Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosinante
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re forgetting my church again… plus you still have the problem of the schism.

To me, the schism is like the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed because temple rituals would have been pagan to God after the cross, so he destroyed it so that he Jewish faith could not be practiced at all.

Physical, earthly, unity of the faith is central to the physical Catholic church. The schism permanently destroyed that to show that the church is invisible. Communion takes place across the physical organizational boundaries.
Seven minutes.

That’s how long it took for you to consider and reject the arguments that men have been pondering for centuries. I would have expected some pause and prayerful reflection - if you are truly seeking answers.

Are you sure you’re really here to " let Catholics show me the church in scripture if it is there"?

:nope:
 
Seven minutes.

That’s how long it took for you to consider and reject the arguments that men have been pondering for centuries. I would have expected some pause and prayerful reflection - if you are truly seeking answers.

Are you sure you’re really here to " let Catholics show me the church in scripture if it is there"?

:nope:
There you have done it again…

You presume that I have not already seen these things. Take a quick look at my join date.
🤷
 
Physical, earthly, unity of the faith is central to the physical Catholic church. The schism permanently destroyed that to show that the church is invisible. Communion takes place across the physical organizational boundaries.
Cardinal Newman on One Church

…There is such a thing as religious truth, and therefore there is such a thing as religious error. We learn that religious truth is one—and therefore that all views of religion but one are wrong. . . . our religious creeds and professions at this day are many; but Truth is one: therefore they cannot all be right, or rather almost all of them must be wrong. That is, the multitude of men are wrong, so far as they differ; and as they differ, not about trivial points, but about great matters, it follows that the multitude of men, whether by their own fault or not, are wrong even in the greater matters of religion.

…Doubtless if men sought the truth with one tenth part of the zeal with which they seek to acquire wealth or secular knowledge, their differences would diminish year by year. Doubtless if they gave a half or a quarter of the time to prayer for Divine guidance which they give to amusement or recreation, or which they give to dispute and contention, they would ever be approximating to each other. We differ in opinion; therefore we cannot all be right; many must be wrong; many must be turned from the truth; and why is this, but on account of that undeniable fact which we see before us, that we do not pray and seek for the Truth?

…Some men will tell us that this difference of opinion in religious matters which exists, is a proof, not that the Truth is withheld from us on account of our negligence in seeking it, but that religious truth is not worth seeking at all, or that it is not given us. The present confused and perplexed state of things, which is really a proof of God’s anger at our negligence, these men say is a proof that religious truth cannot be obtained; that there is no such thing as religious truth; that there is no right or wrong in religion; that, provided we think ourselves right, one set of opinions is as good as another; that we shall all come right in the end if we do but mean well, or rather if we do not mean ill. That is, we create confusion by our negligence and disobedience, and then excuse our negligence by the existence of that confusion. It is no uncommon thing, I say, for men to say, “that in religious matters God has willed that men should differ,” and to support their opinion by no better argument than the fact that they do differ; and they go on to conclude that therefore we need not perplex ourselves about matters of faith, about which, after all, we cannot be certain.

…How are the sheep of Christ’s flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 8, Sermon 13: “Truth Hidden When Not Sought After,” 1843)
 
There you have done it again…

You presume that I have not already seen these things. Take a quick look at my join date.
🤷
certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church.
Upon this rock I will build my church. The book of Mark is the first book written and it contains the teachings of Peter. All the other writing were built upon his teachings.

What is certain to a Catholic is not certain to an Askenazi.
 
Seven minutes.

That’s how long it took for you to consider and reject the arguments that men have been pondering for centuries. I would have expected some pause and prayerful reflection - if you are truly seeking answers.

Are you sure you’re really here to " let Catholics show me the church in scripture if it is there"?

:nope:
It’s called spiritual laziness.

BTW, Randy where have you been? Haven’t seen you post in a coons age.
 
You’re forgetting my church again… plus you still have the problem of the schism.

To me, the schism is like the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed because temple rituals would have been pagan to God after the cross, so he destroyed it so that he Jewish faith could not be practiced at all.

Physical, earthly, unity of the faith is central to the physical Catholic church. The schism permanently destroyed that to show that the church is invisible. Communion takes place across the physical organizational boundaries.
Are you claiming the CC has “pagan rituals?”
 
There you have done it again…

You presume that I have not already seen these things. Take a quick look at my join date.
And from your posts, I see that you have not engaged in much discussion. I guess you’ve been doing a lot of lurking, reading and thinking, eh?

I think I understand. You have the Holy Spirit, and He has led you into all truth, so you don’t have any need for a formal, visible, infallible Church.

I’m puzzled though…if you have all you need already, why are you here looking for answers? 🤷
 
Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter who set the standard for practice in the church as recorded in the NT. No disagreement. then men sqabbled over who would be boss, but Peter’s standard remains recorded in the NT.
 
It’s called spiritual laziness.

BTW, Randy where have you been? Haven’t seen you post in a coons age.
I’ve been popping in and out on occasion, but I was kinda burned out for awhile.

The discussions can get pretty repetitive, ya know? 😉
 
And from your posts, I see that you have not engaged in much discussion. I guess you’ve been doing a lot of lurking, reading and thinking, eh?

I think I understand. You have the Holy Spirit, and He has led you into all truth, so you don’t have any need for a formal, visible, infallible Church.

I’m puzzled though…if you have all you need already, why are you here looking for answers? 🤷
Putting words in my mouth again… He guides us in all truth… Not that I have all truth.
 
We learn from God and he uses the books we have whether they are identified as scripture or not.
Interesting.

So we are permitted, if we claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, to read an ancient Christian text, such as, say, the Protoevangelium of James, and say that it is God’s Word?

I must admit, in all my years of discussing religion, I have never heard what you have proclaimed before.
 
Putting words in my mouth again… He guides us in all truth… Not that I have all truth.
Open your phone book and count the number of denominations in your area.
Is the Holy Spirit the author of confusion?
 
It’s called spiritual laziness.

BTW, Randy where have you been? Haven’t seen you post in a coons age.
As has been the case throughout this forum, rather than address issues you attach the person…

Join date : June 10, 2008.

If you are just going to repeat the readers digest version of Catholicism you won’t get much time from me. I came to to politely answer a question about the term ‘Mother of God’ and it turned into a full-fledged ambush.

So you think it is cute to pile on…

Randy was doing so well at a conversation, but has fallen back into accusations.
 
As has been the case throughout this forum, rather than address issues you attach the person…

Join date : June 10, 2008.

If you are just going to repeat the readers digest version of Catholicism you won’t get much time from me. I came to to politely answer a question about the term ‘Mother of God’ and it turned into a full-fledged ambush.

So you think it is cute to pile on…

Randy was doing so well at a conversation, but has fallen back into accusations.
Sorry, the martyr routine doesn’t work with me.
But anyway, you were asked two questions, politely by me/
Why don’t you answer them?
 
Interesting.

So we are permitted, if we claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, to read an ancient Christian text, such as, say, the Protoevangelium of James, and say that it is God’s Word?

I must admit, in all my years of discussing religion, I have never heard what you have proclaimed before.
Same accusatory nonsense… Stick to what I have said rather than what you presume I have said.

I have said that it is unnecessary to call it ‘God’s Word’. I have said that some writings have proven themselves through usage in the church to be beneficial.

Why is it that you are incapable of repeating back accurately what I have said?
 
Are you claiming the CC has “pagan rituals?”
You have combined two statements to make one. This is not a question. Please reread what I have said and do not presume more than I have said.

Pretending that I am attacking the CC by accusing it of pagan rituals is a feigned martyr routine. I don’t buy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top