

No, my friend. Catholic intepret Scripture what is called typology. That is the concept that NT revelation is hidden in the Old, and OT is revealed in the new.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is based on Traditions handed down unto us by Patristic sources and Scripture.

Here is an outlook on Scripture regarding the Immaculate Conception.

Luke 1:28 - “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 - Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

From Patristic Sources:

II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

Here is a source where I got it from. There is nothing wrong with the belief in the Immaculate Conception. If seem to me that people who do not understand this doctrine is because they don’t believe that God who created all things out of nothing, can create a woman, who will be the Mother of the Word of God can create her and perserved her from all sins, and kept her a virgin all her life. My friend, with God nothing is impossible with God. Mary’s being without sin is God’s doing. Not us. It was not invited. If you want to want to argue with this you can take it up with God himself when you go to the next life.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

PLEASE remember to stay on topic, and to cite your sources.

Thank you for your cooperation-

Rachel

 

[kujo313]

kujo313;2250479:

From Patristic Sources:

II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

Here is a source where I got it from. There is nothing wrong with the belief in the Immaculate Conception.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

Sure there is: you have to go several dozens and even hundreds of years after the death of the Apostles. All it takes is to go a little bit “outside the box” and everybody else goes that way.
You put your religion’s “tradition” right up there with Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God. If God wanted Mary to be lifted up that high, He would’ve done so. He didn’t. The RCC lifted Mary to where she is now.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

The ONLY Divine Plan that Mary was a part of was giving birth to the Messiah.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75;2251213:

Sure there is: you have to go several dozens and even hundreds

of years after the death of the Apostles. All it takes is to go a little bit “outside the box” and everybody else goes that way.
You put your religion’s “tradition” right up there with Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God. If God wanted Mary to be lifted up that high, He would’ve done so. He didn’t. The RCC lifted Mary to where she is now.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

The ONLY Divine Plan that Mary was a part of was giving birth to the Messiah.

The New Testament was not collected either after 300 yrs because it was in the Council of Carthage, and Hippo canonize the book of the 27 NT into part of the Canon of Scripture. It also took 300 yrs to have the Church proclaim the Trinity, which is not found in the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

For example, Luke wove some marvelous things into his Gospel that only a knowledgeable Jew would have understood—a Jew who knew Jewish Scripture and had eyes to see and ears to hear. One of the things he would have understood is typology.

We all know that the Old Testament is full of stories, people, and historical events. A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something in the New Testament. It is like a taste or a hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ’s revelation. Augustine said that “the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed” (Catechizing of the Uninstructed 4:8).

The idea of typology is not new. Paul says that Adam was a type of the one who was to come—Christ (Rom. 5:14). Early Christians understood that the Old Testament was full of types or pictures that were fulfilled or realized in the New Testament.

Here are a few more examples of biblical typology:

Peter uses Noah’s ark as a type of Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:18–22).

Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism (Col. 2:11–12).

Jesus uses the bronze serpent as a type of his Crucifixion (John 3:14; cf. Num. 21:8–9).
The Passover lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7).

Paul says that Abraham “considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb. 11:19).

The Ark of the Old Covenant

God loved his people and wanted to be close to them. He chose to do so in a very special way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The prayer of the people of God flourished in the shadow of the dwelling place of God’s presence on earth, the ark of the covenant and the temple, under the guidance of their shepherds, especially King David, and of the prophets” (CCC 2594). God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle surrounded by heavy curtains (cf. Ex. 25–27). Within the tabernacle he was to place an ark made of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out. Within the Ark of the Covenant was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb. 9:4).

When the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34–35; Num. 9:18, 22). The verb for “to cover” or “to overshadow” and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God. The Catechism explains:
In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory—with Moses on Mount Sinai, at the tent of meeting, and during the wandering in the desert, and with Solomon at the dedication of the temple. In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the “cloud came and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’” Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord “overshadowed” the ark and filled the tabernacle (CCC 697).
It’s easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp

 

[cpayne]

Mannyfit75;2251213:

Scripture is the Word of God. If God wanted Mary to be lifted up that high, He would’ve done so. He didn’t. The RCC

lifted Mary to where she is now.

Luke 1: “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior, for He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden; for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things. . . . He hath . . . exalted them of low degree.”

Is the Scripture wrong here? Was Mary mistaken? Was God wrong, in what He did for her?

“Blessed art thou among [all] women.” Was Elizabeth wrong?

“Hail, thou that art highly favored [full of grace]; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among [all] women.” Was Gabriel wrong, too?

I agree with your sentence: “If God had wanted Mary to be lifted that high, He would have done so.” Yep.:yup:

 

[guanophore]

Go to mass, get your stomach pumped at the hospital. Any flesh in your stomach? No. Any other blood but your own? No.

Funny how you take that literally but you don’t pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. Jesus also said that he’s a vine and a gate.
You take things literally only to further your own cause and not the cause of the Gospel. All allegories to help you understand God’s Will for all of mankind.

As I was at Mass this morning, I was praying for CAF, and all the people that I have dialogue with on this board. I was reflecting on this comment kujo made about Holy Eucharist. It strikes me as sacriligious and condescending. As with most of the kujo posts, it has an accusatory tone (who is the accuser of the brethren?) and is judgemental. In another post Catholics are accused of idolatry for “adoring the wafer”. I understand that most protestants do not accept John 6 the way Jesus and the Apostles taught about the body and blood. Is this invincible ignorance?

Is that a question for another thread?

 

[Mannyfit75]

As I was at Mass this morning, I was praying for CAF, and all the people that I have dialogue with on this board. I was reflecting on this comment kujo made about Holy Eucharist. It strikes me as sacriligious and condescending. As with most of the kujo posts, it has an accusatory tone (who is the accuser of the brethren?) and is judgemental. In another post Catholics are accused of idolatry for “adoring the wafer”. I understand that most protestants do not accept John 6 the way Jesus and the Apostles taught about the body and blood. Is this invincible ignorance?

Is that a question for another thread?

I think kujo’s comments are bias and offensive.

 

[cpayne]

In my post above, for some reason the computer listed the quoted part as coming from Mannyfit75. That is mistaken, as would be obvious to anyone reading along here. Just wanted to make sure everyone knew.

 

[Mannyfit75]

In my post above, for some reason the computer listed the quoted part as coming from Mannyfit75. That is mistaken, as would be obvious to anyone reading along here. Just wanted to make sure everyone knew.

I know it was address to kujo.