"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sorry, the Word existed from the beginning. My mother is/was not 100% of me, a strange assertion. Mary was selected to raise Jesus, a great honor, but so?..

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description.

If He is not as truly human as we are, He cannot be our mediator - or anything else, but our Creator & Lord. If He is not as truly human as we are, then it’s all very well for Him to tell us what to do, but He does so without having to face up to the problems we have to face. Which is pretty useless.​

IOW, God needs to be a member of the human race. In Jesus, God the Word has become exactly that. How ? By being born as a man - just like any other human being. If He did not real body, He would be really a human being, but a holy phantom of man-like appearance. Real human beings grow, gain knowledge, ask questions, sweat, weep, groan, mourn, hunger, thirst, cry out, walk, lie down, become tired, sleep think, speak, become angry, suffer: & they die.

He did all of these - & was born in just the same way as we are. And for that, He needed to have a completely human mother - just like us. As this man is God the Word, His mother is truly & aptly & properly called the mother of God. ##

 

[Milliardo]

I am fully aware of Nestorianism, but this whole topic is difficult of description. You ARE aware that The Word existed from the beginning? Christianity 101. Was Mary there? I find no mention of Her in the Godhead.

Yes, it is true that the Word existed since the beginning, but that doesn’t mean He couldn’t be born of a woman, can it now? As often said, nothing is impossible with God. See my reply on the other thread why Nestorius’ notion will not win against what the Bible clearly states.

The title, “Mother of God” implies that She was there before Him, just as my parents existed before me.

Was Mary not before Christ before He came to this world in the flesh?

 

[Markway]

Ah! You are a Nestorian!

Once a person rejects the Divine Authority given to the Church to define doctrine, such a one will eventually fall into heresy of one type or another.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409hotm.asp

You make the strangest comments! Quit sides-showing, and show us where Mary was in Genesis, John etc.The “Authority of the Church” is such a hoary old chestnut; it’s become a tarp to throw over everything uncomfortable. Christ gave authority to His apostles, but it is not clear that this authority extended to founding ANY Church, and certainly not that whoever they chose to elect would have ultimate authority and be godlike in His wisdom!

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul. Infallibale? What a joke! On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC. What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so. Plain observation reveals that the RCC is a human institution inspired by God and dedicated to it and themselves. God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

 

[LilyM]

Actually Mary is there in Genesis. The woman whose seed crushes the head of the snake? Mary.

A very apt turn of phrase in describing her too - since he came ONLY from her, and not from the seed of any human male. Unlike every other mother in history, Mary’s son was ONLY of her own seed. Very significant in a male-centred culture that the child of Genesis is never referred to as having a father.

 

[Markway]

Well, they certainly baptized and they confessed their sins (James 5:16), and they anointed the sick (James again), and they laid hands on elders (Ordination) , and people got married. That takes care of six of the seven sacraments, and Confirmation – the seventh – is actually a part of baptism, so there you go. All the sacraments are in place in the New Testament.

Even in the NT they had enough structure to hold the council of Jerusalem. By that time, Peter was already in Rome, so he must have come back for the event; Paul and Barnabas made the trip from Antioch. So there was “structure and form.” Devotion to the saints arises very early. Zooey, our resident Methodist has addressed this. The earliest prayer to Our Lady, the “Sub tuum praesidium” occurs in a mid-third century liturgy. It is evident that the Marian devotions arise following the firestorm of heresy in the third and fourth centuries when one group of heretics or another is constantly attacking either the humanity or the divinity of Jesus. All mainstream Protestants adhere to the first four ecumenical councils. The third council in 431 A.D. declared Mary “Mother of God” (See Presbyterian Dr. R. C. Sproul’s magnificent treatment of this subject) as a protection of the divinity and humanity of Christ.In Rome. The Pope is just a bishop. The bishop of Rome. The Church sees itself as a family. Pope means “Papa” – he is the big daddy. No flim-flam about it.
Fish, loaves, vines – all over the catecombs. Crosses emerge in the 4th Century. I see this as partly due to the fact that as one of his last acts as Emperor, Constantine abolished the use of crosses for executions in honor of Christ. The cross then becomes a “particular” symbol for Christians and well suited as a symbol of the faith. Theology **does **develop over time. That isn’t to say that the developments are wrong; in fact, they are necessary. As new questions and heresies arise, theology and iconography develop to handle them. Whassa problelm?Two thirds of the OT and much of the NT – especially the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation are almost entirely liturgical. He was a baptized Catholic in good standing. No probleml.Right about the Jews. As for the beard, the pictures of Jesus in the very early Church are derived from the art-forms of the cultures in which they arise. Romans were big on the Good Shepherd (88 Good Shepherds in the catacombs alone), and they portrayed this image in their own fashion: no beard, short hair . . . The pictures are not portraits; they are theological statements. Jesus gets a beard and long hair after the discovery of the mandylion (perhaps Veronica’s veil or the shroud of Turin) in the mid-sixth century in Odessa (Mesopotamia). That image was the forerunner of the “portraits” of Jesus we are familiar with today.

Mercy Gate, you have mentioned me “registering 172”. Did you mean respond to this post?

Not much that hasn’t been said, but it’s clear that a lot of thought and interpretation has been done by RC thinkers. RC’s manage to find the RC at early eras of the Church that stretches the imagination.

It’s understandable as the Church’s main public claim is that THEY are the real Church, present from the beginning. This interpretation makes any changes in religious thought become deviations with everything that “WE believe now”. If you advocate eliminateing liturgy you’re not going back to a simpler form of Christianity, but blotting out rituals and traditions that came down from the beginning.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I wonder if the pilgrimage to Mecca would ever be incorporated into Catholic culture; It would help us to be closer with Muslims. Although, I do think, it’ll never happen in our life time.

Eh… the pilgrimige to Mecca is to solidify the prophethood of Muhammad (the last “Prophet”)… it’ll never be a part of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Markway]

Actually Mary is there in Genesis. The woman whose seed crushes the head of the snake? Mary.

A very apt turn of phrase in describing her too - since he came ONLY from her, and not from the seed of any human male. Unlike every other mother in history, Mary’s son was ONLY of her own seed. Very significant in a male-centred culture that the child of Genesis is never referred to as having a father.

So, mary was there at creation, moving over the face of the waters? If The Word was first, Mary never gave birth to it. Her position is biological not theological.

 

[LilyM]

So, mary was there at creation, moving over the face of the waters? If The Word was first, Mary never gave birth to it. Her position is biological not theological.

So Jesus ISN’T Eternal God to whom a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years? Beyond time (literally - time has no meaning for God)?

Knowing all of past present and future from the beginning?

Knowing Mary before she was created, as He knew you from the beginning, and knowing from the beginning His destiny as her son as well?

In other words the great changeless I AM - never I WAS nor I WILL BE. As in ‘I AM the son of Mary’ never ‘I WAS the son of Mary’ nor ‘I WILL BE the son of Mary’. So her motherhood of Him is an eternal supernatural fact, not a natural time-bound event.

 

[Milliardo]

Christ gave authority to His apostles, but it is not clear that this authority extended to founding ANY Church

Quite right, for there is only one Church that He has founded, and what Church would that be then? Your guess is as good as mine. As Scott Hahn exclaimed once, “Is there any other claimants?”

They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul.

I wouldn’t call someone who replaced Judas a footnote; certainly most of the Apostles were barely mentioned in the Bible, but nobody ever dares call them as footnotes.

On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC. What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so.

Everything was certainly there, but it wasn’t properly understood. Let’s take something basic, like the Trinity: the teaching was there from the beginning, but was it explicitly stated as so in Scripture? No. It took until Nicaea to finally have the Church stomp its foot down, and then definitely state that the teaching is dogma and infallible. The intervening decades and centuries had men defining and expounding on this teaching. Yet it was there at the beginning, but it took awhile for it to finally be properly defined.

God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

Ah, but man works alongside God as well; we see this in the Old Testament. God entrusted His message to men. Christ did not leave a book behind as well; He entrusted to men His Gospel. So man works with God. It would be quite simplistic to say that God moves without man–man is made to cooperate with Him, to make that plan of salvation more evident. That is why we have the Church.

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

You mistake this for the teaching of faith and morals; the Church is infallible inasmuch as she teaches faith and morals without any error. Policies do change, but that is not bound with the Church’s infallibility.

 

[Milliardo]

So, mary was there at creation, moving over the face of the waters? If The Word was first, Mary never gave birth to it. Her position is biological not theological.

LilyM’s point was that Mary was mentioned as early as Genesis; this is to flesh out the plan of salvation: that she will give birth to a Child, who is the Emmanuel, and that she together with this Child shall be with emnity with the serpent. Now, as to Mary giving birth to the Word, I again submit to you my post in the other thread. Or let’s make this a bit more fun; I’ll post what I said in that thread: Elizabeth did exclaim, “How can this be, that the mother of my Lord has come to me?” What did you think Elizabeth recognized to be with Mary? Was it Jesus, the human? No–we can plainly read, “the mother of my Lord”. Note that happened while Jesus was still in Mary’s womb. As if to underscore it even further, she would go on to say that the baby (John) in her womb leaped with joy. Now that is unusual, isn’t it? If Mary only bore Jesus the human, and not His divinity as well, would John recognize Him? But John also recognized Jesus who was still in Mary’s womb. The question then is, is the Lord merely human? Honest Protestants know that He is not. So if that is so, why then again the objection that Mary is the mother of God the Son when Elizabeth herself recognized this same Mary as the mother of her Lord?

 

[mercygate]

You make the strangest comments! Quit sides-showing, and show us where Mary was in Genesis, John etc.The “Authority of the Church” is such a hoary old chestnut; it’s become a tarp to throw over everything uncomfortable. Christ gave authority to His apostles, but it is not clear that this authority extended to founding ANY Church, and certainly not that whoever they chose to elect would have ultimate authority and be godlike in His wisdom!

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul. Infallibale? What a joke! On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC. What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so. Plain observation reveals that the RCC is a human institution inspired by God and dedicated to it and themselves. God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

A clear explanation of a lot of what you object to is contained in a tight little book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating and available on this web site. The topic of this thread is covered there, as are these other objections.

Have you looked at how mainstream Protestants deal with the title “Mother of God.” THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVELY CATHOLIC TEAHCING!

 

[mercygate]

Mercy Gate, you have mentioned me “registering 172”. Did you mean respond to this post?

Not much that hasn’t been said, but it’s clear that a lot of thought and interpretation has been done by RC thinkers. RC’s manage to find the RC at early eras of the Church that stretches the imagination.

How does it stretch the imagination? I showed you sacraments in Scripture and the Catholic Church has the paper trail to show the continuous practice and teaching of the Church. The “paper trail” is what made me realize that my Protestant world-view was badly distorted.

It’s understandable as the Church’s main public claim is that THEY are the real Church, present from the beginning.

Again, the Catholic Church has the paper trail.

This interpretation makes any changes in religious thought become deviations with everything that “WE believe now”.

This sentence does not make sense. The continuity of teaching allows for the development of doctrine – as in the definition and delineation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity – not the outright invention of doctrine. No teaching Protestants take issue with ever just popped up without deep, contemplative, reading of Scripture and stringent assessment for its conformity with the Gospel. Sometimes you need to have somebody walk you through the process step-by-step.

If you advocate eliminateing liturgy you’re not going back to a simpler form of Christianity, but blotting out rituals and traditions that came down from the beginning.

Who advocates eliminating liturgy? Are you saying that liturgy is a “catholic invention?” If you are, then you and I are reading different Bibles. The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation are unintelligible without a liturgical context. The liturgy is a great unifier of the Body and the seat of Evangelism. Liturgy is how we pray the Gospels.

 

[guanophore]

You make the strangest comments!

I agree, it is strange to me that you would defend this heretical viewpoint.

Quit sides-showing,

I am not sure what this means?

and show us where Mary was in Genesis, John etc.

Are you asking me to show you where the Apostle John was in Genesis? Or where Mary is in John?

Gen 3:15
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

Mary is the New Eve, conceived as she was, without sin. Her seed, Jesus, bruises the head of the serpent.

The “Authority of the Church” is such a hoary old chestnut; it’s become a tarp to throw over everything uncomfortable.

I am sad to hear you say that the Authority that Jesus put in place to fulfill His will on earth is a “hoary old chestnut”. However, your argurment is with Him. He only established one church. He only has one body. If you are uncomfortable with the Teachings, perhaps that is the HS bringing conviction?

Christ gave authority to His apostles, but it is not clear that this authority extended to founding ANY Church, and certainly not that whoever they chose to elect would have ultimate authority and be godlike in His wisdom!

This is a matter for another thread.

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul. Infallibale? What a joke! On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or perhaps you are just confused about what I wrote. God can elect to apostleship whoever He wants. It was God who promised that He would preserve His Church, which He built upon the rock. If He has not preserved it, then He is a liar. I claimed that our understanding of the revelation of God evolves. We grow in understanding of the Truth He has revealed. I never claimed the RCC was there from the beginning. The Roman Rite did not develop until many centuries later. There are also many other valid Rites that have nothing to do with Rome.

What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so. Plain observation reveals that the RCC is a human institution inspired by God and dedicated to it and themselves. God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

This is a matter for another thread also. It seems that you are calling the Apostolic Succession “rubbish”, and also that Christ has given such authority to men?

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

You apparently don’t understand the Church Teaching about the Charism of infallibility. This is also a topic for another thread. There was never any promise of Christ that the policies or disciplines instituted by the Church would be infallible.

RC’s manage to find the RC at early eras of the Church that stretches the imagination.

There is only one church, Markway. Glad your imagination is being stretched!

It’s understandable as the Church’s main public claim is that THEY are the real Church, present from the beginning. This interpretation makes any changes in religious thought become deviations with everything that “WE believe now”.

Actually this is not the Church’s main public claim. The fact that it has been this way from the eginning does not make religious thought “deviation”. From the beginning, the faithful have been striving to add reason to their faith. We know we are getting off track in this process when we abandon the Sacred Traditions. But that is an issue for another thread.

If you advocate eliminateing liturgy you’re not going back to a simpler form of Christianity, but blotting out rituals and traditions that came down from the beginning.

I think you are in error here, Markway. Changes in liturgy don’t “blot out” elements of the faith that came from the beginning. Granted, there have been many abuses of liturgy that have had this effect, but liturgy is there to express the faith. If you think this is a Roman invention, attend a Greek Orthodox Church sometime.

 

[guanophore]

So, mary was there at creation, moving over the face of the waters? If The Word was first, Mary never gave birth to it. Her position is biological not theological.

That would represent a Nestorian heresy. Mary gave birth to the Son, the second person of the trinity, who became flesh. It was through Him that all things were created. He is God, she is the mother of God, Theotokos.

 

[estesbob]

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul. Infallibale? What a joke! On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC. What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so. Plain observation reveals that the RCC is a human institution inspired by God and dedicated to it and themselves. God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

Funny you should mention Paul-he accepted the authority of the Church,

As far as Matthias being a footnote- I guess that is only true for those who’s knowledge of Church history omits everything from the end of Acts to the Reformation. Mathhias preached the Gospel along the Caspian sea, and was known for his fervernce in preaching the gospel and his devoutness to the Lord. He wears the Martyrs crown. He died for his faith yet you mock him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You make the strangest comments! Quit sides-showing, and show us where Mary was in Genesis, John etc.The “Authority of the Church” is such a hoary old chestnut; it’s become a tarp to throw over everything uncomfortable. Christ gave authority to His apostles, but it is not clear that this authority extended to founding ANY Church, and certainly not that whoever they chose to elect would have ultimate authority and be godlike in His wisdom!

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul.

I’ve read this elsewhere. While it is certainly attractive, it proves too much: for if Matthias is disqualified, this being the only time he is mentioned, what of the rest of the 12 ? In Acts, very few of them are mentioned either; surely this does not mean that the unmentioned majority are all dis-Apostolicated by the choice of St. Paul ? ​

Besides - on what grounds is Matthias to be ejected from his position among the 12 ? When did not being mentioned = Divine rejection ? Or did the very men who had spent their time with the Lord Himself, have so little understanding of Him that they chose wrongly ? True, St. Paul is called a “chosen vessel” in Acts 9, by the Lord in Glory - but how does that add up to a rejection of St. Matthias ? And why, of St. Matthias alone ?

ISTM there are too many unanswered questions for this theory to be convincing; interesting as it is

Infallibale? What a joke! On the one hand you claim thqat the Church is evolving, and then say that everything was there at the beginning; it was a RCC. What rubbish! The RCC has evolved and properly so. Plain observation reveals that the RCC is a human institution inspired by God and dedicated to it and themselves. God did not leave His Church to it’s “Leaders” but took a hand directly.

If you need proof, just Google the “reverses in Church policy” over the years. Infallibility?

As to the Church, ISTM there is a certain failure to make some much-needed distinctions. But, the Church of the Apostles can perfectly well have been “the same as” the CC today: infallibility and all. It need not follow that the similarity must be obvious: no one suggesting that the Apostolic Church had canon law, or that St.Peter offered the Mass wearing the vestments now in use; let alone that he did so in St.Peter’s Basilica. That would be as grotesque as suggesting that St.Paul read the Authorised Version or its Catholic equivalent to cheer himself up while in prison.​

The debate seems to be, over the identification of that sameness. None of us is what we were ten years ago - yet we are the same people, in a sense that is worth noticing. The Church is a sort of composite person, with a biography - it “just happens” (so to speak) to be longer than that of any individual human being. But there is a real unity, & continuity, in this person. Perhaps because the “personality” of the Church is that of Christ Himself. This is perfectly compatible with the facts of the Church’s history - though, no one model or wealth of models, could possibly exhaust the richness of the Church’s Personality.

 

[KofC660]

Mary, the Mother of God isn’t from some recent event in the Catholic Church. Here the term “Mother of God” is addressed at the Council of Ephesus, almost 1,600 years ago (mind you, this wasn’t the first time the term “Mother of God” was used by the Catholic Church, but this was the final "word’, and the “case closed”):

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.ii.html

If you reject the Church, you reject Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

Quite the opposite really. After the resignation of Judas Iscariot, there was an empty space in the ranks of the Apostles. They elected a footnote, while God went out and recruited Paul.

God recruited a number of Apostles, including Judas. Are you saying Jesus was fallible? Are you saying that Jesus did not intend for the Apostles to choose Matthias? Why didn’t Jesus choose a replacement during the 40 days He sojourned with them after the resurrection? He wanted the Apostles to know He had delegated authority to them in these matters.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has wandered far from its original topic of “rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin…” and so is now closed. Please feel free to quote relevant posts from here to begin new threads on single topics of interest if you wish.
MF