Sideways cross necklace?

[John317]

Actually, I hadn’t gotten around to approving your comment until last night. If you’ve ever run a blog or forum that didn’t require registration, you’d already know the amount of spam (as in comments that include nothing but a gazillion links) that need to be deleted. I had to get through deleting about 20 spam comments before I even saw yours. But it’s ok that you were quick to judge me.

My post didn’t attack or judge anyone. I expressed a view that obviously many disagreed with. I cautioned against what I see as dogma. Many catholics that I talk to don’t know why they do the things that they do. They do what they are told and that’s dangerous.

I don’t preach. However, when I discover something, I share it. That’s different than the echo-chamber that I’m seeing here so far. I’m not telling people that they are not christian if they don’t agree with me (This forum told me that). The funniest response was being called a Protestant, as if it were a bad word.

It’s telling that you listened to the Gospel about Jesus healing the deaf person with the speech impediment and all you took away from it was that it’s the “other person” that must have their ears closed.

Really smart people once believe that the world was flat, with absolutely nothing credible to base that opinion on, except that is what they were told. When someone questioned it, they were considered crazy, disruptive, and probably disrespectful to question the conventional wisdom. It take courage to question things and the Truth can handle it.

 

[John317]

So, are you saying that other Christian religions aren’t Christian? Jesus recognizes 7 churches, not 1 - all of them Christian and most of them having lost their way by the time he returns.

I don’t remember saying that the profits or Jesus were laughed at, but they obviously were not take seriously by everyone or they would not have been persecuted.

In the bible, Jesus teaches us the Lord Prayer. Where does he teach us the Hail Mary? I can’t find Lent in the bible either. Matthew 6:5-9 talks a lot about how NOT to pray and it sounds very familiar. It is not Anti-Catholic to ask this.

 

[John317]

Q: What is the appropriate address for the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth 2??
A: “Ma’am”.
Not “your worshipful majesty”, nor “oh :bowdown:great & mighty one:bowdown:”. Its “Ma’am”, a nice old fashioned English way of saying…" Woman".

Q: What is the appropriate address for the Virgin Mary, mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ??
A: “Ma’am”, or–Get ready for it–“Woman”, which is what you called the queen in ancient Israel. (Meaning, the :thumbsup:mother of the king, in our case, the mother of Christ).

You need to go brush up on your Warriner’s English Grammar & Composition. (If you can’t find a Warriner’s, I’ve got several someplace around here. When your mother is the high school English teacher in the local school district, you accumulate older printings of Warriner’s that would otherwise have landed in the local dump when they purchased new ones).

:tiphat:Nothing like a little proper etiquette & correction of a lack of education in the fine art of grammar, mechanics, & usage.

No, no, don’t shaw:thank me. You’d have to call ME “ma’am” and that might send you into conniptions, seeing as how you have the peculiar notion that good manners are somehow, someway, the source of all evil.:doh2:

You’ve taken this to a whole new level. Not only judging what I say, but my grammar. Then again, people shackled to the “physical”, like symbols and rituals, tend to cling to that. My wife is a teacher of Literature and Grammar (and not the kind protected by teachers unions) so I am aware that I do not proof read. Some people focus on spelling and others on substance, I suppose.

Calling someone “Ma’am” is a far cry from praying to them. The Brits do refer to the queen as “her Majesty” and the Cardinals are referred to as “your Eminence”, not “sir”. Just look at all of the cooky rules about addressing Clergy. Just think about that. Where did those rules come from? Not Jesus. It sounds lot more like how the Pharisees behaved.

 

[styrgwillidar]

In the bible, Jesus teaches us the Lord Prayer. Where does he teach us the Hail Mary? I can’t find Lent in the bible either. Matthew 6:5-9 talks a lot about how NOT to pray and it sounds very familiar. It is not Anti-Catholic to ask this.

John317,

Why do you care what the Bible says if you don’t accept the authority of the Church in determining the canon of scripture in the first place? Why read or quote the Catholic scripture? If it is so wrong about so many things in your opinion, why put any credence in it’s selection of scripture? If you are able to accept that it has/had the authority to determine scripture, than why reject it’s interpretation of it? If you accept it had the authority to determine scripture because of the authority Jesus gave it to teach, why reject it’s teachings? Why do you believe you’re a better Pope in determining what scripture means than the successor to Peter and the bishops?

ETA: I think why some refer to you as a protestant is due to you appearing to be protesting against the teachings of the Church, the root of the term protestant.

 

[Trishie]

Jesus certainly never would have endorsed praying to Mary, someone he referred to as “woman” on several occasions, (and certainly not hailing her) and in fact said that the only way to God was through HIM.

Jesus did in fact endorse the intercession of Mary in John chapter 21-12. In fact He complied.

Jesus certainly did see her as important. He loved her, and in His agony, still found strength to ask John to take care of her as if she was his own mother.
Mary was important enough to dying Jesus to make arrangements for her, and then He was satisfied that all was completed."Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, ‘Woman, this is your son.’
Then to the disciple he said, ‘This is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, Jesus knew that everything had now been completed and, so that the scripture should be completely fulfilled, he said: I am thirsty.John 19: 26-8

There is also the matter of the wedding feast of Cana, see John 2: 1-12

Mary pointed out to Jesus that the hosts of the wedding feast were running out of wine, a serious breach for those of their culture and not to be desired in ours!
It wasn’t a matter of life-and-death, and Jesus said to her that it wasn’t really His business and that the time for miracles wasn’t yet. Mary, knowing His love for her, quietly told the wine stewards to just do whatever He told them to, but she left things at that.

Jesus, however, in love of His Mother, and before her quiet faith, worked the miracle that she hoped for. She hadn’t pestered Him…just trusted Him.
Before His apostles and anyone else who might have followed events, Jesus ignored His own time-frame and granted the miracle that His Mother had gently hinted for.

Jesus demonstrated how important Mary is right at the beginning of the Church, and what greater authority than the early Saints or the Fathers of the Church than the Son of God Himself.
Jesus is our authority for the importance of Mary.

But then God Himself demonstrated the importance of Mary when out of the billions of women who exist throughout time, God chose Mary to be Mother of humankind’s Redeemer, and entrusted Him to her throughout His infancy and childhood.

Therefore our authority for the importance of Mary is God Himself, so that the Church can accept no less, from beginning of the Church until the end of time!
**
Regarding your objection of Jesus calling Mary “Woman”**

As Jesus addressed Mary as “Woman” when in loving concern, He was providing for her future as he hung dying in agony on the Cross, you can see it is not a cold or unloving word. Remember also that the word is a translation, and not only from a different language but from a different culture.

Surprisingly, perhaps, it was a Protestant source that so far was most helpful:

Pastor Doug: Keep in mind, that’s the King James translation of that phrase ‘woman’; in our language it sounds almost derogatory—it sounds like a motorcycle biker talking to his motorcycle mama—hey, woman, come here. But we don’t understand that that word in Hebrew means ‘madam’. It was a term of respect. You know, Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, ‘Woman, where are your accusers?’ Well, He wasn’t talking down to her.

He was actually addressing her with respect. So when Jesus said to his mother, while He hung on the cross, ‘Woman, behold your son’, ‘Son, behold your mother’, it was a term of respect. In our language—you know how terms change with every generation? Like, you know, fifty years ago you tell someone you’re happy and gay—it had a whole different meaning than it has now. So back in 1611 Woman was a term of respect.

amazingfacts.org/radio/bible-answers-live-question-archive/ctl/playmedia/mid/731/mdid/2420.aspx

Here is another valuable source.

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Further comments available at this site:

cin.org/users/james/questions/q087.htm

 

[Prairie_Rose]

I “googled” the sideways cross necklace and I thought it looked very nice.
One photo shows the wearer, wearing the necklace, with the chain adjusted so the cross is nearer to the collarbone versus the breastbone.
Another photo showed a very nice gem type pendant hanging from the lowest point, with the cross upwards along the collarbone as I noted above.

Neither image gave me any false “connotations” or seemed disrespectful.

I make my own jewelry and thought a Miraculous Medal as the pendant and a sideways cross positioned upward on one side of the chain, might be a very nice design.

In any case, I don’t think the OP’s original post should have ignited such a “tempest in a teapot” However I’ve been wrong before - so I won’t get concerned if y’all think I’m wrong again

Have a lovely day…

 

[John317]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I NEVER said that Mary wasn’t important. In fact I made that pretty clear in my blog and in the original post. My question was in the context of Jesus telling us that (paraphrased) “Nobody gets to the Father but through me” He also on several occasions said that He was the Father and the Father was He. Jesus also taught us how to pray and how NOT to pray.

You can say that you Pray to Mary because she is important and I’d accept that. However, when I hear someone say that they pray to Mary so that Mary will intervene on their behalf somehow…like there’s a better change that Jesus will listen or respond, I want to know where in the Bible that Jesus tells us that.

I pray to Jesus. That’s it. If I need to do anymore than that, then I am saying that praying to Jesus isn’t enough and that seem like an affront to greatness of Jesus to me.

The anger people seem to express when questioned, seems like something I’d expect in the middle east these days and not among Christians.

Jesus did in fact endorse the intercession of Mary in John chapter 21-12. In fact He complied.

Jesus certainly did see her as important. He loved her, and in His agony, still found strength to ask John to take care of her as if she was his own mother.
Mary was important enough to dying Jesus to make arrangements for her, and then He was satisfied that all was completed."Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, ‘Woman, this is your son.’
Then to the disciple he said, ‘This is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, Jesus knew that everything had now been completed and, so that the scripture should be completely fulfilled, he said: I am thirsty.John 19: 26-8

There is also the matter of the wedding feast of Cana, see John 2: 1-12

Mary pointed out to Jesus that the hosts of the wedding feast were running out of wine, a serious breach for those of their culture and not to be desired in ours!
It wasn’t a matter of life-and-death, and Jesus said to her that it wasn’t really His business and that the time for miracles wasn’t yet. Mary, knowing His love for her, quietly told the wine stewards to just do whatever He told them to, but she left things at that.

Jesus, however, in love of His Mother, and before her quiet faith, worked the miracle that she hoped for. She hadn’t pestered Him…just trusted Him.
Before His apostles and anyone else who might have followed events, Jesus ignored His own time-frame and granted the miracle that His Mother had gently hinted for.

Jesus demonstrated how important Mary is right at the beginning of the Church, and what greater authority than the early Saints or the Fathers of the Church than the Son of God Himself.
Jesus is our authority for the importance of Mary.

But then God Himself demonstrated the importance of Mary when out of the billions of women who exist throughout time, God chose Mary to be Mother of humankind’s Redeemer, and entrusted Him to her throughout His infancy and childhood.

Therefore our authority for the importance of Mary is God Himself, so that the Church can accept no less, from beginning of the Church until the end of time!
**
Regarding your objection of Jesus calling Mary “Woman”**

As Jesus addressed Mary as “Woman” when in loving concern, He was providing for her future as he hung dying in agony on the Cross, you can see it is not a cold or unloving word. Remember also that the word is a translation, and not only from a different language but from a different culture.

Surprisingly, perhaps, it was a Protestant source that so far was most helpful:

Pastor Doug: Keep in mind, that’s the King James translation of that phrase ‘woman’; in our language it sounds almost derogatory—it sounds like a motorcycle biker talking to his motorcycle mama—hey, woman, come here. But we don’t understand that that word in Hebrew means ‘madam’. It was a term of respect. You know, Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, ‘Woman, where are your accusers?’ Well, He wasn’t talking down to her.

He was actually addressing her with respect. So when Jesus said to his mother, while He hung on the cross, ‘Woman, behold your son’, ‘Son, behold your mother’, it was a term of respect. In our language—you know how terms change with every generation? Like, you know, fifty years ago you tell someone you’re happy and gay—it had a whole different meaning than it has now. So back in 1611 Woman was a term of respect.

amazingfacts.org/radio/bible-answers-live-question-archive/ctl/playmedia/mid/731/mdid/2420.aspx

Here is another valuable source.

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Further comments available at this site:

cin.org/users/james/questions/q087.htm

 

[maryjk]

In any case, I don’t think the OP’s original post should have ignited such a “tempest in a teapot” However I’ve been wrong before - so I won’t get concerned if y’all think I’m wrong again

Have a lovely day…

Oh, you are right.

But when people come on to the site to attack Catholicism, they generally try to springboard off of another post rather than owning up to what they want to do by starting a new thread. Sad isn’t it?

 

[John317]

You’re making my point. You are putting the Catholic Church (which over the course of my lifetime has changed it’s mind on many of it’s laws) over the word of God (Bible). The Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible. If it did, things like Lent surely would be in there.

The Bible is not Catholic. The first 5 books of the Old Testament is considered The Book of Moses or the Torah is Judaism. Everything else is Christian. I don’t know the Protestant religion…do they have a different Bible? I know the Morman’s do…but that a whole other thread. lol.

I’m saying that I care about what the Bible says FIRST and if theres something that ANYONE else injects, I want to know the basis for it. When I was growing up there were no “Altar girls” but there are now. There were no “lay people” allow to give out the Eucharist. When my parents were growing up you couldn’t eat meat on Fridays (any Friday). Then there is the whole “Vatican 2” thing. I’m not even sure why Mass is on Sunday and not Saturday, since Saturday is the 7th day and hence the Sabbath. I’m not interested in hearing any explanations or go tit-for-tat on any of these things. The point is that it gives the appearance that the Catholic Church is more like a governent that makes us it’s own rules as it sees fit rather than purely teaching God’s laws.

I’m also saying that, in absence of a bibical reference, it seems like the Vatican has added in some of it’s own rules (Man’s law) and Jesus warns us about that.

John317,

Why do you care what the Bible says if you don’t accept the authority of the Church in determining the canon of scripture in the first place? Why read or quote the Catholic scripture? If it is so wrong about so many things in your opinion, why put any credence in it’s selection of scripture? If you are able to accept that it has/had the authority to determine scripture, than why reject it’s interpretation of it? If you accept it had the authority to determine scripture because of the authority Jesus gave it to teach, why reject it’s teachings? Why do you believe you’re a better Pope in determining what scripture means than the successor to Peter and the bishops?

ETA: I think why some refer to you as a protestant is due to you appearing to be protesting against the teachings of the Church, the root of the term protestant.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You’re making my point. You are putting the Catholic Church (which over the course of my lifetime has changed it’s mind on many of it’s laws) over the word of God (Bible). The Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible. If it did, things like Lent surely would be in there.

But John, you only have the Catholic Church’s word that the Bible is the word of God. If you reject the Catholic Church’s authority to determine scripture, what authority do you cite?

The Bible is not Catholic. The first 5 books of the Old Testament is considered The Book of Moses or the Torah is Judaism. Everything else is Christian. I don’t know the Protestant religion…do they have a different Bible? I know the Morman’s do…but that a whole other thread. lol.

But the inclusion of all of the various books into the canon of scripture which constitutes the Bible was a decision of the Catholic Church. If you reject it’s authority, again what’s your basis for claiming the Bible is the word of God?

Yes, the protestant Bible is different than the Catholic Bible. The protestants rejected 7 books which the Catholic Church includes in the Bible. Additionally, Martin Luther changed a couple of key phrase in his translation to support his assertion of being saved by ‘Faith Alone’. He also wanted to eliminate James due to its obviously conflicting with saved by faith alone, but couldn’t convince his initial followers to concur.

I’m saying that I care about what the Bible says FIRST and if theres something that ANYONE else injects, I want to know the basis for it.

Because the Bible itself, as I posted above, stated that it does not contain the entirety of the faith or teachings of the apostles. That was entrusted to the Church.

Funny how many protestant preachers insist they only care about what the Bible says FIRST. But than all of them end up disagreeing on what the things they Bible says actual mean. Their interpretations differ widely. How can I be assured your interpretations are correct, especially when I can point to you in the Bible where it says there is more than the written word? Limiting yourself to just the Bible contradicts what the Bible actually says. Again, as I posted previously.

When I was growing up there were no “Altar girls” but there are now. There were no “lay people” allow to give out the Eucharist. When my parents were growing up you couldn’t eat meat on Fridays (any Friday). Then there is the whole “Vatican 2” thing. I’m not even sure why Mass is on Sunday and not Saturday, since Saturday is the 7th day and hence the Sabbath. I’m not interested in hearing any explanations or go tit-for-tat on any of these things. The point is that it gives the appearance that the Catholic Church is more like a government that makes us it’s own rules as it sees fit rather than purely teaching God’s laws.

I’m sorry if you are confusing disciplines with doctrine. It would certainly benefit you to read the catechism as well as studying the Church’s history for better understanding. For example, you’ll find that as early as 140 AD the mass was being held on sunday.

I’m also saying that, in absence of a bibical reference, it seems like the Vatican has added in some of it’s own rules (Man’s law) and Jesus warns us about that.

Well, the Church is doing it’s job within the authority given it by Christ to guide his sheep, tend his flock. I could point out to you in the Bible where that’s stated.

But again,*** if you convince me the Church is wrong and has no authority, than I must reject the Bible as the word of God*** since it was the Catholic Church which decided on what constitutes the Bible. (Well, Luther defined the Protestant Bible).

In my faith journey I reached a point where I questioned whether I was Catholic simply because I had been raised that way, or because I truly believed. I did quite a bit of research on early Church history and the various heresies, disputes and how they were settled. I found that the Catholic Church’s doctrine is the only one consistent with the early Church prior to the canon of scripture being determined. Which is why I do not agree with Luther’s changes to scripture.

Please remember, the apostles didn’t teach from a Bible. They preached the word of God, they taught as Jesus taught- by speaking to the crowds.

ETA: A good book you may want to read is “Surprised by Truth” it is the accounts of a number of Protestant ministers conversion to the Catholic faith. Most of them having struggled with the contradiction of relying on the Bible alone when so many of them couldn’t agree on what it actually means. All reading the same words and interpreting them differently.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…I know the Morman’s do…but that a whole other thread. lol.

Sorry, forgot, above is where you make my point. Why should I accept the Bible (either version) as the word of God vice the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? Or any other book purported to be scripture?

 

[John317]

I’ve been very honest and forthcoming about my background. Not knowing anything about Protestant religion(s), so read up on Martin Luther and what led to the Protestant split. Based on what I’ve read, it seems like Martin Luther wrote a letter that enumerated concerns that he had with the Catholic Church and is was mostly with corruption and the sale of indulgences. It seems that this wasn’t well received and it seems he and other people that felt they were trying to reform the church got excommunicated.

In reading about Martin Luther, I was really surprised that many of the things he questioned are the things I have raised in my posts here. I say that because someone wrote that “a protestant must have gotten to me” and that certainly was not the case. All of the opinions I have expressed, I came to on my own. Like I mentioned, I knew nothing of the Protestant religion, and while I had heard of Martin Luther, and of “Lutherans” and other religions, never knew their histories or that they were Protestant.

So, if you say my questions and belief in the Bible disqualify me as a Catholic, so be it. Like I said. It’s all about Jesus, not a religion/church. But I will also say that I am certainly not a Protestant. No need for me to give up one man’s religion for another.

I also not understand many of the comments I’ve received from this forum because there seems to be a “with us or against us” mentality that ironically also gives me a better appreciation of what Martin Luther experienced when he raised his questions and concerns.

In my faith journey I reached a point where I questioned whether I was Catholic simply because I had been raised that way, or because I truly believed. I did quite a bit of research on early Church history and the various heresies, disputes and how they were settled. I found that the Catholic Church’s doctrine is the only one consistent with the early Church prior to the canon of scripture being determined. Which is why I do not agree with Luther’s changes to scripture.

Please remember, the apostles didn’t teach from a Bible. They preached the word of God, they taught as Jesus taught- by speaking to the crowds.

ETA: A good book you may want to read is “Surprised by Truth” it is the accounts of a number of Protestant ministers conversion to the Catholic faith. Most of them having struggled with the contradiction of relying on the Bible alone when so many of them couldn’t agree on what it actually means. All reading the same words and interpreting them differently.

 

[arrowkeeper]

…from DictionaryOfSymbols by Carl G. Liungman,pg244: the SidewaysCross is the cross of Philip"…a latin cross on its side…St.Philip was crucified on a cross in this position…" it seems that Nordic Countries use this symbol on their flags as well…also according to this book TheDanishFlag believed to be the OLDEST national flag on Earth uses this symbol as well…

 

[jc4751]

I’ve been very honest and forthcoming about my background. Not knowing anything about Protestant religion(s), so read up on Martin Luther and what led to the Protestant split. Based on what I’ve read, it seems like Martin Luther wrote a letter that enumerated concerns that he had with the Catholic Church and is was mostly with corruption and the sale of indulgences. It seems that this wasn’t well received and it seems he and other people that felt they were trying to reform the church got excommunicated.

In reading about Martin Luther, I was really surprised that many of the things he questioned are the things I have raised in my posts here. I say that because someone wrote that “a protestant must have gotten to me” and that certainly was not the case. All of the opinions I have expressed, I came to on my own. Like I mentioned, I knew nothing of the Protestant religion, and while I had heard of Martin Luther, and of “Lutherans” and other religions, never knew their histories or that they were Protestant.

So, if you say my questions and belief in the Bible disqualify me as a Catholic, so be it. Like I said. It’s all about Jesus, not a religion/church. But I will also say that I am certainly not a Protestant. No need for me to give up one man’s religion for another.

I also not understand many of the comments I’ve received from this forum because there seems to be a “with us or against us” mentality that ironically also gives me a better appreciation of what Martin Luther experienced when he raised his questions and concerns.

I’m a little surprised that anyone with even a passing knowledge of religion would not claim to know that Martin Luther or the Lutherans were Protestant. After all, Luther was in the vanguard of a movement that cleaved the beautiful notion of Christendom in half, and rocked the foundations of Europe to its very core. That is why I think people are expressing the opinion that you’re being disingenuous with your postings.

The Protestant movement should probably be viewed in the context of 16th century politics as well, meaning it gets a lot more complicated than can be easily discussed on a few thumbnail forum posts. It was as much a product of secular conflict as it was of differing religious opinion (Lutheran liturgy from what I understand is fairly similar to the Catholic Mass). In some ways, the Protestants who rail against the Church aren’t much different from the Japanese soldiers who were left on islands and not found until thirty years after WW2 was over – they’re still fighting a battle against the “Black Legend” that has been irrelevant ever since currency inflation torpedoed the Spanish Empire in the 1700s.

Part of my family is Baptist and we attend their services now and then, and vice-versa, as a courtesy and mutual respect. Last time I was there, the preacher started out his sermon by quoting Matthew 16:18 and then arguing against what the Bible itself says, that Jesus meant himself as “this rock,” which is torturing language beyond sense. It’s funny how people have faith in Jesus, and his infallibility, except when it came to establishing his Church on earth. It makes no sense, no more than saying Jesus was “wise,” but not the Son of God. Can’t have it both ways.

I think when you refer to a “us vs. them” mentality, there is the issue that the Church is the WHOLE Church, not bits and pieces of Christianity, based on the temporal circumstances of what people chose to practice and chose not to practice, often affected by the ambient culture. A good example is probably contraception. Most Protestants I know have no real issue with it, because they have one foot in the secular culture and don’t understand the theology behind the Church’s position on this matter. In times past, it has been other issues.

The thing is, the Church is built on the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and does not waver from it. The notion that Catholics live and die by the Missal is erroneous – my Bible is dirty, dog-eared, and looks like it has been used in a bar fight. Most Catholics I know have a shelf with three or four of them, at a minimum. We study the Bible, too. The defense of the Church is essentially the defense of the foundation of Christian civilization in the world and the defense of humanity against the devil and his earthly servants who want nothing less than to obliterate it.

I don’t know where you’re coming from, or going, and that’s God’s business, not mine. I love you as a human being, and a Christian, whatever the circumstances. If nothing more, you don’t seem to be serving the “Culture of Death” and that’s something to build on.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’ve been very honest and forthcoming about my background. Not knowing anything about Protestant religion(s), so read up on Martin Luther and what led to the Protestant split. Based on what I’ve read, it seems like Martin Luther wrote a letter that enumerated concerns that he had with the Catholic Church and is was mostly with corruption and the sale of indulgences. It seems that this wasn’t well received and it seems he and other people that felt they were trying to reform the church got excommunicated.

In reading about Martin Luther, I was really surprised that many of the things he questioned are the things I have raised in my posts here. I say that because someone wrote that “a protestant must have gotten to me” and that certainly was not the case. All of the opinions I have expressed, I came to on my own. Like I mentioned, I knew nothing of the Protestant religion, and while I had heard of Martin Luther, and of “Lutherans” and other religions, never knew their histories or that they were Protestant.

So, if you say my questions and belief in the Bible disqualify me as a Catholic, so be it. Like I said. It’s all about Jesus, not a religion/church. But I will also say that I am certainly not a Protestant. No need for me to give up one man’s religion for another.

I also not understand many of the comments I’ve received from this forum because there seems to be a “with us or against us” mentality that ironically also gives me a better appreciation of what Martin Luther experienced when he raised his questions and concerns.

John317, my sincere apologies if you believe I have questioned your sincerity in any way. I have considered many of the points you have raised, and as I indicated I have questioned the Church at times. But for me it has come down to authority. As I asked you, why accept the Bible as the word of God? The only rationale I have been able to come up with is the authority of the Catholic Church.

This really is better suited to the apologetics forum. I do appreciate your time in expressing your thoughts and engaging in conversation.

Christ’s peace be with you always.

 

[jamison]

John, you all you have done is throw every bring against the wall to see what sticks. No one will engage those type of posts. Handle each subject one at a time in a thread and it will be dealt with. Making completely baseless and unfactual claims such as “Catholics have replaced the bible with a missal”, completely discredits you. You’re either on here because you’re seeking (in which case, start a thread) or because you think you can convert Catholics who don’t know their faith. Wrong place for that. Please address any concerns with the Catholic Church in a thread and we shall address them.

 

[Maryjg69]

If we can’t pray to Mary or saints, then the anti catholic should never pray for anyone else either. Each pray alone to God.
I always here from non Catholics, “I’ll pray for you”. If I don’t need Mary or any saints then I sure don’t need a human.
I have personally had miracles when my friends pray for me. Can’t imagine if a saint or Mary chose to take up my problems.

 

[MarieAntoin]

I have noticed these for sometime now. My personal intuition said that this sideway cross is half way to the upside down cross used by Satanist. Also, side ways symbolizes that the Crucifiction was not complete. And I also thought of “knocking you sideways” an expression indicatating that you have been defeated. I do not think this is anything but blasphemy. I sell fashion jewelry and will not sell these. Hope this helps.

 

[SurlyMermaid]

One of my fantastic co-workers has a bracelet with a sideways cross. She’s a Christian by what she says and how she conducts herself. She’s just an absolute poster child for being “Christ-like.”

 

[boop47]

Should not judge and should just be reminder what Jesus what Jesus did for us. So anyway I see someone wearing it a cros is a cross is a cross.