Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[MariaG]

Hey Joey,

Well… If Jesus wanted it changed, He would have don’t when He came. He obviously knew the Law. The Jews kept it that way in the Torah so it stays. Only the Catholic version says “strange”. But if you feel that it it’s ok to say strange then that’s your choice.

What are you talking about? If you wish to say anything was changed, then you would need to say that the KJV “changed” the original manuscript also. The KJV is a tranlation of the original also. Other is ONE of the choices for the word in question in Exodus. Strange is another choice. Two different translations, two different choices. Both equally valid and correct. Both meaning the SAME thing. As I already showed you, the Catholic church uses both translations interchangeably BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN MEANING.

Your argument is saying that scripture should never be translated into any other language than the the original.

Why can’t you just admit you were wrong and strange is a valid, if not prefered by you, translation from the original and no more “changed” anything than the KJV did.

And since when did you decide that the Jewish people were important for you to listen to? Last time when I brought up the Jews you wished to reject what they said.

Why are you so threatened by admitting you are wrong about anything you THINK you know about Catholic teachings?

I pray that your heart is not hardened and God will reveal the Truth to you.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JoeyWarren]

He will not admit he is wrong. The Catholic Church is wrong in his mind, so he unable to progress intellectually passed that point. I was born baptist and raised hard-core Pentecostal. My intellect would never accept what I was being preached to. I could never be brainwashed as my other brothers and sisters were. Bible coupled with knowledge of Judaic culture and customs makes Catholicism very Logical.

 

[Image_of_God]

How could the Catholics give us the Bible when the Word is over 6000 years old?

Sorry it took to long for me to write back.

The Catholic Church went through hard work, with the guidance of the most Blessed Holy Spirit, to read and figure out which books were true and which ones were not. They had to get rid of many false books at the time, I think. The Protestant Bible, with a few taking out of books, is somewhat based on what the Catholics did almost 2,000 years ago. The OT is 6,000 years old, but the NT is only about 2,000.

 

[M_Oliver]

"to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church.

So why, three and four verses later did this happen?..

**And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22)

But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!** You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." (Matthew 16:23)

 

[kellie]

It never ceases to amaze me the debate that rages between Catholics and non-Catholics about the Bible.

It always boils down to the printed word that a printing house has set into paper, bound, and sent out to stores for sale.

One book may say one thing, another version says another, and the debate continues.

I am going to say something that may shock some people, and I know I may be attacked for it, but the Bible is a collection of books, a collection of printed matter, it relays to us the Word of God as passed down through the Holy Spirit to the humans who penned the words on to parchment.

However, it is not to be worshipped as some appear to do.

It is a book, or rather a collection of books. It is inanimate.

People seem to lose the meaning behind the Bible.
That is, to use as a reminder of God’s message.

Printed words on paper being tossed around as to meanings and translations is not what God wants.

Long before we were ever born, and illiteracy was rife, many did not have a Bible to read. So how did they hear about the Word of God? Through oral stories and teachings.

The Holy Spirit will never fail the church that Jesus founded, and oral teachings passed down from the Apostles through generations is how we got the meaning of the printed word we read today.

The Bible was not around 6000 years ago as one poster said. How could it have been? The NT hadn’t happened then. That’s just plain logic.

There were writings of course, and teachings, and after John wrote the last book, they were all compiled together to give us the Bible.

I think people need to look at the oral teachings, to give them background as to what the Bible means, as taking the Bible alone, leads to misinterpretations, as can be seen time and time again. A simple word within a sentence spelt wrong, or translated wrong, and put into print, causes so much debate, when if the oral teaching was referred to, this debate wouldn’t happen. We would all know what the printed word was meaning, even if it didnt specifically say that according to translation.

The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, with all it’s oral teachings and traditions, interprets the Bible correctly, no matter what version of it is brought at the store.

I hope I have made some sense.

 

[JoeyWarren]

So why, three and four verses later did this happen?..

**And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22)

But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!** You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." (Matthew 16:23)

Question: Why did Jesus rebuke Peter so sternly?

Answer: 4. Jesus rebuked Peter so sternly because Peter was opposing God’s plan of salvation. God revealed to Simon whom Jesus was but God did not reveal to Simon his plan of salvation. Peter loved Jesus almost as a father loves a son.

Being rebuked a few minutes later does not negate the proclamation Jesus made about Peter. Peter was speaking with his heart and not his mind. Peter did not want Jesus to die.

 

[JoeyWarren]

A certain matter was bothering the disciples at this time, Peter especially. This was the fact that Jesus leveled reproaches and severe criticism at the leaders of the Jewish people. “These Pharisees are blind guides . . . I’m going to root up all these plants and throw them out.”
The disciples came to him after one of these sessions and complained, “The Pharisees did not like what you said. If you are to be accepted by them as the Messiah, don’t you think it would be better to speak less frankly?”

The disciples had a lot of stock invested in Jesus’ political success. They conceived of him as the Messiah in the sense of a national hero and king. They were concerned about his career. He constantly tried to break them of this narrow-minded idea, but they did not understand what Jesus was talking about. In fact, this lack of comprehension was characteristic of them. Mark tells us that after the miraculous multiplication of loaves and discourse on the Eucharist, the minds of the disciples “were a perfect blank.” They did not understand what it all meant.

On one occasion, when Jesus thought it was time, he turned to Peter and asked: “Who do you say that I am?”

People were saying this and that about him. It was at this moment that Peter made his great act of faith: “You are Christ, the son of the living God!”

Jesus rewarded him by saying, “Peter, on you I will build my Church.”

This was a great promise, greater than the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But he said, “I will build my Church on you.” He did not say, “I am giving you the Church now.”

Noticing Peter’s chest beginning to bulge just a little bit, Jesus added quickly, “Now, do not tell anybody about this.” Peter would liked to have called in the photographers. Peter had a secret desire (not too secret from the others) to be the right-hand man of the Messiah. He had convinced himself that this was his proper role. When Jesus recognized that Peter was taking his future mission too seriously and in merely human terms, he began to speak to Peter and the apostles about his passion and death.

“From that time, Jesus began to make it plain to the disciples that it was necessary that he go up to Jerusalem, suffer at the hands of the elders, high priest, and scribes, die, and on the third day rise again.”

In other words, this kingdom of his was to be established not by political power, ambition, or prestige, but by suffering and the cross. Peter had to change his ideas about what the head of the apostolic college would require.

Peter was still concerned about the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees. Things were not going too well in that important area of public opinion. The next scene shows us how matter-of-fact and how much at ease the disciples were with Jesus. Peter called Jesus aside to lecture him. That is what the gospel says: “Peter drew him aside and proceeded to lecture”–the Son of God!

He said, “Lord, this business of going up to Jerusalem and being crucified–I don’t think it is such a hot idea. The scribes and Pharisees have shown disapproval of the way things are going, and they have been offended by your remarks. Now you are speaking about being crucified. What will happen to the Messianic kingdom? What will happen to us?” What will happen to Peter!

And his final admonition was, “May God spare you, Master . . . Let’s not talk any more about suffering, please!”

Although he had just made him the chief of the apostles, the Lord turned angrily and said: “Back to your place, Satan!” A stinging rebuke! The other disciples heard it and trembled. Jesus said it loud enough so that they all would hear. He turned on Peter the full force of his indignation, because now Peter was meddling in something essential to the kingdom, the will of the Father. Without the cross, there is no salvation. Jesus was willing to take his commands–up to a point–but not in something essential. “Get out of my sight!”

 

[JoeyWarren]

“Satan”–that’s about as bad a word as he could call him–“You are a stumbling block.”

You can see Peter beginning to shrivel up. “You do not take God’s view of things, but man’s.”

Jesus knows how to administer a rebuke, to put somebody in his place, from the top man to the lowest. When we have moved out of our territory, he lets us know about it in no uncertain terms.

That humiliation must have hurt Peter. The words of Jesus pierced through him like a two-edged sword, right to the bottom of his heart. He did not have any comeback.

But Jesus was not satisfied with that. He turned on the other disciples ready to get rid of them, too, if they would not accept the doctrine of the cross.

“Look,” he said, “if anyone wants to become my follower, let him deny himself and shoulder his cross. Only then may he be a follower of mine. Somebody who is bent on saving his life is going to part with it anyway. He who freely parts with his life for my sake will save it and secure it in the end. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?”

Peter was really flattened. He needed some consolation. Notice how Jesus responds. He has given him a blow right between the eyes, and now he gives him a big consolation. The harder we fall, the higher we bounce.

Now comes the event called the Transfiguration–an over-whelming consolation for any man if there ever was one. Again, Jesus calls to himself Peter, James, and John, and they go up onto a high mountain. Jesus is transfigured before them. The glory that lay concealed in the depths of his soul started to stream down over his body. His face shone like the sun and even his clothes took on a unbelievable beautiful glow, like snow sparkling in the sunshine. Suddenly Moses and Elias appeared together with him talking to him about his death, which he was about to undergo in Jerusalem. The apostles were thrilled, of course, with the vision. The beauty filled their senses and their hearts with warm emotion. They wanted to linger there on the mountain and enjoy to the full the delightful feelings of consolation that seemed to penetrate to the very marrow of their bones.

Peter, as usual, had to say something. Silence was not one of his virtues. “Lord, it is well that we are here with you! If you would like, we will build three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elias.”

Very hospitable of Peter to devise these special accommodations for Jesus and his guests, something no one had asked him to do.

While he was still speaking, a luminous cloud enveloped them and a voice rang out: “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

They fell on their faces, trembling, overcome with awe. After a while Jesus approached them. They were still scared to death and would not get up. But when he laid his hand on them and patted them, they looked up and saw only him.

The afterglow of that vision must have been tremendous. As they came down the mountain, Peter began to recover from his astonishment and awe. He was thinking how nice it would be to tell all the other disciples about the wonderful vision he had just enjoyed. How highly they would esteem him as one of the inside men!

Jesus turned to him and said, “There is one thing I want to add, Peter. Do not tell anybody about this vision until I have risen from the dead.”

Jesus was already gently putting the lid on Peter’s exuberance, but he did it in such a way as never to squash him.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Jesus looked intently at Peter for a moment and then said, “You are Simon, John’s son - but you shall be called Peter, the rock!”
John 1:42

Some Christians deny that the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, has any special authoritative role in the Church founded by Christ. Some claim that according to the Bible, St. Peter never served as the leader of the Church. Others may recognize his special authority, but deny Apostolic Succession, the passing on of this office by the Church.

This challenge for a Catholic Christian should begin with these Gospel verses:

And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Matt. 16: 18-19, RSV]

Through the centuries many things have been written about these two verses; however, only a few points will be considered here.

First Jesus promises that the destructive “power of death shall not prevail against” His Church. This verse, especially in light of Matt. 28:19-20 and 2 Tim. 2:2, suggests Apostolic Succession, the passing on of the discipleship to faithful men through the centuries, since Christ’s original disciples were mortal men. Secondly in verse 19, St. Peter is the only person to whom Jesus promises to give the keys of His kingdom. In the Bible, keys are a sign of authority (Isaiah 22:22; Rev. 1:18; 3:7). If you have ever accidentally been locked out of the house or car, you probably experienced the power of keys! Thirdly in verse 18, Christ gives Simon the name Peter, meaning rock, and promises that His Church will be built “on this rock.” In the original Greek text, petra is used for rock, while Petros is used for Peter. In Greek, nouns have gender. Petra, being the common Greek noun for rock, has a feminine gender and thus is not appropriate for a man’s name. To make it suitable for Simon, petra is given a masculine ending, resulting in Petros, Peter in Greek.

Elsewhere in the Bible, Simon Peter is also called Cephas (or Kephas). Cephas is from the word for ROCK in Aramaic, the language Jesus and the Apostles commonly spoke. In John 1:42, Jesus renames Simon as Cephas:

“So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). [John 1:42]

The footnote to this verse in the RSV Bible states: “From the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek respectively.” The Living Bible, a Protestant paraphrased edition, actually renders this verse as: “…but you shall be called Peter, the rock!”(see top) If Jesus did not establish St. Peter as the foundation rock of the Church, then it is quite strange that Jesus renamed him ROCK in two different languages!

Jesus and His Apostles were fluent in Scripture. In Matt. 16:19, Jesus is making reference to the rite of succession found in the Book of Isaiah:

In that day I (God) will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will … commit your (Shebna’s) authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. [Isaiah 22:20-22]

In verses 15-25, Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime ministry. Eliakim is not a king but a prime minister under King Hezekiah (Isaiah 36:1-3, 22). The king of the Davidic dynasty had ministers who helped in governing (2 Sam. 8:15-18; 20:23-26). Likewise Jesus, being the King in the house of David (Luke 1:32-33), appoints St. Peter as His first prime minister by giving him “the keys of the kingdom.”

 

[JoeyWarren]

It should be noted that Jesus in Matt. 16:18-19 speaks in the future tense, as in a promise. Jesus at this point does not confer authority to St. Peter, so his later denial of Christ does not render it void. Christ actually prays for St. Peter before his denial:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” [Luke 22:31-32]

It is only after this trial that Christ confers authority onto St. Peter in John 21.

The imagery in John 21 is different. Jesus is not referred to as King but as the Good Shepherd. In John 10:16 Jesus speaks of “one flock and one shepherd.” From the text it is obvious that the flock is the Church, while Jesus is the shepherd. Now in John 21:15-19, Jesus gives His earthly authority to St. Peter by telling him: “Simon, son of John…Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” Jesus is not telling St. Peter to literally feed a flock of sheep but to guide and care for His Church on earth.

A common objection against Peter’s primacy is based on Gal. 2:11-14 where St. Paul rebukes St. Peter (Cephas) for acting insincerely. This rebuke from St. Paul does not undermine St. Peter’s teaching authority, since St. Paul did not rebuke him for false teaching but for setting a bad example. (As an aside, St. Paul also set a bad example in Acts 16:3.) It must be remembered that St. Peter was a sinner like the rest of us (Luke 5:8,10). Likewise Nathan’s condemnation of King David in 2 Sam. 12 did not undermine David’s ruling authority but brought him to repentance. Finally, if St. Paul did not recognize St. Peter’s teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry (Gal. 1:18)?

There are examples of Peter exercising his leadership in the Acts of the Apostles (1:15-26; 5:1-11; 11:1-18); however, the best witness to Apostolic Succession and the Papacy can be found in the early Christian writings. An early witness to papal authority is the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This letter was written 96 A.D. in Rome by Pope Clement to restore order to the church in Corinth. Clement not only interferes with this church, but also apologizes for not acting sooner. In 190 A.D., St. Irenaeus of Lyons lists the Bishops of Rome (Popes) in his book, Against Heresies:

The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us. [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

In 325 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea, writes The History of the Church and quotes St. Irenaeus’ list (V, 6). Eusebius also cites 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that St. Peter was in Rome, a.k.a. Babylon (II, 15).

Peter’s primacy is evident from the Bible; his name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Apostolic Succession was a fact of life in the early Church, as witnessed by the early Christian writings. The primacy of the present Pope is based on faith in Christ’s promise, that His Church built on Peter will not be overcome by the power of death (Matt. 16:18; 7:25).

 

[JoeyWarren]

All of us who are Christians have an image of Jesus in our minds. We have a portrait of Jesus deep within us that profoundly affects the way in which we pray, think, and even choose to act. That portrait is like a mosaic comprised of many pieces but put together to form a whole. The pieces of that mosaic come from many different places in our lives, past and present. They derive from the way we were schooled in the faith, beginning as children. They arise from treasured images of Christ that have impressed us, like that statue of the Sacred Heart in my home parish. We may have internalized images of Jesus from devotions that we have engaged in over the years. Our favorite passages and scenes from the Gospels provide us with pictures of the Lord. And important people in our lives are also part of that mosaic of Jesus – people who in some way have revealed the presence of Christ to us.

The disciples of Jesus probably had an image, an expectation, of what the Messiah would be like. During the time that Jesus lived, the Jewish people had different views about the way God would act in history to deliver his people. There was not one, uniform image of what the Messiah would be. But Jesus’ followers obviously had some expectations of what God’s redemption would mean. It is evident that Peter must have had an image of what the Messiah would be like. So, when he made his great confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, he must have assumed that Jesus would meet those expectations. Perhaps the picture in Peter’s mind was that of a conquering hero, a triumphant victor over all the forces that made life difficult for God’s people. Whatever Peter’s precise image of the Messiah was, it is apparent that it did not include a place for suffering and rejection. That did not square with the picture in his mind. And so when Jesus speaks of his impending rejection and suffering, Peter decides that the Lord must be in desperate need of some advice, some counseling. So he takes Jesus aside to set him straight. At this, Jesus has to rebuke Peter sharply.

You and I might listen to this Gospel and say, “Here he goes again; Peter is always shooting off his mouth and getting himself in trouble. He has an uncanny knack for saying the wrong thing.” But perhaps, at least in this matter, you and I are not very different from Peter. Jesus’ words about taking up our cross and following him, about saving our lives by losing them for his sake, are words that we know by heart. But they represent an ongoing challenge for us. They never sit with us very easily. At particular moments in our lives these words hit home in ways that are unmistakable. Sometimes it is difficult to discover the presence of God in moments of struggle and suffering. Sometimes the pain and sacrifice of committed love seem just too much, too overwhelming for us. If you are like me, sometimes we would prefer a Messiah who was simply a conquering hero, a triumphant victor who would instantly lift us out of those difficult, painful situations.

 

[JoeyWarren]

As I thought about this Gospel passage, I was brought back to sitting near the bedside of my brother, Tom, who died of brain cancer in July. It was a long thirteen months between the time he was diagnosed with cancer and his death. During that time, he rapidly declined physically and in his cognitive capacities. For the last five months or so, Tom did not recognize anyone, even his own wife. He could not feed himself. Yet I watched as Tom’s wife, Dot, cared for him each day to the very end. She sat with him, held his hand, wiped his mouth, washed his face, and kept talking to him even when he could not respond and did not realize who she was. Having never been married, I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to care for your spouse of more than forty years when they do not even recognize you. But that is what she did. As I was reflecting on this Gospel passage about taking up our cross and following the Lord, the image of my sister-in-law faithfully sitting beside my brother’s bed came to mind.

The question that Jesus posed to his disciples is also presented to each one of us: “Who do you say that I am?” As we pray together at the Eucharist, we profess with Peter, “You are the Christ.” If we did not believe that, we would not bother coming to the Eucharist. At the same time, we are asked to make that same profession with our lives, not just with our lips. We are invited to profess our faith in Christ by taking up our cross and following the Lord, especially in those areas in our lives where we are called to be lovingly faithful to our commitments. We cannot hope to do that simply by our own power. We are always dependent upon the grace of Christ, the strength of the Lord to keep us alive in those commitments. And so we come to the altar this Sunday to be strengthened by Christ’s gift of himself to us in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist. The Messiah who gave his life for us by taking up his own cross also gives his life to us in this sacrament. In so doing, he offers us the strength to love faithfully.

 

[RCCDefender]

Excellent points, Joey!!

 

[MariaG]

Excellent points, Joey!!

I’ll second that!

 

[JoeyWarren]

okay believers, ball is in your court.

I am up on the net.

 

[Valke2]

Although I know this has been discussed at length before, there are several new people who have said this recently. I think it is time to start a new thread again. Shall we make a list here that you wish to discuss and then start a new thread for each doctrine that a person believes is unscriptural?

Name one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts Scripture. One that in fact does not have an implicit teaching in Scripture.

I am a Catholic that loves to “find it in the Bible”. If anyone can show me one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture, I’ll leave today.

Maria

Ok. Here’s a few for you to addresss. If they have already been discussed here, just ignore them:

Catholicism refers to Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”, However the only mentions of the “queen of heaven” in the Bible are in rebuke.

“All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. (p.275 The Catechism of the Catholic Church). Compare this with Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”. Or Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. Or Ex. 20:3-5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (Page 138)

Compare this to Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

 

[MariaG]

Ok. Here’s a few for you to addresss. If they have already been discussed here, just ignore them:

Catholicism refers to Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”, However the only mentions of the “queen of heaven” in the Bible are in rebuke.

“All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. (p.275 The Catechism of the Catholic Church). Compare this with Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”. Or Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. Or Ex. 20:3-5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (Page 138)

Compare this to Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Yes they have already been addressed (probably), but not by you and I won’t make you (or me) go back and look for the answer in so many posts .

Queen of heaven. The mothers of the King from the Davidic line in Scripture are called Queens. Whether or not they were rebuked when spoken to, only proves that while the Title is a good and true title, the Queen is not in charge but the King is.

You are not saying we should do something contrary to scripture and NOT call the mother of the King of Kings from the Davidic line a Queen are you? I don’t believe you realize that the implication of denying Mary that Title would in fact, then be backhandedly denying that Christ is King. While you may say that is not your intent, in fact, with scripture showing us the way, it would be the result.

Calling Mary Queen of heaven is not about who Mary is but who Christ is. To deny that Mary is the mother of the King (or deny the title), whose title is Queen, it to deny that Christ is King (or open up the door to that heresy.) This is why the Catholic Church stands firm on scripture and the title of Mary being Queen of heaven.

You would need to show me Scripture that tells us calling the King of Kings from the line of David’s Mother Queen is wrong if you wish to prove that calling Mary Queen of heaven is wrong. Respectfully, all you have is the “feeling” that it is wrong since different kings rebuked their mothers who held the title Queen.

As for devotion to Mary, we clearly need to get into some definitions. Most non-Catholic Christians have “daily devotions” refering to your prayer time with God. Would you say that is an accurate description of you?

You are taking your limited and relatively recent and narrow definition of devotion and saying that since to you devotion means worship of God, devotion of Mary must mean Catholics worship Mary.

That is just false.

I actually have to go right now, I did not realize the time when I started this reply, but when I get back, I will post the definition of devotion and the definition is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that clearly tells us that although Mary may recieve special devotion, WORSHIP is reserved for God alone.

As a quick note, people used to and still? say they are devoted to their husbands or devoted to their children. Do you think that they are mistakenly worshiping their children and cannot tell the difference between great love and worship?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Valke2]

As a quick note, people used to and still? say they are devoted to their husbands or devoted to their children. Do you think that they are mistakenly worshiping their children and cannot tell the difference between great love and worship?

God Bless,
Maria

I don’t believe they are praying to their children or husbands.

 

[jonfan]

Hi Valke. We know the difference just as the OT Jews knew the difference.

Genesis
37:9. He dreamed also another dream, which he told his brethren, saying: I** saw in a dream, as it were the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars worshipping me. **

37:10. And when he had told this to his father, and brethren, his father rebuked him and said: What meaneth this dream that thou hast dreamed? **shall I and thy mother, and thy brethren worship thee upon the earth? **

*Worship… This word is not used here to signify divine worship, but an inferior veneration, expressed by the bowing of the body, and that, according to the manner of the eastern nations, down to the ground. *

Gen 49:8
Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; **your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you **

Exo 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you

Exo 28:2
**Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron [the high priest], to give him dignity and honor. **

In Scripture, the term “worship” was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = “beyond dulia”), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word “worship.” Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word “worship” by referring to “the worship of latria” or “the worship of dulia.” To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, “We adore God but we honor his saints.”
catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

Hope this helps.

 

[jville14]

They can say it contradicts Matthew 25 vs31 to 46. There it is said that the just will go to heaven, while the unjust will go to hell. It is said that there will be a division into two groups, to heaven or to hell. The idea that there was a third group is not mentioned and I have heard them say that the idea of a third group, or the idea of Purgatory was an invention of the priests, and it has no backing from Matthew 25 vs31 to 46: And I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on indulgences.

how does that contradict purgatory. anyone in purgatory is going to heaven they just have to purge there sins