C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Correct. Mary is the Mother of Christ, and thus the Mother of God. She is also first in the Kingdom of Heaven / Body of Christ / Church / Heavenly Jerusalem / Bride of Christ. Thus the confusion.
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Would you please post the appropriate book, chapter, and verse to back up your contention?
Jesus asked Simon who He was and Simon answered “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:16, Douay-Rheims] and Jesus replied: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
[Matthew 16:17-19, Douay-Rheims, bolding added by this poster for emphasis]
Here is an explanation of the Scripture:
[18] Thou art Peter: As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
[18] Upon this rock: The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.
[18] The gates of hell: That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
[19] Loose upon earth: The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.
The following is the link for the interpretation:
drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm
So - when Jesus asked Simon who He was and Simon answered correctly and Jesus said all that stuff about building His church on Peter…Jesus was lying? Doesn’t that kinda go against His nature? It’s right there in the bible. I can post it from a Protestant bible if you wish. It’s there and it is the Word of God. Is it not?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Uh…no. We believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. We believe that with all our hearts and souls because that is a promise Jesus made and we know that Jesus is God.
We can’t believe that the devil is able to frustrate the will of God when Jesus (God) has promised that he can’t. It can’t be both ways.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
The Church may (and should) be looked at in several different ways. First of all, the Church is the Body of Christ. This is biblical. As she is the Body of Christ [Colossians 1:24] she is perfect and infallible in her teachings. You don’t need to commiserate with me as it isn’t necessary. The Catholic Church, divine in origin, founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter, is absolutely perfect.the church may have a divine origin, but its made up of humans. One may defend the crusades but what about the sacking of Constantinople? That basically gave the orthodox a reason to “submit to the turban rather than the mitre”
Or following a **sacred duck **around…Im sure thats great doctrine and practise
besides, through the reforming work of both the council of Trent and Vatican II many of the corrupt practices such as simony were curtailed.
as for doctrine, hermeneutics have come a long way since the early fathers or Aquinas, newer and better translations eliminating the “she” will crush the serpent with her heel from the vulgate to the Hebrew text which has the proto-evangelium as the obvious HE (Jesus) rather than she (Mary)… you can see statutes with this mistranslation remaining in many CC…
If you feel you have to argue for everything in Catholic history then I comisserate because quite simply, no church is as perfect as we, our neighbours or even Christ would wish them to be.
a final word, prevail is too strong a word, the church still stood but was in need of reform
The Church is also looked upon as the Bride of Christ. This gets complicated and beyond the scope of this thread (and also probably off-topic and there have been two moderator warnings that I have seen).
The Church is also looked upon as a hospital for sinners. Of course the members of the Church sin. Look around CAF and see what Catholics do. Even the Pope. All of us, with the exception of perhaps one walking saint on earth (I just don’t want to say it’s impossible). I sin. But I am still Catholic and the Church offers me a way to repent and atone (which is, unfortunately, off-topic and beyond the scope of this thread).
What I’m trying to say is that just as a person can be looked at in different ways (female, sister, daughter, mother, wife, physician, Catholic, skier, cat lover, cancer survivor) so can the Church and as we are mere human beings that is the way we must look at the Church.
The licit practice of simony was never taught as dogma. Simony was something that fallible members of the Church practiced and it was as wrong then as it is now. The sacking of Constantinople is not Church dogma. I’ve never heard of this “following a sacred duck around” but I can tell you that is *definitely *not Church dogma and if that “sacred duck” was worshipped that goes against the First Commandment.
As to your final statement, why would GOD be unable to form a church that wouldn’t need reform? It really goes against His nature to be so incompetent. You admit the Church has a divine origin (from your first sentence) but then go on to imply that it needed reform? Why? What does that say about God? A divine origin doesn’t mean very much?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
She is also the Theotokos (I just wanted to add that, even though I admit it is repetitious).
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
To what does “tertiary level” refer (sorry; I’ve never heard of it, googled it and it appears to mean different things in different countries and different types of education and you have no geographical location noted)?as you say, an opinion… however, I have studied hebrew for 5 years at tertiary level and so I know that although Jerome was an outstanding translator, he was merely one man and nowdays there are universities full of people who have studied hebrew language.
The word translated as ipsum in latin is a masculine pronoun in hebrew - hu which is HE the following verb then starts with a yod which is the masculine 3rd person indicator, as opposed to teh which would be feminine. Latin doesnt have this for third person verbs which in the singular can all be he/she/it. Hebrew is different!!
There can no longer be any mistake and trying to translate she because of other grammatico-historical sections of the bible like Jael in Judges or the book of revelation (which is a different language) means that your theology is determining your exegesis rather than the other way round.
This is called eisegesis (reading into the text) in case you didnt know
I’d also like to know if you (or someone else) has studied Greek, Aramaic, Latin, cultural anthropology of the bible ages, geography of the world as described in the bible during the bible ages, history of the bible ages in the countries referred to in the bible, law of the bible ages in the countries referred to in the bible, etc. etc. etc.
If you really believe “there can no longer be any mistake and trying to translate she because of other grammatico-historical sections of your bible like Jael in Judges or the book of revelation…” then I suggest you read your sentence again. It makes no sense. And if a sentence as simple as yours can have grammatical errors then it should be obvious that problems in translation are going to occur. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you and I am trying my best to stay on-topic.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m sorry but I don’t see what Simon Magus has to do with the poster’s comments. The practice of simony has always been considered illicit by the Church.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t think I have *ever *had so much trouble staying on-topic in a thread. My apologies if I have taken the thread off-topic; that is not my intent. 
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
What? The bride of Christ is the Church, not St. Mary.
C
christosdavid
Guest
not many people have heard of the duck but it was the leader of the first european section of the 1st crusade…The Church may (and should) be looked at in several different ways. First of all, the Church is the Body of Christ. This is biblical. As she is the Body of Christ [Colossians 1:24] she is perfect and infallible in her teachings. You don’t need to commiserate with me as it isn’t necessary. The Catholic Church, divine in origin, founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter, is absolutely perfect.
The Church is also looked upon as the Bride of Christ. This gets complicated and beyond the scope of this thread (and also probably off-topic and there have been two moderator warnings that I have seen).
The Church is also looked upon as a hospital for sinners. Of course the members of the Church sin. Look around CAF and see what Catholics do. Even the Pope. All of us, with the exception of perhaps one walking saint on earth (I just don’t want to say it’s impossible). I sin. But I am still Catholic and the Church offers me a way to repent and atone (which is, unfortunately, off-topic and beyond the scope of this thread).
What I’m trying to say is that just as a person can be looked at in different ways (female, sister, daughter, mother, wife, physician, Catholic, skier, cat lover, cancer survivor) so can the Church and as we are mere human beings that is the way we must look at the Church.
The licit practice of simony was never taught as dogma. Simony was something that fallible members of the Church practiced and it was as wrong then as it is now. The sacking of Constantinople is not Church dogma. I’ve never heard of this “following a sacred duck around” but I can tell you that is *definitely *not Church dogma and if that “sacred duck” was worshipped that goes against the First Commandment.
As to your final statement, why would GOD be unable to form a church that wouldn’t need reform? It really goes against His nature to be so incompetent. You admit the Church has a divine origin (from your first sentence) but then go on to imply that it needed reform? Why? What does that say about God? A divine origin doesn’t mean very much?
C
christosdavid
Guest
Sorry, should have said more about myself but I wouldnt want to be accused of being immodestTo what does “tertiary level” refer (sorry; I’ve never heard of it, googled it and it appears to mean different things in different countries and different types of education and you have no geographical location noted)?
I’d also like to know if you (or someone else) has studied Greek, Aramaic, Latin, cultural anthropology of the bible ages, geography of the world as described in the bible during the bible ages, history of the bible ages in the countries referred to in the bible, law of the bible ages in the countries referred to in the bible, etc. etc. etc.
If you really believe “there can no longer be any mistake and trying to translate she because of other grammatico-historical sections of your bible like Jael in Judges or the book of revelation…” then I suggest you read your sentence again. It makes no sense. And if a sentence as simple as yours can have grammatical errors then it should be obvious that problems in translation are going to occur. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you and I am trying my best to stay on-topic.
I started studying theology at tertiary level 16 years ago, since then I have completed my Bachelor of Theology (Majors in Biblical Studies and Theology), Diploma of Ministry, Master of Arts (Early Christian and Jewish Studies), and Master of Theology (Biblical Studies).
There are three levels of education in my country (Australia) - Primary (K-6), Secondary (7-12) and any university or college education is tertiary.
Yes, I have also studied Koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, Ugaritic and some Akkadian
Further the Early Christian and Jewish studies was foccussed between the years 300 BC and c. 450 AD so it included an indepth look at saints and scholars such as Jerome as well as from the Biblical studies major which necessarily involves textual criticism.
C
christosdavid
Guest
“one group on the people’s crusade was supposedly being led by a duck (or goose) that they thought was infused with the Holy Spirit. Anyway, I can’t find anything more about what Peter [the Hermit] thought he was going to accomplish, aside from the vague notion that by showing up in Jerusalem they would convert all the Muslims and restore Christian rule to the Holy Land. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)”not many people have heard of the duck but it was the leader of the first european section of the 1st crusade…
taken from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 7
J
jlhargus
Guest
Remark
C
Contarini
Guest
False assumption. Most Protestants of my acquaintance don’t think the Catholic Church “went bad” so much as that all particular churches are prone to error. The problem from our perspective is that you guys have locked yourselves into a position where you can’t fully acknowledge your errors (though this accusation is often made too broadly–I recognize that many Catholics do find ways to acknowledge the flaws of the historic institution calling itself the “Catholic Church” while still upholding Catholic doctrine). It isn’t necessarily that you have any more errors than anyone else (obviously many Protestants think you do, but not all).
Edwin
P
Publisher
Guest
Agreed
W
Watchman1091
Guest
Hey all. I guess I would be considered “Protestant”, but I just follow Jesus and His Word, the Bible, 100%, uncut…unadulterated. I don’t believe the Catholic Church to be the true church of Christ, since the true church of Christ is the body of believers united in Christ and the Holy Bible. First, I want to establish that this isn’t “judging”. We are not to judge based on appearance, and we are not to judge hypocritical judgment, but we ARE to correct, rebuke and teach brothers and sisters in Christ. (James 5:20, Proverbs 27:5, Luke 17:3, Matthew 7:1-6) etc.
The Catholic church, and even protestant churches, are full of traditions of men that contradict the Word of God. That is why the churches “went bad”. Satan has his grip on the churches, without a doubt. MANY traditions are not found in the bible, and MOST of them are sinful and contradict the Word of God. One of the false gospels in most “Protestant” churches is the ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’ gospel. Saying we can live like the world and still go to heaven WITHOUT REPENTANCE. No, we aren’t saved by OUR works, but by JESUS’. Without holiness, no one will see the Lord, so we have to repent, submit to Jesus, take up our cross daily and follow Him. (Hebrews 12:14, Luke 9:23) etc. Hope this was edifying
Love you all
The Catholic church, and even protestant churches, are full of traditions of men that contradict the Word of God. That is why the churches “went bad”. Satan has his grip on the churches, without a doubt. MANY traditions are not found in the bible, and MOST of them are sinful and contradict the Word of God. One of the false gospels in most “Protestant” churches is the ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’ gospel. Saying we can live like the world and still go to heaven WITHOUT REPENTANCE. No, we aren’t saved by OUR works, but by JESUS’. Without holiness, no one will see the Lord, so we have to repent, submit to Jesus, take up our cross daily and follow Him. (Hebrews 12:14, Luke 9:23) etc. Hope this was edifying
Love you all
N
nickybr38
Guest
God doesn’t mind traditions. He started quite a few and in fact Jesus Himself said of the Pharisees: “Do as they say, not as they do…” As in, Jesus encouraged His followers to follow the traditions of the Pharisees.Hey all. I guess I would be considered “Protestant”, but I just follow Jesus and His Word, the Bible, 100%, uncut…unadulterated. I don’t believe the Catholic Church to be the true church of Christ, since the true church of Christ is the body of believers united in Christ and the Holy Bible. First, I want to establish that this isn’t “judging”. We are not to judge based on appearance, and we are not to judge hypocritical judgment, but we ARE to correct, rebuke and teach brothers and sisters in Christ. (James 5:20, Proverbs 27:5, Luke 17:3, Matthew 7:1-6) etc.
The Catholic church, and even protestant churches, are full of traditions of men that contradict the Word of God. That is why the churches “went bad”. Satan has his grip on the churches, without a doubt. MANY traditions are not found in the bible, and MOST of them are sinful and contradict the Word of God. One of the false gospels in most “Protestant” churches is the ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’ gospel. Saying we can live like the world and still go to heaven WITHOUT REPENTANCE. No, we aren’t saved by OUR works, but by JESUS’. Without holiness, no one will see the Lord, so we have to repent, submit to Jesus, take up our cross daily and follow Him. (Hebrews 12:14, Luke 9:23) etc. Hope this was edifying
W
Watchman1091
Guest
True! But, if they get in the way of worshiping God in spirit and in truth (a.k.a. vain worship), if they go against His commandments, or if God has told you, specifically, to do something and you don’t for the sake of your tradition, then He certainly does mind, my friend! (John 4:24, Mark 7:7, Matthew 15:6) etc.God doesn’t mind traditions. He started quite a few and in fact Jesus Himself said of the Pharisees: “Do as they say, not as they do…” As in, Jesus encouraged His followers to follow the traditions of the Pharisees.
S
stewstew03
Guest
I don’t mean to open up a can of worms, but which Catholic doctrines are sinful and contradict the Word of God? Although your tone is very polite, your assertions are quite strong.
Thanks for your response.
W
Watchman1091
Guest
Well, from what I’ve learned through prayer, reading the Bible and research, I’ve just discovered a “works” salvation. Yes, faith without works are dead, but nothing we do of ourselves is worthy enough to inherit the kingdom of God. That’s why we trust Jesus’ righteousness and allow Him to work in us, so that no one can boast
(James 2:14,18, 24, 26)Mary veneration (which could be considered idolatry, since Jesus is the only mediator and the only One we should pray to/only way to Heaven) (1 Timothy 2:5, Colissians 1:19-20, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 14:6). I believe Mary, after the birth of Jesus, went on to have other children with Joseph. (Matthew 12: 46-50, Luke 8:19). I also believe she was not bodily ascended into heaven. She even claimed she needed a savior. (Luke 1:46-55)
The interpretation of the Last Supper could be dangerous, since Catholics and others believe the bread and wine to be the literal body and blood of Christ (since Christ would never say for us to eat blood, and there is only one Christ; not many of Him; the “Protestant” and “Fundamentalist” view is that it is a representation that we are to keep symbolizing His death.
Calling the Pope and other Priests “father”, when the Bible says not to call any man father, for there is only one Father, in Heaven. (Matthew 23:9)
No one can forgive sins, but God. Confessing sins to one another is good, but I’ve heard that some people think the priests can actually forgive ones sins, when only God can.
Purgatory is not in the bible, and we shouldn’t pray/call upon the dead (necromancy) (even dead saints, since they are men too). (Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:27, 1 Timothy 4:1, etc.)
I don’t think all traditions are bad, but when they get in the way of the Word/commandments, it is.
The idolatry is the sinful part. The “nullifying the Word of God for your own traditions” is sinful as well. Pray on these things. Your thoughts?
- Status