Protestants and Mary

[RickHolland]

**So you have no **valid answer.
**I thought **not.

You were given the answer by Dorkimus; therefore it is you that avoids the blatent truth of Gods word and cannot refute truth; which is why it is called truth.

 

[guanophore]

We don’t which site you are referring to since you did not specify, but volumes of books written to explain misrepresentation. Would you like to see 2 or 3 sites that contain soo many volumes of writings to rationalize their own errors of Scripture that even the rationalizers cannot understand what is written nor have enough lifetimes to read, much less study and understand what was written?

Perhaps you were just adding some humor?

Also, 80% of what you called garbage, if you referenced the previous post, was from the very words of your beloved Popes; perhaps you should be careful what you call garbage?

Popes opinions do not constitute the infallible Teaching of Jesus either. Did you think we believed that everything written by a Pope is infallible?

 

[RickHolland]

You have been misinformed, Rick. The James who was bishop of Jerusalem (the Lord’s brother) was one of the 12. The reason He appeared to James was because James was one of the Apostles.

No; it is you who is misinformed. James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus are the two of the 12 Apostles; James, the Lords brother, was later referred to as an apostle in the sense that Mark and Barnabas were. Gal 1 & I cor. 15

And the son of Mary and Alphaeus, the near kindred of Jesus. The mother of James is referred to as the “sister” of Mary the mother of our Lord. The mother of this James may have been a sister of Joseph, or Alphaeus could have been a sibling of Joseph, or of Mary , the mother of the Lord.

Do you buy into the immacualte conception, co-mediatrix, and perpetual virginity; I get the feeling you don’t believe a bit of it, am I correct?

 

[guanophore]

no, (IMHO) you rely on your human reasoning that the only way God could work is through a infallible teaching magesterium…and from there you claim that infallible magesterium for you and yours.

I never said that the “only way God could work is through an infallible teaching magesterium”. This is an example of a strawman. you make something up, then argue against it, as if it is a perspective held by someone else.

You made it up, so you could argue about it!

The teaching authority put in place by Christ was placed there for the whole world. It applies as much to you as it does to me and mine. Your refusal to accept and recieve what Jesus provided does not detract from His gift, except to the extent that you rob yourself of it’s benefit.

It seems that your high school debating team taught you that if you are faced with a lack of evidence to support your argument, then simply repeat your claim that your side is right.

I have become aware that you are unwilling to look at the evidence.

yep,....and Mary just got left out in the beginning ...over and over again.....Do you believe that if you repeat your claim that Catholic teaching is infallible then the absence of Marian doctrine in the earliest historical records is no problem?

Since I am not dependent upon the error of Sola Scriptura, this is not a problem for me. The list of books that belongs in the NT was not in the earliest historical records, either, but I still accept that the canon is infallible.

We understand the Scriptures differently, because we read them in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. We see the role of Mary already in the Protoevagelium in Gen. 3:15. It doesn’t get earlier than that!

Is this how you account for the fact that Mary just isn’t given much consideration by the earliest writers?

I don’t see that “fact” because I see what was written about her. I am not wearing those anti-catholic blinders anymore. It is amazing how different things can look!

9 times
Hmmm…repetition does seem to be your strategy. I think I’ve got your point…It is that the CC can only teach what Christ taught and since the CC teaches these things about Mary, then they must be from Jesus.

Great! For a minute there I thought all that repetition had gone to waste.

it just doesn’t matter that those teachings can’t be found expressly stated in the NT the earliest church fathers.

No, not really. There are a number of doctrines that are not “expressely stated”. The NT was never intended to be the sole deposit of doctrines.

I realize that this is a matter of faith for you, but those of us who do not share that faith would actually like to see some sort of argument based on the historical evidence that would account for the fact that Mary gets so little mention at the start.

Why? You have said that the doctrine is irrelevant to your salvation, so why concern yourself with it? I frankly don’t understand the hangup. Can’t you just move on?

(I believe such repetition only works when one is preaching to the choir.)

It is true that I write replies mindful that there are many more people reading than there are posting.

So far, I think that what the venerators have supplied in this thread amounts to: 1) there weren’t any heresies involving Mary at the start and therefore she got the silent treatment;

No and no. The record is not silent, you just don’t want to accept what is written

The Marian doctrines were developed as a result of heresies about Christ. What we know about Mary are corollaries of what we know about Christ.

1. the doctrines involving Mary can be found in the scriptures if one knows how to decifer the (less than plain) meaning;

No, this was never stated by anyone here.

and 3) the world wasn’t ready for it at the start.

Obviously, some of you still are not!

 

[guanophore]

#1 is a gross assumption that doesn’t account for why other doctrines were discussed w/o a heresy in play. #2 is a matter of faith in the CC and #3 is just wild speculation.

What makes you think other doctrines adn other heresies were not discussed?

As for faith in the CC, one would have to also dispense with the Orthodox and Oriental communions, who are not in communion with Rome, but still received the same faith from the Apostles. How do you account for the fact that they, separated from Rome, have the same doctrines?

I agree that the possibility that the world was not ready to know about God’s plan for Mary is a speculation. I don’t think it is wild, though. There were so many mother / son religions in Gk. and Roman religions. It would have been very easy to misconstrue the facts.
Radical;5779937:

We Christians are supposed to be guided by the HS and therefore should be a considerable cut above the rest of humanity with regard to the matter of righteousness. The history of Christianity, however, is extremely embarassing when we compare the righteousness of Christ's followers with the righteousness of Christ himself.

No arguement there! I am glad there is something to which we may have perfect agreement.

It seems that Catholics think that the hierarchy of the CC can sin in every way and in every degree except for that one matter of endorsing doctrinal error.

No, all of those members of the clergy that were vile sinners most likely embraced doctrinal errors as well. A person endorsing a doctrinal error does not change the Truth. The Truth remains, no matter how many refuse to accept it.

What’s more, is that we are to believe that the hierarchy of the CC (that body that has sinned throughout its history)

This is the error in reasoning. You see, the Body as a whole does not sin. It cannot, for it has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her soul. These divne elements are what make the Church infallible.

Yes, men have sinned throughout Christian history. In doing so, they cut themselves off from His One Body, the Church. Sin separates us from God. When we live in it, we are no longer in communion with Him, or His One Body, the Church.

can’t officially teach error, b/c the hierarchy of the CC says that is what Jesus promised and we know the CC is right in its interpretation of that promise from Jesus b/c the CC can’t teach error.

When Jesus promised to lead them into all Truth, He meant that He would not let the gates of hell prevail against them. When one embraces and begins teaching error, they pass through the gates of hell.

This is not true because the CC says it is true, it is true because God said it was true.

It would seem that repetition is not the only thing required…I suspect that this sort of circular reasoning is also required.

I can understand why you would see it that way.

 

[RickHolland]

No. the Catholic Church closed the canon in 382. No further books are considered part of the canon.

I think your fault is that you have embraced the erroneous idea that all of the Apostolic faith has been committed to scripture. You seem to believe that everything should be found in it, or else it is not pertinent to your salvation.

How did I inherit such a burden? On the contrary, the burden is upon you to show where in scripture it says that everything pertaining to the Christian life will be found there.

No, it is impossible to prove a negative. The Apostles made no effort to commit everything to scripture. There was no need for that, as the infalible HS could preserve all that Jesus taught in the Church. Unlike you, Catholics trust His very great and precious promises to lead the Church into all Truth. We do not believe He left them orphaned, and we believe He has kept His word to remind them of all that He taught.
’
The NT is not the Source of Apostolic Teaching. It reflects that teaching, but the Source is Jesus Himself.

Show me in Scripture where Christ promised the bishops, Pope and magisterium would lead them to all truth.

Straw man argument again; impossible to prove a negative, we asked you to prove that there is revelation outside of Scripture ; I guess in the form of tradition, and what is it and its orogin? No negative, what you really are saying I don’t know, but the Church said so; therefore I accept the Chrurch by faith rather than accepting God’s word by faith. Prove otherwise.

 

[CWBetts]

John 16:13. Who was Jesus addressing? The Apostles. The first Bishops.

 

[RickHolland]

I choose to believe the Creation Account in Genesis, but I choose not to read it as a literal seven creation. Given that “day” can also refer to an unspecified period of time, and that “evening” and “morning” can also be used stylistically to refer to simply “beginning” and “ending” accepting some form of evolution is not necessarily incongruous with Christian faith. The point is that I can choose to accept a literal seven day interpretation, or an interpretation based on a figurative use of the word day in terms of creation. We just don’t know, and can’t know, from the context.

You can’t to believe what God has said, which is six literal days and then turn around and deny what is plainly written by embracing evolution. Perhaps you need to go back and research how the word “day” is used in the OT; should shed so light and bury your confusion.

I did a little research and I beg you to read what Ken Ham has to say in regards to this:
answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp

 

[RickHolland]

The only thing that is contradictory here Rick, are your modern innovations to explain scriptures. There is nothing consistent in your view with history. In fact, history contradicts your perspective. For some reason, it seems importatn to you to deny history, because you find it expedient to deny Catholicism.

Even if you disdain modern day Catholics, how are you going to explain away the response of Jerome to Helvidius?

Again you are being weak on answers and substance. God said Mary had brothers. God said Mary was bethrothed "before they came together. God says His brothers did not belive in Him. God says Jesus had both brothers and sisters. God said Mary needed a Savior. What part of Gods word do you actually believe?

 

[RickHolland]

On the contrary, Rick, you will find no one here at CAF who is more willing to enter into a discussion of Marian doctrines, nor one who is better prepared, not only scripturally, but historically.

Such an ad hominum attack is very ill placed in this instance, and shows that you are already off balance. I am always relieved when Good Fella enters a Marian thread.

Oh, this is going to be good! I can’t wait to hear!

Oh, dear. It is worse than I thought!

Good Fella, this one might be a waste of your time. He does not believe even the basics. Something as advanced as the Theotokos is beyond grasp, I fear.

This is an example of Apostolic Succession. What has that got to do with Mary?

It is true that the truths about Mary have been preserved in the Apostolic succession. Is that why you reject, them? You reject the succession?

No I just provide the clear and concise Word of God hoping it will do as God purposes, which He promised and said it does. Only those He has chosen are able to understand, which gets back to the invented doctrines of another Mary. Are you able to understand the truth of what God said or do you feel compelled to add to that which does not exist?

 

[RickHolland]

Yes.

One of them is that the Holy Scriptures of the NT were never intended to contain the compendium of the faith.

Another is that Mary never had other Children.

There it is; you have no anser. The NT Holy Scriptures were not intended to contain the collection of faith? Based on what and how is this a tradition???

Mary never had other children? So God said she did, but then etra tradition from wherever came around and reversed the effect of the children that Mary clearly had? Is this a new theology or just a lousy attempt at twisting the truth?

How about getting serious and actaully provide this extra Biblical tradition you and others claim exists. What part of Scripture you base this off of is beyond understanding; it there a Scripture passage or two to give a smidge of reference to your claim?

 

[guanophore]

You are just not getting it. The doctrines of Mary lack a solid connection to the start b/c they are absent from the earliest historical record. In contrast, the items in the creeds (earliest descriptions of the rule of faith) can be connected to the start in a much greater degree.

Oh, I get it. I will also venture that there are a great many other Apostolic doctrines that are also found in a much greater degree in the early record that you also reject. One of those may be that the Scripture was not intended to be the sole source of doctrine of the faith.

I can easily recognize that this is a matter of faith for you…but again, it is founded on a circle that looks like: The councils of the church could not err, b/c the HS protected them from error.

That confuses me. It seems to me to be vertical, not circular.

Have you ever considered that what Catholics say about this might be true? What if the HS really did work through councils, like the one in Jerusalem documented in the book of Acts, in an infallble manner?

We know that the HS acted in that fashion b/c God promised he would.

I am guessing that you disagree with the fashion and not that God could or would work as He promised?

We know God promised he would, b/c that is how the church says a certain promise must be understood.

Did it occur to you that this is how the Apsotles understood His promise?

The church must be right on its interpretation of that promise b/c the church could not err.

Definitely I can see the circularity here. It sounds like the HS is not really present at any level in your perception. Are you one of those that believes in the Great Apostasy?

does the hsitorical record disclose that the ECFs used certain criteria in considering which books to include or does that record show that they simply asked a magesterium to draw straws?

Straws were drawn according to the OT custom, prior to Pentecost. After Pentecost, they met in council, prayed, discusssed, and came to a consensus that “seemed right to the HS and to us”.

I am not sure what your objection is to the drawing method. Do you believe that the HS could not work this way? Do you think it was not biblical?

If the former, then why can't we review both the criteria used and the decision made?

…and what criteria was that? References please.

Yes, it is possible to review criterial. No, you cannot do so, because you have already made up your mind it does not exist. It is very difficult to examine evidence when you have made up your mind it is not there!

prominently? After the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel Luke doesn’t exactly focus on Mary (she doesn’t get named). In the gospel of John, the BVM gets scant attention and in Revelation one needs that papal decoder ring to see that she gets any attention.

Well, we read it differently, dont’ we?

anti-catholic? Why b/c I am not convinced by repetition and circles.

No, because you are unwilling to explore anything that comes from a Catholic point of view.

I know it works for you and if you simply admitted that it is a matter of faith it would be cool. The thing is, however, when one looks at the CC one sees an institution plugged full of both sinners and saints.

What did you expect to see?

I understand that your blinders have left you with a deficient perception of “church”. I accept that you are unable to “see” what people see who have been able to receive the Apostolic Teaching.

History doesn’t show that the CC managed to keep those sinners w/o influence in all other areas, yet you want to insist that the sinners never influenced official teaching so that it become tainted with error.

Wolves have come in, certainly. Many efforts have been made to contaminate the One True Faith. In this thread, we have seen constant badgering in an attempt to get catholics to relinquish the treasure that has been handed down to us because modern readers don’t see the “evidence”. However, God is able to preserve that which He has planted to the last day. The Church is His, the doctrine is His. He promised that He would not leave us or forsake us, and I choose to believe His promise.

When faced with the introduction of new ideas into the written historical records after decades (in most cases centuries regarding Marian doctrines) of silence, a little more than repetition and circles is required.

I am sorry that you are not able to accept this Teaching as readily as you can accept the canon of scripture, which came even later. I think only God can help you with His mother. Have you ever asked Him to show you? Have you ever asked Him what kind of relationship He wants you to have with His mother?

There are about 250 million +/- devout Catholics in the world and a lot of them are very bright and righteous individuals. I am here b/c I would like to know more about how they could believe as they do…and to correct (but a few of) the misunderstandings that some other members of the CC hold wrt Protestant views.
ooops missed (at least) one…10 times and counting.

I am glad that you are willing to share your experience with us. I wish I could believe that you want to know more. It seems like your mind is pretty closed.

I will try to refrain from repeating myself any more, as apparently I have nothing more to say that is of any benefit to you.

May God light your path.

 

[RickHolland]

Glad you “got” this.

It is true that one purpose of doctrinal development is to make it more applicable to the present time. however, I don’t think it is accurate to say that the meaning can be “totally changed”. the Church does not have the authority to depart from the Apostolic meanings.

I am not sure you do, but maybe it is just your cynicism talking.

Are you from the Southern Baptist tradition? I know they believe the gifts of Pentecost no longer operate today.

That was my sarcasm 100%, pretending to be Catholic for a moment to see how it feels; I have seen the definitions and rationalizations for the ever changing defintions and the evolving of the Catholic Church. Mariology is the most blarring; eventually she will be officially an additional member of the Trinity making it a Quadity. they are already there, but not in the official sense. SBC - yes.

I believe you are a former Protestant, must have been a seriously weak church for you to turn to Catholicism unless I have you confused with someone else, which if i do I apologize.

 

[RickHolland]

No, Rick. You have made an incorrect conclusion about teh Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.

The book is not “official Roman Catholic Doctrine”.

The Catholic Church is not Roman, and neither are the Marian doctrines.

The catechism would be a more reliable source for you to use. No private individual is permitted to speak for the Church in the matter of official doctrine.

I would say I am in perfect agreement of this statement. Your assertion that this Marian devotee is speaking the doctrine of the Church is a “wiggle” that is unacceptable in such a grave matter as this.

This is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you have a problem with humans participating in the plan of salvation? If so, one would have to wonder what place, if any, evangelism would have in your life.

Catholics believe that all grace is found in Jesus, and when she brought Him into the world, she brought “all grace”.

You are taking one man’s private devotions opinions, and speculations and trying to purport that they are the doctrine of the Church. I hope you have done this in ignorance, because if you are doing this knowingly, then it is an example of bearing false witness against your brethren. Unless of course, you are one of those that don’t consider Catholics one of your brethren?

I wouldn’t say "none’ but it is pretty thin comparitively.

Catholics of the Latin Rite do refer to this type of Marian devotion as “cult”. In the old sense of the word, it is it’s own culture.

It seems that you have a sarcastic tone, Rick. In fact, so many Catholics do not. It is rare to find any that carry their personal infatuation of Mary to this degree.

Why are you here at CAF, Rick? Is it your desire to mock the catholic faith?

Religious Superior’s stamp:
IMPRIMI POTEST
“it can be printed”

Censor’s stamp:
NIHIL OBSTAT
“nothing stands in the way”

Bishop’s stamp:
IMPRIMATUR
“let it be printed”

No Guan, Not to mock the Catholic faith; but rather to present the truth of Gods word in light of Catholic doctrine on Mary. They are so polar opposite; it become quite amazing how you all are able to hold steadfast and resist God’s truth over and above the Word. Scripture does speak on this to; so no one is really surprised, but amazed at the power of the truth.

I will leave you alone I see you are getting weary; pehaps we can have better dialogue on a different topic…what do you think?

 

[guanophore]

Again you are being weak on answers and substance.

Are you the standard of what is strong and substantive?

God said Mary had brothers.

This may come as a shock to you, Rick, but you are not God.

Anyway, I think you are mispeaking yourself here. All we know from scripture is that the Mother of the Lord had a close kin, also named Mary, that is considered her “sister”.

It seems unlikely that a family would name more than one child by the same name, so she is not necessarily from her mothers womb, or her father’s seed. We do know that she is the wife of Clopas (Alpheus) and that she had LOTS of kids, James and Joses (Joseph) being two of them, along with some sisters. They were such close kin to our Lord and grew up with Him in Nazareth that they are referred to as his “brothers and sisters”.

God said Mary was bethrothed "before they came together. God says His brothers did not belive in Him. God says Jesus had both brothers and sisters. God said Mary needed a Savior. What part of Gods word do you actually believe?

I believe all of it. I just don’t agree with your interpretations. I read the scriptures according to what the Apostles believed and taught. Since you have not received this teaching, you understand them differently.

 

[guanophore]

Any site that is not Catholic is defined as “antiCatholic” and any person that is not Catholic is “antiCatholic” or Protestant?

No. there are a great many non-Catholic sites that are not anti-Catholic. the site where you copied that stuff is not one of them.

You paint in very broad strokes; proably a sin.

what sin is that?

How about addressing the post rather than arguing the source.

Actually, addressing the source is the most important part of responding to the post. Any attempt to have a meaningful discussion will be lost if it is infused with error from the beginning.

You pasted all that material, prefacing it with an erroneous premise. There is no good result that can come when we start from an erroneous premise like that.

 

[RickHolland]

The correct translation is “pillar and foundation” of the truth, meaning the Church is protected by the holy Spirit from fallibly teaching error. In other words, the Church teaches infallibly, and she has for 2000 years, long before the canon of Scripture was established infallibly at the Council of Rome.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no man can lay a*** foundation ***other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
**Foundation; themelios

1. laid down as a foundation, the foundation (of a building, wall, city)
2. metaphor. the foundations, beginnings, first principals
   1. of institution or system of truth **

1 Timothy 3:15 "…you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
***Support; hedraiōma

1. a stay, prop, support ***

1 Timothy 4:14 reveals that apostolic teaching authority is physically transferred by the “laying on of hands” by an authentic minister of Christ. This ritual has never ceased since apostolic time. By the way, the power of healing is a charisma of the Holy Spirit. I knew a priest in Canada who possessed this gift which is rare. Chrisms aren’t transferable as is the divine office of preaching and administering the sacraments. St. Paul refers to his ministry as a “divine office” (Col 1:25). An office - like that of the US presidency - has successors and doesn’t expire at someone’s death or departure from office.

That Ole Canadian priest is an old story floating around for years, but you are the first to actually know him; perhaps he has a cure for spiritual blindness; if doesn’t I do.

So the laying of hands by some unnamed group of elders on Timothy is proof of apostolic succession. Yeah sound like definitive proof beyond any doubt or a figment of someone imagination gone wild.
Time for me to think about moving on; no one has a sensible nor reasonable mind toward God’s word in relation to Mary. This is truly a violation of the You shall have no other gods before me. & You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ***you shall not bow down to them ***nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,

 

[guanophore]

 Show me in Scripture where Christ promised the bishops, Pope and magisterium would lead them to all truth.

This is an excellent topic! It does not belong here, though. It belongs over in Apologetics. It would not surprise me if there were not already a thread running. We get that a lot around here.

we asked you to prove that there is revelation outside of Scripture

First of all, articles of faith are not subject to proof. that is why they are not called “articles of proof”. I don’t believe I can prove to you any revelation from God. Can you “prove” that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush?

Maybe you are on the wrong forum? Maybe you are needing a science form? Or math, perhaps. If memory serves, there were a lot of “proofs” in geometry.

It would make more sense if you could show me, using scripture, that all revelation of God is confined to it.

It is not likely that I will succeed in even having a meaningful discussion with you about something that you have made up your mind does not exist.

You see, I believe the canon of scripture itself is infallible. It occurs to me that you do not. To me, the fact that we have the Bible is evidence that revelation exists outside of Scripture.

I guess in the form of tradition, and what is it and its orogin?

Yes. Revelation from God exists outside of scripture in the form of Sacred Tradition. One of those Revelations is that Mary did not have any children but Jesus. Another is that she is “all holy” and was taken into heaven by her Own Divine Son, who purified her so that she could bring Him into the world without sin.

All of the teachings of the Catholic Church come from Jesus. He is the Origin of our faith.

No negative, what you really are saying I don’t know, but the Church said so; therefore I accept the Chrurch by faith rather than accepting God’s word by faith. Prove otherwise.

I can understand why it would seem that way to you, Rick. But for me, it is not “rather than”. Jesus gave His Church promises, and authority. He told them “he who hears you, hears me”. I don’t have to choose between them, because there is no dichotomy. Every word of the NT was produced by, for, and about Cathlics. Everything in it is Catholic. There are no Catholic Teachings that contradict the NT, because the entire NT was produced out of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

I understand and accept that you do not share this point of view.

 

[RickHolland]

This is an excellent topic! It does not belong here, though. It belongs over in Apologetics. It would not surprise me if there were not already a thread running. We get that a lot around here.

First of all, articles of faith are not subject to proof. that is why they are not called “articles of proof”. I don’t believe I can prove to you any revelation from God. Can you “prove” that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush?

Maybe you are on the wrong forum? Maybe you are needing a science form? Or math, perhaps. If memory serves, there were a lot of “proofs” in geometry.

It would make more sense if you could show me, using scripture, that all revelation of God is confined to it.

It is not likely that I will succeed in even having a meaningful discussion with you about something that you have made up your mind does not exist.

You see, I believe the canon of scripture itself is infallible. It occurs to me that you do not. To me, the fact that we have the Bible is evidence that revelation exists outside of Scripture.

Yes. Revelation from God exists outside of scripture in the form of Sacred Tradition. One of those Revelations is that Mary did not have any children but Jesus. Another is that she is “all holy” and was taken into heaven by her Own Divine Son, who purified her so that she could bring Him into the world without sin.

All of the teachings of the Catholic Church come from Jesus. He is the Origin of our faith.

I can understand why it would seem that way to you, Rick. But for me, it is not “rather than”. Jesus gave His Church promises, and authority. He told them “he who hears you, hears me”. I don’t have to choose between them, because there is no dichotomy. Every word of the NT was produced by, for, and about Cathlics. Everything in it is Catholic. There are no Catholic Teachings that contradict the NT, because the entire NT was produced out of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

I understand and accept that you do not share this point of view.

Thanks for the ??? anyway thanks for being here and God bless and maybe we will run into each other some other time; I’m gone. i have nothing I can say that God has not and all Catholics reject God revelation of Mary in the Biblical context.

God bless to all,

rick

 

[guanophore]

No I just provide the clear and concise Word of God hoping it will do as God purposes, which He promised and said it does.

Now, how come that is ok for you to do (believe what God promised) but when Catholics do it, we are misunderstanding?

Is that why you are here at CAF? Do you wish to turn all us Catholics into bible christians?

Only those He has chosen are able to understand,

Well, that settles it then! Catholics don’t understand scripture the way you do because we are just not among the “chosen”!

Are you one of those 144,000 the JW’s told me about?

which gets back to the invented doctrines of another Mary.  Are you able to understand the truth of what God said or do you feel compelled to add to that which does not exist?

This is a strange question, Rick. Of course we believe these things exist, otherwise there would be nothing to “add”. However, I accept that you believe they don’t. One has to wonder why you are on this thread. Are you compelled to argue about things you don’;t beleive exists?

By the way, I am very curious to know what you make of the Orthodox ideas about James, the brother of the Lord.

ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=103039