non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[climer97007]

Maybe you missed some things when you were comparing catholic teachings with Scriptures. Lets take a simple dogma of your church-- The Assumption of Mary. Its not mentioned in the Scriptures so you have nothing to compare it with. Secondly, its not mentioned for centuries. This alone is a clear indicator that your church does not always ground its teachings in Scripture.

Maybe you missed the 12th Chapter of Revelation in which John sees a woman clothed with the sun…

The Church has always taught that this is at once referring to Mary and the Church of which she is the first image of.

Of course, you will not be able to see this, since you were taught that this means something else, and since you or your teacher are infallible, the Church is obviously wrong.

Of course, John ought to know what he is talking about since Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother to care for her until her death or until her sleeping, as the east would say. But, of course, you would obviously not be able to accept even first hand scriptural evidence since you can imagine multiple ways of misinterpreting it.

What I want to know is how you honestly and prayerfully consider that you have the capacity to decide issues like this without the possibility of self deception or worse yet, of acting like the Pope himself.

Gene

 

[Swan]

Maybe you missed the 12th Chapter of Revelation in which John sees a woman clothed with the sun…

The Church has always taught that this is at once referring to Mary and the Church of which she is the first image of.

Of course, you will not be able to see this, since you were taught that this means something else, and since you or your teacher are infallible, the Church is obviously wrong.

Of course, John ought to know what he is talking about since Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother to care for her until her death or until her sleeping, as the east would say. But, of course, you would obviously not be able to accept even first hand scriptural evidence since you can imagine multiple ways of misinterpreting it.

What I want to know is how you honestly and prayerfully consider that you have the capacity to decide issues like this without the possibility of self deception or worse yet, of acting like the Pope himself.

Gene

Again, this is just an interpretation, and not the only one. There is no definitive proof that it is any more valid than others. I

Also, wasn’t is St. John the Divine who is creditied with Revelations, not the apostle John?

 

[climer97007]

Again, this is just an interpretation, and not the only one. There is no definitive proof that it is any more valid than others. I

Also, wasn’t is St. John the Divine who is creditied with Revelations, not the apostle John?

You are asking ME, a member of the Catholic Church, who the author of Revelation is, but, you KNOW the correct interpretation of it, no matter who wrote it, right? Is that what I am really hearing from you?

So, you are not looking for faith, rather, your are trusing only in what can be proven scientifically? So, you don’t believe in Chirst then right? I mean, since there is no proof, right?

No wonder you are asking the questions you are asking, and giving the answers you are giving!

I would advise you to go out into the world, and debate whatever and whomever you please, and when you are tired of debating the endless possibilities, and when you are tired of the lack of proofs and what-not, then come back to the Catholic Church, and She will give to you what She alone can give to you, and that is TRUE FAITH, not proofs, not human logic, FAITH. She will give you Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Gene

 

[guanophore]

How do you know when your church is being guided by the HS or not?

Because Jesus said “I will be with you” and “the Spirit will guide you into all truth”. He said "until the end of the Age, so the church will be guided by the HS until she is taken up into heaven, and no longer needs that guidance, because her pilgrimmage is over.

Think about the inquisitions for a moment. They went on for centuries with the full approval of the popes i.e. vicars of Christ who you would think were guided by the HS. How could these vicars of Christ be responsible for such wicked evil?

First of all, when you study the Inquisitions, you can plainly see that they were not all evil. But, before you do that, perhaps you would be willing to show where the inqusitions were part of the Doctrine of the Faith? Perhaps you can bring forth Church documents that show inquisitions are part of the Teachings?

Knowing these kinds of things, how can you trust your church at all times if you do?

Because we are aware that, in spite of sinful and fallible people being attached to her, she is the Holy Bride of Christ, and He has purified her. Not all who are members of her will be part of that purification, but for those that have already gone on to their heavenly reward, there is no stain of sin whatsoever.

We do not define Church by the sinners, we define her as Jesus did:

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

Unlike the sinners, she is holy, and without blemish.

Maybe you missed some things when you were comparing catholic teachings with Scriptures. Lets take a simple dogma of your church-- The Assumption of Mary. Its not mentioned in the Scriptures so you have nothing to compare it with. Secondly, its not mentioned for centuries. This alone is a clear indicator that your church does not always ground its teachings in Scripture.

This is an example of bearing false witness against your neighbor, ja4. You have been repeatedly advised that the Catholic Teachings are grounded in Christ. Catholicism is not a “bible based church”. On the contrary, the Catholic Church produced the Bible from her sacred traditions.

To level this charge is slanderous.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3537843]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Maybe you missed some things when you were comparing catholic teachings with Scriptures. Lets take a simple dogma of your church-- The Assumption of Mary. Its not mentioned in the Scriptures so you have nothing to compare it with. Secondly, its not mentioned for centuries. This alone is a clear indicator that your church does not always ground its teachings in Scripture.

guanophore;
This is an example of bearing false witness against your neighbor, ja4.

Nonsense. These are facts and not a false witness. Unless you can refute these historically it is you who is bearing false witness by not acknowledging the truth about this.

guanophore;
You have been repeatedly advised that the Catholic Teachings are grounded in Christ. Catholicism is not a “bible based church”.

Again you misrepresent Christ. The only teachings of Christ are found only in the Scriptures and nowhere else. I do agree with you that the Catholicism is not a “bible based church” though. This means it does not derive its authority from the Word of God but from men.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church produced the Bible from her sacred traditions.

You keep saying this but are unable to show any evidence what this sacred tradition is exactly. It carries no weight.

To level this charge is slanderous.

Nonsense. If i were lying then would be some merit to this but we both know that is not the case at all.

 

[justasking4]

Maybe you missed the 12th Chapter of Revelation in which John sees a woman clothed with the sun…

The Church has always taught that this is at once referring to Mary and the Church of which she is the first image of.

Of course, you will not be able to see this, since you were taught that this means something else, and since you or your teacher are infallible, the Church is obviously wrong.

Of course, John ought to know what he is talking about since Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother to care for her until her death or until her sleeping, as the east would say. But, of course, you would obviously not be able to accept even first hand scriptural evidence since you can imagine multiple ways of misinterpreting it.

What I want to know is how you honestly and prayerfully consider that you have the capacity to decide issues like this without the possibility of self deception or worse yet, of acting like the Pope himself.

Gene

It is not true your church has always seen Revelations 12 as Mary. Here is what a catholic scholar says about this passage:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

 

[c659smith]

It is not true your church has always seen Revelations 12 as Mary. Here is what a catholic scholar says about this passage:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

You are making no sense

Now lets look at what you stated:

we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth

now lets see her heart was pierced by what?

Was it a sword?

---

that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child

Now Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to where after the Birth

the ten thousand dollar answer is Egypt. (desert no other way to get there from Bethlehem).

---

she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). With being the new Eve she sure was as her children is us for she is the Mother of the Church.

Now Paul, the Romans, and Jews did not persecute her?

you bet they did and all Christians for over 300 years.

Father Brown does not speak for the church as is evident here

Brown’s work was controversial among traditionalists who objected to the elements of his work that they regarded as casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.[25] His critics included Lawrence Cardinal Shehan and Father Richard Gilsdorf, who described Brown’s work as "a major contribution to the befogged wasteland of an ‘American Church,’ progressively alienated from its divinely constituted center?”[26]

Other writers, on the other hand, have criticized Brown for excessive caution, for what they saw as his unwillingness to acknowledge the radical implications of the critical methods he was using. Frank Kermode, in his review of The Birth of the Messiah, accused Brown of being too eager to secure the imprimatur of the Catholic Church;[27] Geza Vermes has described Brown as “the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it’.”[28]

 

[guanophore]

It is not true your church has always seen Revelations 12 as Mary. Here is what a catholic scholar says about this passage:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

Well, ja4, in spite of my love for this commentary, they do not speak for Jesus. Only He is the Source of Revelation for the Teachings. Yes, the woman clothef with the sun can also be seen as the people of God, as Israel (for salvation is from the Jews) and the Church. However, the Magesterium (teaching authority appointed by Christ) has identified that we can also see in this passage the figure of the mother of Jesus.

I know that it is not possible right now, due to your wounds, to trust the Teaching of the Magesterium. It is my prayer that trust will come to you, and that you will no longer have to put confidence in your flesh (trust in ‘proof’ and 'scholarship). The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Here is a continuation of this thread - "non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”?" -2

This thread has reached 1000+ replies and it will probably be closed soon… The most one of my treads has ever made it was 1044…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232131

 

[Tomster]

The problem is that its faulty reasoning. Christ never promised His church would be infallible. Look at your church history. The pope for example was not always thought to be infallible. Secondly, your church has erred many times in the past. These 2 things alone should tell you that no church can trruly claim to be infallible.

Faulty reasoning? The Church has always taught that the Bible is infallible. The Scriptures are without any formal error. But, as we Catholics have seen, to move from this to the claim of the reformers is to transfer the inerrancy from the Word of God to the individual reader of it, investing with him an infallibility surpassing by far that of the Pope, who is infallible only under certain and prescribed conditions.

“The earnest Protestant who goes directly to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his readings conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit to himself, and the individual inquirer can . . . be sure of extracting from the Scripture text the intended menaing of its divine author” - Martin Luther

The flaw in the reasoning leads to the multiplicity of opinions and creeds in Protestantism, all of them “based on the Bible.”

 

[Tomster]

i think this is a good definition:
The word “church” comes from the Greek “ekklesia” which means “gathering” or “assembly.” Therefore, the church is the gathering of the believers who come together to participate in fellowship with one another as they worship God and hear from His Word, the Bible. The church as a whole has been equipped by with people possessing different spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:5-8). The purpose of the gifts is “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:12-13).

The real Protestant definition of “church” is “all believers in every church.” It is nothing less than an assault on the mother tongue. The word “church” is singular. By means of the Protestant definition, “the church” is thousands of churches, each a place where “the Word” will be interpreted for you in keeping with Protestant oral tradition. The Protestant’s own references to 'our church," with the qualifier “our” signifying the one he attends at the moment as distinguished from other Protestant sects, betrays the uselessness of this definition in the real world. But for all that, the Church is not important to salvation. You can confidently believe that you are saved sitting under a tree.

All the Reformers’ new definitions, first of each sacrament respectively, and then “church,” proclaimed far and wide, led exorably to this: “No church” can save you. Catholics insist that the Church, with seven sacraments intact and apostolic doctrine unaltered, can save us, with our cooperation. This is what the Church is for; its whole business, as someone has remarked, is to deliver the maximum number of sinners from purgatory. A Catholic “hear the Church” (Matthew 18:17), he listens to the Church, because “He that hears [listens to] you, hears [is listening to] me; and he that dispises me, dispises him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

 

[lampstand]

There is the popular saying, “What would Jesus do?” With respect, I believe we are trying to do what Jesus did, or told us to do. We worship the ‘complete’ Christ, in context if you will, in the fullness of His Glory, not a paper cut-out figure that the Protestants make when they take out all the uncomfortable bits they don’t quite like. Who was Jesus, what did He do, and how did He live? He did not live absent from society his whole life. He did fast and pray, and make a retreat in the desert, but it was when he had to for holy purposes-- he did not do it as an abandonment. He was not alone all his life; He lived in a family. We respect his family, the saints. We do not worship the saints, but we do not take the Buddhist view that the soul is snuffed into nothingness at the end of its path. Just as you greet the host first at a party, then everyone else in turn, we do not forget about Jesus’ Mother and the honor she showed to Him (or the love he returned to her). Jesus’ Mother was there when He was born, and she was there when He died. She loved and cared for him and never gave up, even in the worst times. Jesus near His death commended St. John to her. (“Behold your mother.”) Thus Mary (and St. Joseph) are great helps to us when we think of how we should be towards Christ.

 

[climer97007]

It is not true your church has always seen Revelations 12 as Mary. Here is what a catholic scholar says about this passage:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.

I see, so, now you have elected Raymond Brown, niether a Priest, Bishop or Pope to be your Pope.

I see how you think. Very cunning, but, not very intellectually honest with yourself. If you can find one Catholic scholar who agrees with you, then you must be correct in your error, right? Is that it?

None the less, the fact that for centuries Brown himself admits that this position has been held by Bishops and Popes means nothing to you, as long as you find a sliver of hope that your false conclusion may yet be okay, in spite of the otherwise obvious Biblical evidence, right?

I mean, Heaven forbid that the Apostle John actually knew of a dual meaning, that this passage if fact speaks to that duality as evidenced by the Churches witness to both meanings over the centuries, teaching both facets of the whole truth over time?

If you have no more internal honesty then this, you will certainly find yourself being blown like a reed in the wind. Good luck with your self serving approach to the faith. The devil is no doubt smiling with it as we speak.

Gene

 

[justasking4]

I see, so, now you have elected Raymond Brown, niether a Priest, Bishop or Pope to be your Pope.

I see how you think. Very cunning, but, not very intellectually honest with yourself. If you can find one Catholic scholar who agrees with you, then you must be correct in your error, right? Is that it?

None the less, the fact that for centuries Brown himself admits that this position has been held by Bishops and Popes means nothing to you, as long as you find a sliver of hope that your false conclusion may yet be okay, in spite of the otherwise obvious Biblical evidence, right?

I mean, Heaven forbid that the Apostle John actually knew of a dual meaning, that this passage if fact speaks to that duality as evidenced by the Churches witness to both meanings over the centuries, teaching both facets of the whole truth over time?

If you have no more internal honesty then this, you will certainly find yourself being blown like a reed in the wind. Good luck with your self serving approach to the faith. The devil is no doubt smiling with it as we speak.

Gene

What i was addressing is that the church has not always thought that the woman of Revelations 12 was Mary. There are other ways to look at this that actually make a better fit than Mary.

 

[justasking4]

The real Protestant definition of “church” is “all believers in every church.” It is nothing less than an assault on the mother tongue. The word “church” is singular. By means of the Protestant definition, “the church” is thousands of churches, each a place where “the Word” will be interpreted for you in keeping with Protestant oral tradition. The Protestant’s own references to 'our church," with the qualifier “our” signifying the one he attends at the moment as distinguished from other Protestant sects, betrays the uselessness of this definition in the real world. But for all that, the Church is not important to salvation. You can confidently believe that you are saved sitting under a tree.

All the Reformers’ new definitions, first of each sacrament respectively, and then “church,” proclaimed far and wide, led exorably to this: “No church” can save you. Catholics insist that the Church, with seven sacraments intact and apostolic doctrine unaltered, can save us, with our cooperation. This is what the Church is for; its whole business, as someone has remarked, is to deliver the maximum number of sinners from purgatory. A Catholic “hear the Church” (Matthew 18:17), he listens to the Church, because “He that hears [listens to] you, hears [is listening to] me; and he that dispises me, dispises him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

How do the 7 sacraments save you?
In Colossians 2:13-14 it speaks to the effect that all our sins have been forgiven and taken out of the way. Why would purgatory be necessary given this fact?

 

[CentralFLJames]

How do the 7 sacraments save you?
In Colossians 2:13-14 it speaks to the effect that all our sins have been forgiven and taken out of the way. Why would purgatory be necessary given this fact?

How many times are you going to keep asking about the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory JA4? Are you going to keep asking until you get a new answer that is closer to what you want to hear?

You sound like a broken record. Search your own questions here at CAF on purgatory and see the dozens of answers you have been given.

If you are too lazy to search your own posts then go here (it’s not hell): CAF Discussion on Doctrine of Purgatory

James

 

[climer97007]

What i was addressing is that the church has not always thought that the woman of Revelations 12 was Mary. There are other ways to look at this that actually make a better fit than Mary.

There is obviously more than one layer to the truth being proclaimed by the Apostle John, in Chapter 12 of Revelation.

What I heard you addressing is that according to YOU, there is absolutley NO biblical evidence to support the Church’s teaching on Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Raymond Brown does not say that there is no Bibilcal Evidence. That is YOUR false conclusion.

Even according to Raymod Brown, there IS Biblical evidence for this position. However, Brown also sees in these verses another interpretation which refers to the Church.

Yet, Brown would also understand that Mary is the First Model of the Church. Her “Fiat”, her “Yes” to God is our Yes to God. Her overshadowing of the Holy Spirit is also our overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. The Christ being conceived in her womb is also Christ being conceived in us through the Holy Eucharist. To say Mary is in some way also to say Church.

When Raymond Brown says what he says, he understands ALL of this truth, not just the part that seems on the surface of his words to support your false claim.

I can still hear the truth echoed down from John until now that Mary was assumed into Heaven. You are comfortable ignoring this truth, the fact of which Ray Brown does not even disagree with.

Gene

 

[justasking4]

Well, ja4, in spite of my love for this commentary, they do not speak for Jesus. Only He is the Source of Revelation for the Teachings. Yes, the woman clothef with the sun can also be seen as the people of God, as Israel (for salvation is from the Jews) and the Church. However, the Magesterium (teaching authority appointed by Christ) has identified that we can also see in this passage the figure of the mother of Jesus.

I know that it is not possible right now, due to your wounds, to trust the Teaching of the Magesterium. It is my prayer that trust will come to you, and that you will no longer have to put confidence in your flesh (trust in ‘proof’ and 'scholarship). The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.

Thank you so much for praying for me.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3537843]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Think about the inquisitions for a moment. They went on for centuries with the full approval of the popes i.e. vicars of Christ who you would think were guided by the HS. How could these vicars of Christ be responsible for such wicked evil?

guanophore
First of all, when you study the Inquisitions, you can plainly see that they were not all evil. But, before you do that, perhaps you would be willing to show where the inqusitions were part of the Doctrine of the Faith? Perhaps you can bring forth Church documents that show inquisitions are part of the Teachings?

You bring up some good points that i never thought of.

 

[justasking4]

How many times are you going to keep asking about the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory JA4? Are you going to keep asking until you get a new answer that is closer to what you want to hear?

You sound like a broken record. Search your own questions here at CAF on purgatory and see the dozens of answers you have been given.

If you are too lazy to search your own posts then go here (it’s not hell): CAF Discussion on Doctrine of Purgatory

James

Your right. i have been sounding like a broken record. I’l try to stop doing that…