Non-Catholic Christians: What bias did you have about the Catholic Church, and...

[Mannyfit75]

Could you, then, please tell me where in Scripture I can find the Immaculate Conception of Mary or her assumption into Heaven?

Charlye

Immaculate Conception;

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

 

[Mannyfit75]

charlye,

You may not agree with the doctrine of Mary but read these articles with an open mind.

Assumption of Mary.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0506-96/Article6.html

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_mary.html#assumption -Fictional Dialogue between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic Christian. It discusses Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Ever Virgin… It fully explains why we believe what we believe.

 

[Mannyfit75]

One of the main reasons I have for never joining the Catholic Church is that I would be forever banished from the Huguenot Society of America if I did so.
The Catholics forced my ancestors to eat rats at La Rochelle That sorta grates on me still.
WP

Sounds like its pure animousity against Church by using your ancestor excuse.

 

[RNRobert]

Could you, then, please tell me where in Scripture I can find the Immaculate Conception of Mary or her assumption into Heaven?

Charlye

I was going to post an answer, but Manny already responded, and in much more detail (thanks, Manny ). You may not agree, but how do you know your interpretation of these verses is correct?
I could also ask you where you find the Trinity in the Bible. Some sects such as the JWs and Oneness Pentacostals deny the Trinity, which many Christians believe. Who is to say their interpretations of Scripture are less accurate?
I recall seeing a thread about the 6th chapter of John a couple years ago, A non-Catholic was attempting to show why Jesus was speaking symbolically. A couple Catholics used Scripture to prove the Catholic position. The non-Catholic replied by saying that their interpretation of Scripture was incorrect, and quoted another stack of Bible verses to “prove” he was right. This went round and round for a couple pages until a moderator locked the thread.
This is another reason why I became Catholic. The Bible needs an authority to intepret it accurately. Otherwise, any fool can come up with a novel doctrine or attack beliefs held by other Christians simply by saying that his or her interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong.

 

[THutch04]

1. The Pope- Agreed with the position, not with the infallibility
2. Mary- No problem, I never understood why some people seemed to get really offended whenever her name was even mentioned.
3. Eucharist- I always believed I was receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. So obviously I had no problems with this one.
4. Mass- I never really went to one until my freshman year in college, but I always heard it was almost identical to what I was used to (which ended up not being true), so I didn’t have a problem with it. I knew what the purpose of the Mass was.
5. Purgatory- No problem with it; I thought everyone believed in it until my SDA teacher told us when we were reading Dante’s Divine Comedy that not all Christians believe in it.
6. Communion of Saints- No problem.
7. Difference between doctrines and disciplines- I didn’t really understand what the difference was until a couple of years ago, but to be honest, I never made an effort to understand until then. It didn’t bother me though.
8. Difference between Sacraments and Sacramentals- I only learned what the difference between them was because I didn’t know if I was allowed to receive Ashes on Ash Wednesday at a Catholic church. At the time I still wasn’t completely sure what things in a Catholic church were “off-limits” to people like me. It was all things I had done before though, so again, it wasn’t a huge problem.

Somebody mentioned religious art earlier I believe. I’ve actually always loved religious art. At every family funeral we’ve always handed out holy cards to guests, usually of a favorite Saint, so my family never even had a problem with it.

I never agreed with the five sola’s. I wasn’t taught that growing up, and once I did learn what they were, I didn’t believe they were correct.

 

[Singinbeauty]

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

No offense Manny but all I see in each and every one of these verses that you quoted is… assumption assumption assumption assumption… I have a very hard time with the role that Mary plays in the catholic faith. Because most of what is believed (as far as I can tell, I am alway willing to admit I am wrong if someone can show me and prove it) is the ASSUMPTION that she was immaculately conceived or that she was assumed bodily and without death into Heaven. I mean, if the writers took time to include that Enoch and Elijah (both of whom don’t hold as high of an importance as Mary in the story of salvation) were bodily assumed into Heaven why wouldn’t they make it a point to say that Mary was also???

 

[colliric]

No offense Manny but all I see in each and every one of these verses that you quoted is… assumption assumption assumption assumption… I have a very hard time with the role that Mary plays in the catholic faith. Because most of what is believed (as far as I can tell, I am alway willing to admit I am wrong if someone can show me and prove it) is the ASSUMPTION that she was immaculately conceived or that she was assumed bodily and without death into Heaven. I mean, if the writers took time to include that Enoch and Elijah (both of whom don’t hold as high of an importance as Mary in the story of salvation) were bodily assumed into Heaven why wouldn’t they make it a point to say that Mary was also???

Well considering John was probably the only apostle to know about it, having looked after Mary(“Woman this is your son, Son this is your mother”) the rest of her earthly life and likely having done it in Eusbius. It doesn’t matter that the bible only mentions it possibly once… that person who mentioned it was likely the one by her side and caring for her when she did pass on. He was the only apostle to have known about it when you understand the possibility and believed tradition that Mary left Jerusalem with the Apostle John. Your position assumes that the apostles planned the Bible in collaboration, they didn’t, God did. And in that book, Jesus tells John to look after his mother. John left Jerusalem(I don’t know why someone will probally fill that in for me) and did most of his writing in Eusbius. This was well within Mary’s potential lifetime. Then the Apostle John writes about a woman bathed in the sun and crowned with stars… This is Mary. If, like thought, she went with him to eusbius and died there, how could the other apostles even known about the assumption? He was therefore the only one to write about it. And this was at the behest of God who inspired him.

Also the catholic church teaches not that she didn’t die like the rest of us. She did and likely at the side of the apostle John, but god was able take her body and soul straight up to heaven. This is of cause what will happen to some of us at the end of time when Jesus returns. For her, God the father was fully able to do it straight away, after all she was “full of grace” and the mother of Jesus who was also God.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

Perhaps some of the Protestants here can ask their Protestant grandparents what they thought of Catholics 50 or 60 years ago.

Indeed , indeed…we had the same problem here in sunny south africa , i.e.
interdenominational distrust/intolerance , as well as racial hatred ???!
As a catholic i have to say that i have yet to meet a lay protestant who understood even the very basics of our faith. However i must say that the www and the info. age has changed all that and ignorance is declining rapidly…all praise to our lord jesus !

 

[charlye]

VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

The only thing you have managed to do is twist Scripture to fit the RCC sacred tradition. Adding to the word of God is blasphemy.

Charlye

 

[Mannyfit75]

The only thing you have managed to do is twist Scripture to fit the RCC sacred tradition. Adding to the word of God is blasphemy.

Charlye

We don’t twist it. The Catholic Church had always held those ancient belief for 2,000 yrs. The doctrines we have remain consist. Compared that with Protestantism with many doctrines and belief. It is not a unified belief.

The Magisterium of the Church has been consist. Protestantism have only been around since 1517 A.D. If it comes to twisting Scripture, it is the Protestantism.

 

[7Jesus7saves]

maybe u can clear this up for me.plz tell me if this is what the Church expects its members to do or believe. If it is true then it goes against God’s word.i found some examples.By the way I was baptized as a Catholic baby but now im a Christian.im not trying to attack your religion im sure u take it seriously i just want to know if your religion does teach this and if it is taught then why does it go against God’s holy word

#1.baptize infants…in the Bible, Jesus was an adult when he was baptized Matthew 3:1-15…and the only other people mentioned in the Bible were the ones who had repented,believed or confessed their sins.
#2.baptism saves.pg.320#1257,and baptism forgives all sins Pg. 321, #1263 (see pg. 257, #985)…this may be the reason the Church insists on doing #1 but in the Bible it says Ephesians 1:7 used in context “his” means Christ
#3.calling priest father… Matthew 23:9
#4.salvation through the Church, good works Pg. 222, #837
,and Mary.Pg. 252, #969 pg.125#494 praying to saints Pg. 645, #2683 (See also Pg. 249, #956)…Peter 1:18-19,Ephesians 2:8-9 ,Titus 3:5 Galatians 2:16,Matthew 7:21-23

The bible verses are from the King James Bible if u don’t have 1 try www.biblegateway.com (you may need to read in context)
The supposed church doctrine is cited from the 1994 Catholic Catcheism

 

[Mannyfit75]

maybe u can clear this up for me.plz tell me if this is what the Church expects its members to do or believe. If it is true then it goes against God’s word.i found some examples.By the way I was baptized as a Catholic baby but now im a Christian.im not trying to attack your religion im sure u take it seriously i just want to know if your religion does teach this and if it is taught then why does it go against God’s holy word

#1.baptize infants…in the Bible, Jesus was an adult when he was baptized Matthew 3:1-15…and the only other people mentioned in the Bible were the ones who had repented,believed or confessed their sins.

John 3:5 Mark 16:16- baptism required for heaven.

1 Cor 15:21-22- In Adam all die, in Christ all made alive.

Mark 10:4- Let the children come to me, to such belongs to the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him, that he may touch them,…

Col 2:11-12 baptism replace circumcisions.

Acts 16:31- Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and house will be saved.

Acts 16;15, she was baptized with all her household.

Infant baptism is an ancient Christian tradition.

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

#2.baptism saves.pg.320#1257,and baptism forgives all sins Pg. 321, #1263 (see pg. 257, #985)…this may be the reason the Church insists on doing #1 but in the Bible it says Ephesians 1:7 used in context “his” means Christ

Yes it does saved.

#3.calling priest father..... Matthew 23:9.

A: Matthew 23:9, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven.” Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.

But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them…they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.

If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of Scripture. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as “father” several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the “father” of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That’s referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and “fathers,” as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit…they must have all gotten it wrong.

It is okay to call priests “father”, just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham “father” and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders “father.” As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

 

[Mannyfit75]

#4.salvation through the Church, good works Pg. 222, #837
,and Mary.Pg. 252, #969 pg.125#494 praying to saints Pg. 645, #2683 (See also Pg. 249, #956)…Peter 1:18-19,Ephesians 2:8-9 ,Titus 3:5 Galatians 2:16,Matthew 7:21-23

Catholic Church teaches that God’s grace saves us. This is show through our faith which is shown by our deeds. Remember in the Final Judgement we are judged by our deeds.

It is not works alone or faith alone that saves us. It is the grace of God.

The bible verses are from the King James Bible if u don’t have 1 try www.biblegateway.com (you may need to read in context)
The supposed church doctrine is cited from the 1994 Catholic Catcheism

We have seen your objections of the Catholic faith. it’s not new and most of it is taken out of context by Non-Catholic Christians. They don’t know Catholic doctrine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you want Biblical proof text read this.

Mary

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

Confession

scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

Eucharist

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

The Church

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

The Pope

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Apostolic Succession

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Oral Tradition

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

Deutrocanonical

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Septuagint

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

The Priesthood

scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html

The cite covers most of the Catholic doctrines and none of it is contrary to Bible. The Bible itself is product of the Catholic Church.

 

[colliric]

Does anyone else think that Mary died in Eusbius? I’m not talking about catholics, but Protestants, do they understand this is the catholic position? that she left Jerusalem with the apostle john… That’s why he is the only one who mentions the assumption.

 

[lak611]

Does anyone else think that Mary died in Eusbius? I’m not talking about catholics, but Protestants, do they understand this is the catholic position? that she left Jerusalem with the apostle john… That’s why he is the only one who mentions the assumption.

Didn’t you mean Ephesus?

 

[colliric]

Didn’t you mean Ephesus?

yes, I always get it wrong…

 

[mozart-250]

Actually, I consider myself better informed on Catholicism than 80% or Catholics.

1. The Pope.

I don’t have a problem with a branch of Christiany having an authoritative, unifying leader. I disagree with the “incapable of being incorrect” part. Just because I have historically gotten 100% on a math test does not mean I am incapable of being incorrect in math.

1. Mary.

I agree with Mary the mother of God. I don’t have a problem with the assumption of Mary if you take it as an extra-Biblical account of the miraculous in the early church (much like the appearance of St. Ignatius to the faithful after his martydom). Why this should be “must believe” dogma is beyond me.

Without getting into arguing, it appears that the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity ones go against the simplest reading of Scripture,

See comments on communion of saints regarding the practice of submitting prayer requests to Mary.

1. Eucharist.

I don’t have a problem in principle as I do believe that communion is more than just symbolic.

My only issue is relating John 6 to communion.

1. Mass

No problem. That is how you guys do church.

1. Purgatory.

Sometimes I wonder what exactly is the difference between Catholic purgatory and non-Catholic judgement seat of Chris is. It seems to me they both start with the same Scripture in respect to the same theological question.

1. Communion of Saints.

Somehow the practice of asking prayer requests from people who are spiritually alive but physically dead seems creepy to me.

I’m not sure taking prayer requests is something those who are spiritually alive but physically dead do.

1. Difference between doctrines and disciplines.
2. Difference between Sacraments and Sacramentals.

Huh…