Scripture and Mary

[Ginger2]

I’m stumped. Why don’t you tell us who this prince is??
And why must he enter and exit through the vestibule??

Why would I ask you if I had the answer?

“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2)

Near as I can figure, v.2 was cited by the poster to mean that Mary is the gate that Jesus entered the world tru and therefore v.2 stands as absolute proof that Mary remained a Virgin all her life.
So I am asking how Catholics interpret the next verse:

Eze 44:3 [It is] for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

If Mary is the gate by which Jesus entered the world, what does it mean that Jesus will also “go out by the same way”?

 

[YADA]

From the UCCB Web page

• In the procession to the altar, when no deacon is present, the lector, wearing the appropriate vesture, (2) may carry the Book of the Gospels elevated slightly. In that case, the lector walks in front of the priest, otherwise with the other ministers (GIRM 194).
• Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others.(3) If the lector is carrying the Book of the Gospels, the lector goes to the altar and places the Book of the Gospels on it. Then, the lector takes up a position in the sanctuary with the other ministers (GIRM 195).

And this

At the conclusion of the Mass, the lector does not process with the Book of the Gospels. The Lectionary is never carried in procession. The lector may join in the procession at the end of Mass in the same order as in the procession to the altar.

Here is the link for the entire document:
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/lit3.shtml

I hope this helps

 

[TOME]

Goggle of Geer,
Thank you for your response and the links you provided. But my next question is how does this relate to our belief in Salvation History? That is God acting in and through human events. I am sure Ezekiel( all the prophets for that matter) was dealing with the events of his time and most likely had no understanding of the deeper meaning of his words (just as Paul, I am sure, also, was writing about specific problems of the particular church he was addressing didn’t consider his missives to be “Scripture”). Ezekiel couldn’t have had this understanding because this would come - could only come - from Divine Revelation through the Church’s post resurrectional experience of Christ and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit she received at Pentacost and her ever growing understanding of this Divine Revelation through out the Church’s history.

 

[teachccd]

Why would I ask you if I had the answer?

“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2)

Near as I can figure, v.2 was cited by the poster to mean that Mary is the gate that Jesus entered the world tru and therefore v.2 stands as absolute proof that Mary remained a Virgin all her life.
So I am asking how Catholics interpret the next verse:

Eze 44:3 [It is] for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

If Mary is the gate by which Jesus entered the world, what does it mean that Jesus will also “go out by the same way”?

I’m sorry. I thought that you might have wanted to make a point with your question.

The heavenly guide takes Ezekiel from the inner court (43:5) to the outer east gate, which has been closed. The guide explains that this gate is to remain perpetually shut as a sign that God returned to the temple through it. Only the prince may sit in the vestibule of this gate structure when he eats his sacrificial meal.

The prince stands at the eastern gate of the inner court while his sacrifice is offered up; (Ezekiel 46:2) he then goes to the vestibule of the outer court, there to partake of his sacrificial meal. The closed outer gate on the eastern side signifies that the Lord has entered the temple permanently, not to depart again.

When Jesus became man through the womb of Mary, He was to never depart again. He became man and remains the God Man through all eternity. He will never depart and so the gate (womb) remains closed,

 

[Ginger2]

I’m sorry. I thought that you might have wanted to make a point with your question.

The heavenly guide takes Ezekiel from the inner court (43:5) to the outer east gate, which has been closed. The guide explains that this gate is to remain perpetually shut as a sign that God returned to the temple through it. Only the prince may sit in the vestibule of this gate structure when he eats his sacrificial meal.

The prince stands at the eastern gate of the inner court while his sacrifice is offered up; (Ezekiel 46:2) he then goes to the vestibule of the outer court, there to partake of his sacrificial meal. The closed outer gate on the eastern side signifies that the Lord has entered the temple permanently, not to depart again.

When Jesus became man through the womb of Mary, He was to never depart again. He became man and remains the God Man through all eternity. He will never depart and so the gate (womb) remains closed,

Thank you for that explanation, but that really does not make sense to me at all.

Have you read all of chapter 46? (Or 45 for that matter.) I don’t see how this prince can be Jesus.

 

[dwhtxsports]

Old Scholar,

You are not correct on your explanation of first-born. If you study Jewish law, or ask any Jew, you will learn that Pidyon ha-Ben is the “Redemption of the First Born” who are to be consecrated to God and serve as priests and Temple workers. The firstborn is the male child that opens the womb. If the child that opens the womb is a female child, there is no firstborn for that particular family since the child that opened the womb is not a male child. If no more children are born after the firstborn, the firstborn still has the title of firstborn. Jesus’ Pidyon ha-Ben is described in Luke 2:27.
Ask a Rabbi or other Jew to explain this if you do not believe me. I truly believe that if you research this that you will also come to the conclusion that the first born argument is not a powerful argument for Mary having other children.

 

[jcrichton]

***Hi, Old Scolar!

Do you not see the prosecution of the Church in your own words?

Maran atha!

Angel

---

***Hi, Old Scolar!

This should read:

“Do you not see the persecution of the Church in your own words?”

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[teachccd]

Thank you for that explanation, but that really does not make sense to me at all.

Have you read all of chapter 46? (Or 45 for that matter.) I don’t see how this prince can be Jesus.

I don’t believe that the emphasis is so much that the prince is Jesus as much as the fact that when God passed through the gate it remained perpetually closed. No one would be able to enter a gate that God had passed through. As Catholics, and especially in the Eastern Catholic Church, we see that Jesus (who is God) passed through the birth canal of Mary and therefore with the typological reference to Ezekiel no one else would be able to enter where God has passed. The prince could enter via the vestibule and leave the same way but ultimately the gate was closed and that is the essence of how sacred we (Catholics) hold the womb of Mary. To assume that Mary’s womb would carry other children would lessen the fact that God resided there and became the God Man for all eternity.

Remember that all that the Catholic Church recognizes in Mary is only to elevate and glorify the Lord, Jesus Christ. Mary’s role is only availed through Christ and Christ (as did the stone tablets of God’s word) deserves the best. God didn’t line Mary inside and out with actual gold as He did the Ark of the Covenant but He kept her spotless and reserved her for His Son.

God Bless…teachccd

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sorry I have not been answering the questions posed to me but I have not been on the computer for several days. Just didn’t remember how busy it gets this time of year.

I want to answer them all however, God Bless you all and Have a very Merry Christmas…I’ll catch up eventually…

                                     Old Scholar

 

[Old_Scholar]

Jrichton

Please refer to your original post where you state that Paul spent 3 years getting his “Gospel.”

Now, either Paul is wrong or you are since Paul attests that he did not receive his knowledge from any man but that it was Jesus Christ Himself that enfused (taught) it to him–if he is wrong, then you are promoting a liar as a better Gospel giver!

Paul said he got the message directly from God and the Scriptures say that he increased in strength during the three years he preached in Damascus. Read the Scriptures again.

you forget that it is the Holy Scriptures that place Peter in a singular position within the group of intimate Disciples of Christ… you forget that it was only to Peter that Jesus told of the Church and of the Keys… you forget that it was only to Peter that Jesus gave the specific stewarship of the Church… you forget that it was Jesus Himself that came to Peter and told him about Paul’s conversion…

Sorry but the Scriptures don’t say that. Instead it says the power given to Peter was given to all the apostles. Not just peter.

And please give us the Scriptures that say it was Jesus Himself who came to Peter and told him about Paul’s conversion. Guess I missed that???

I agree with the rest of that particular post you made. I am not demeaning Peter at all. I just do not place him at the high honor you seem to give him. Scriptures tell us that Christ is the head of the church and you seem to think Peter was.

I don’t persecute the Christian Church. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has distorted and changed the Word of God so much and that teaches false doctrines that are not Scriptural.

I have said before, in the first couple of hundred years the Church was united and it was only after the Roman Catholic
Church began, that Scriptures began to be distorted and false doctrines started being taught.

I have asked several times for writings of the early church leaders that show the doctrines that are being taught in the Roman Catholic Church today and no one has offered them, because they don’t exist. Roman Catholics believe what some man has told them and do not believe the Word of God. Christ spoke of that and rebuked those who believed the *doctrines of man *instead of doctrines of His.

The perpetual virginity of Mary didn’t start until around the fourth century. No one believed it until then and it was only after the heretics took over the church that it began to be taught.

Someone hasn’t really studied the history of the church.

I challenge you, show me a Scriptures that places Peter in Rome. Show me a Scripture that teaches a doctrine of Purgatory. Show me a Scripture that speaks of the Immaculate Comception, or that discuses the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, the Scriptures tell us that but the Scriptures also say that Joseph “knew” her after Christ was born.

Show me a Scripture that tells you to pray for the dead. Show me a Scripture that says anyone has gone to heaven except for He who came down from heaven.

I could go on and on but what’s the use. RCC members don’t believe the Bible, they belive what “men” have taught for years. Christ told of what would happen at the end times because of that.

Peace be with you brother. God Bless You…

 

[Ginger2]

How would “the fact that”

Mary’s womb would carry other children lessen the

the Deity of Jesus?

 

[epostle]

Sorry but the Scriptures don’t say that. Instead it says the power given to Peter was given to all the apostles. Not just peter.

Yes, all the Apostles are given authority, but to claim that Jesus gave out 12 sets of keys is a denial of what is clearly written in Scripture, and a denial of the hierarchy that Jesus established. .

Matt. 16:18-19 Blessed are “YOU” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “YOU,” and I tell “YOU,” “YOU” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “YOU” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “YOU” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus does not say , “I will give all the Apostles the keys…”

I agree with the rest of that particular post you made. I am not demeaning Peter at all.

Yes, you are.

I just do not place him at the high honor you seem to give him. Scriptures tell us that Christ is the head of the church and you seem to think Peter was.

Wrong. Catholics think that Jesus is the head of the Church, which is built on Peter and the Apostles. That means the Catholic Church is the most biblical of all. We have not decapitated the Body of Christ on earth.

I don’t persecute the Christian Church. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has distorted and changed the Word of God so much and that teaches false doctrines that are not Scriptural.

The Catholic Church is the only Church that has remained consistent in all her doctrines since the beginning, not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and the historical evidence is their for anyone who wishes to see it. I challenge you name the year and the teaching the Catholic Church allegedly strayed form the truth. No Protestant has been able to answer that.

I have said before, in the first couple of hundred years the Church was united and it was only after the Roman Catholic Church began, that Scriptures began to be distorted and false doctrines started being taught.

This is called historical revisionism. Again, you have not one shred of evidence to support this theory, you cannot give the name of the council or the year when this alleged monumentous event took place that no one noticed until the 16th century. Think about it. If the Church taught an error, someone would have noticed it much sooner that some 1000+ years later.

 

[epostle]

I have asked several times for writings of the early church leaders that show the doctrines that are being taught in the Roman Catholic Church today and no one has offered them, because they don’t exist. Roman Catholics believe what some man has told them and do not believe the Word of God. Christ spoke of that and rebuked those who believed the doctrines of man instead of doctrines of His.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
There are copious amounts of writings from the early church fathers on each of these BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. That information is not hard to come by and it is one reason among many that so many Protestant bible scholars are converting to the Catholic Church. The information age has partly lifted the conspiracy of censorship that has kept Protestants in the dark. There is NOTHING in Tradition that contradicts Scripture.

The perpetual virginity of Mary didn’t start until around the fourth century. No one believed it until then and it was only after the heretics took over the church that it began to be taught.

Someone hasn’t really studied the history of the church.

Then you hold the Council of Nicae to be in error, making you an anti-Protestant. envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

I challenge you, show me a Scriptures that places Peter in Rome. Show me a Scripture… Show me a Scripture…

Show me a Scripture… Show me a Scripture… that says anyone has gone to heaven except for He who came down from heaven.

I can show you a scripture that says Jesus is the Bread that came down from heaven, but you prefer the opinions of men and reject the copious writings of the Apostles immediate followers.

I could go on and on …

On and on with cluster bombing a list of insults based on ignorance and reformist propaganda: no truth, no facts, and no supporting evidence other than the opinions of men whose view of scripture is based on Nominalist philosophy and mere human scholarship, a form of Pelagianism.

Marian Dogmas were not a big deal in the first 4 centuries of the Church, and neither was the Bible, because there wasn’t one as we know it. The doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in clarity at Nicea because the Trinity was under attack by Aruis. These Dogmas took time to develop. Mary was called “Theotokos” at Ephesis not for Mary’s sake, but to defend the Incarnation from the attacks of Nestorius. Nestorius was not born in the first century but the late 3rd. But his heresies are found with most evangelicals to this very day, but they won’t admit it.

 

[teachccd]

Sorry but the Scriptures don’t say that. Instead it says the power given to Peter was given to all the apostles. Not just peter.

And please give us the Scriptures that say it was Jesus Himself who came to Peter and told him about Paul’s conversion. Guess I missed that???

I agree with the rest of that particular post you made. I am not demeaning Peter at all. I just do not place him at the high honor you seem to give him. Scriptures tell us that Christ is the head of the church and you seem to think Peter was.

I don’t persecute the Christian Church. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has distorted and changed the Word of God so much and that teaches false doctrines that are not Scriptural.

I have said before, in the first couple of hundred years the Church was united and it was only after the Roman Catholic
Church began, that Scriptures began to be distorted and false doctrines started being taught.

I have asked several times for writings of the early church leaders that show the doctrines that are being taught in the Roman Catholic Church today and no one has offered them, because they don’t exist. Roman Catholics believe what some man has told them and do not believe the Word of God. Christ spoke of that and rebuked those who believed the *doctrines of man *instead of doctrines of His.

The perpetual virginity of Mary didn’t start until around the fourth century. No one believed it until then and it was only after the heretics took over the church that it began to be taught.

Someone hasn’t really studied the history of the church.

I challenge you, show me a Scriptures that places Peter in Rome. Show me a Scripture that teaches a doctrine of Purgatory. Show me a Scripture that speaks of the Immaculate Comception, or that discuses the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, the Scriptures tell us that but the Scriptures also say that Joseph “knew” her after Christ was born.

Show me a Scripture that tells you to pray for the dead. Show me a Scripture that says anyone has gone to heaven except for He who came down from heaven.

I could go on and on but what’s the use. RCC members don’t believe the Bible, they belive what “men” have taught for years. Christ told of what would happen at the end times because of that.

Peace be with you brother. God Bless You…

Show me a Scripture. Show me a Scripture. Show me a Scripture that says that there were to be 27 books in the New Testament…WHAT?? The Church acknowledged that?? No way! Jesus left us a Bible when He ascended into heaven. WHAT???There was no Bible when Jesus ascended. WHAT DID HIS FOLLOWERS FOLLOW???

Oh My. Christians with no New Testament. Sola Non- Scriptura. A bunch of first century Christians making up their own distorted and false doctrines. WHAT?? And the Bible came from this??

I’m SOOOOOOOOOO Confused. We are to follow a Bible that came from What, When, Where and Who??

Show me a Scripture that says that the Bible is inspired. WHAT???The Book of Mormon says that it’s inspired???Now what do we do?? No authoritative Church and all kinds of books claiming inspiration. What about the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?? It says that it’s inspired and in there John 1:1 it says that the Word was “a god”. What to do now???

Show me a Scripture that says that you must show me a Scripture. But I can show you a Scripture that says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Sola Scriptura is a false and distorted doctrine that resulted when Martin Luther had to remove written Tradition from its source. If you can’t take the Church with its Book then you have to claim that the Book is the source.

The Bible came from the same Church that Martin Luther came from and both believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. WOW!!! How did this Catholic heretic survive a 2000 year history??? Sola Scriptura, of course!!!

God Bless…teachccd

 

[Old_Scholar]

The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
There are copious amounts of writings from the early church fathers on each of these BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. There is NOTHING in Tradition that contradicts Scripture.

Simply not true and still no Scriptures to support what you say!

Then you hold the Council of Nicae to be in error, making you an anti-Protestant. envoymagazine.com/backiss…overstory.html

When did the Council of Nicaea take place? In the fourth century, just as I said.

Please list what the council had to say about the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate conception, praying to the dead, purgatory, and the other things I mentioned above.

Marian Dogmas were not a big deal in the first 4 centuries of the Church, and neither was the Bible, Mary was called “Theotokos” at Ephesis not for Mary’s sake, but to defend the Incarnation from the attacks of Nestorius. Nestorius was not born in the first century but the late 3rd. But his heresies are found with most evangelicals to this very day, but they won’t admit it.

Then we didn’t really need a Bible did we? Just listen to what some men had to say that they think happened and what they wanted to happen.

Why can’t we get Scriptures?

The Catholic Church is the only Church that has remained consistent in all her doctrines since the beginning, not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and the historical evidence is their for anyone who wishes to see it. I challenge you name the year and the teaching the Catholic Church allegedly strayed form the truth. No Protestant has been able to answer that.

This one is a joke. So many Catholic doctrines have been changed. The latest one was Limbo. Check your history.

200 AD - immersion of infants who are dying.
250 AD - infant babptism
257 AD - baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion
300 AD - prayers for the dead
320 AD - special dress code for clergy
325 AD - proposed to prohibit marriage of priests - rejected.
325 AD - date set for Easter
379 AD - praying to Mary & Saints allowed.
385 AD - probihition of clerical marriage
389 AD - Mariolatry begins to protect the virginity of Mary
400 AD - Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved
416 AD - infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants
430 AD - claimed Mary was Mother of God
502 AD - another special dress code for clergy
500 AD - habit for Nuns
519 AD - Lent
526 AD - Extreme Unction
593 AD - doctrine of purgatory
600 AD - First use of Latin in worship
607 AD - First Pope declared Boniface III
608 AD - Boniface turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temply of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of God.
670 AD - first instrumental music
709 AD - Kissing of Pope’s feet
753 AD - Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds.
787 AD - Constantantinople and Rome part ways
965 AD - Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD - burnign of holy candles
995 AD - Canonization of dead saints.
998 AD - Good Friday: fish only and eating red meat forbidden
1009 AD - holy water
1022 AD - penance
1054 AD - Rome splits from the Orthodox Church
1054 AD - RCC officially embraces instrumental music.
1079 AD - celibacy enforced for Priests
1090 AD - Rosary beads invented
1095 AD - instrumentsl music allowed again
1190 AD - sale of indulgences or “tickets to sin”
1215 AD - Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III
1230 AD - ringing of bells at mass
1268 AD - priestly ower of absolution
1311 AD - Baptism by sprinkling accepted again as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick.
1414 AD - Laity no longer offered cup at communion
1439 AD - Purgatory a dogma
1439 AD - Doctrine of Seven Sacraments
1495 AD - Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD - Order of Jesuits created
1545 AD - Man made tradition made equal to Bible
1545 AD - Apocryphal books added to Bible
1546 AD - Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD - mass universally said in Latin
1547 AD - Confirmation
1560 AD - Personal opinions of Pope imposed as official record.
1864 AD - Proclamation that Pope had authority over all civil rulers. Catholic countries could not tolerate other religions.
1870 AD - infallibility of the Pope
1908 AD - All catholics should be christened into the church.
1930 AD - Public schools condemned
1950 AD - Sinners prayer adopted. (made popular by Billy Graham)
1950 AD - Assumption of Mary
1954 AD - Immaculate conception of Mary
1995 AD - use of girls as altar boys
1996 AD - Catholics can believe in evolution

And the doctrine of Limbo has been abolished.

How many changes do you need???

 

[Old_Scholar]

teachccd

Show me a Scripture that says that you must show me a Scripture. But I can show you a Scripture that says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Sola Scriptura is a false and distorted doctrine that resulted when Martin Luther had to remove written Tradition from its source. If you can’t take the Church with its Book then you have to claim that the Book is the source.

Then you don’t mind listing it do you?

Are you not aware that the early church writers all thought Sola Scriptura was the only way to go and that they condemned tradition that could not be backed up by Scripture? Must I show you the quotes? I am sure you must be aware of them. Do you just ignor them?

Why is it that Catholics never like to quote Scripture? Is it because you know it doesn’t agree with your traditon?

Maybe you can show me a writing of the first two centuries where a church leader wrote that tradition was equal to Scripture if it didn’t agree with Scripture…?

 

[Janet_S]

This one is a joke. So many Catholic doctrines have been changed. The latest one was Limbo. Check your history.

200 AD - immersion of infants who are dying.
250 AD - infant babptism
257 AD - baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion
300 AD - prayers for the dead
320 AD - special dress code for clergy
325 AD - proposed to prohibit marriage of priests - rejected.
325 AD - date set for Easter
379 AD - praying to Mary & Saints allowed.
385 AD - probihition of clerical marriage
389 AD - Mariolatry begins to protect the virginity of Mary
400 AD - Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved
416 AD - infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants
430 AD - claimed Mary was Mother of God
502 AD - another special dress code for clergy
500 AD - habit for Nuns
519 AD - Lent
526 AD - Extreme Unction
593 AD - doctrine of purgatory
600 AD - First use of Latin in worship
607 AD - First Pope declared Boniface III
608 AD - Boniface turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temply of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of God.
670 AD - first instrumental music
709 AD - Kissing of Pope’s feet
753 AD - Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds.
787 AD - Constantantinople and Rome part ways
965 AD - Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD - burnign of holy candles
995 AD - Canonization of dead saints.
998 AD - Good Friday: fish only and eating red meat forbidden
1009 AD - holy water
1022 AD - penance
1054 AD - Rome splits from the Orthodox Church
1054 AD - RCC officially embraces instrumental music.
1079 AD - celibacy enforced for Priests
1090 AD - Rosary beads invented
1095 AD - instrumentsl music allowed again
1190 AD - sale of indulgences or “tickets to sin”
1215 AD - Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III
1230 AD - ringing of bells at mass
1268 AD - priestly ower of absolution
1311 AD - Baptism by sprinkling accepted again as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick.
1414 AD - Laity no longer offered cup at communion
1439 AD - Purgatory a dogma
1439 AD - Doctrine of Seven Sacraments
1495 AD - Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD - Order of Jesuits created
1545 AD - Man made tradition made equal to Bible
1545 AD - Apocryphal books added to Bible
1546 AD - Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD - mass universally said in Latin
1547 AD - Confirmation
1560 AD - Personal opinions of Pope imposed as official record.
1864 AD - Proclamation that Pope had authority over all civil rulers. Catholic countries could not tolerate other religions.
1870 AD - infallibility of the Pope
1908 AD - All catholics should be christened into the church.
1930 AD - Public schools condemned
1950 AD - Sinners prayer adopted. (made popular by Billy Graham)
1950 AD - Assumption of Mary
1954 AD - Immaculate conception of Mary
1995 AD - use of girls as altar boys
1996 AD - Catholics can believe in evolution

And the doctrine of Limbo has been abolished.

How many changes do you need???

Your copying and pasting this list is a joke.

Where did it come from?

I’d like to see you try to prove even one of these claims.

This is the famous Boettner list from his book Roman Catholicism. You can read about it here:
christianforums.com/t922262-the-boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html

or here:
catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp

or here:
catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp

or here:
hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num4.htm

 

[epostle]

Nice work, Janet S.

Boettner’s book is so full of falsehoods, most Protestant bible book stores won’t have it on their shelves. We could run several threads on the topic of anti-Catholicism, but I think for the most part the root cause boils down to self-hatred.

 

[Janet_S]

Why is it that Catholics never like to quote Scripture? Is it because you know it doesn’t agree with your traditon?

Catholics quote Scripture quite a lot. Have you ever read a book written by a Catholic? Our Pope Benedict XVI is a Biblical theologian. Here is his latest encyclical:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

Notice all the Bible references.

Maybe you can show me a writing of the first two centuries where a church leader wrote that tradition was equal to Scripture if it didn’t agree with Scripture…?

Catholics don’t believe “tradition is equal to Scripture if it didn’t agree with Scripture.” We believe both Scipture and Tradition are part of God’s Revelation. Since they are both from God, they don’t contradict each other.

As for a writing from the 1st two centuries that reflect the Catholic idea of Scripture and Tradition, I found this writing:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” from St Paul in the 1st century.

 

[epostle]

2 Timothy 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM) 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Is the Magisterium “corrected” by the Scriptures? No, but it is taught, reproved, and trained by it. The Greek grammar at 2Tim 3:16 point does not indicate that all four uses of Scripture must be true in very case. It indicates that any one or all of these will be true.

Interestingly enough in Catholic Tradition the four uses of Scripture corresponded to the Quadriga, the four-fold method of exegesis for the Bible used in the medieval period: Literal (teaching), Analogical (reproof), Prophetic (correction), and Moral (training in righteousness).

The protestant reformers rejected this and tried to reduce biblical exegesis to the literal-historical method. In doing so, they were considered by their Catholic contemporaries as being unbiblical for ignoring 2Tim 3:16.