SPLIT: Help Refute This Mary Chart

[SPH1]

The chart is typical anti-Catholic propaganda, deliberately intended to deceive and mislead and on a sub-rational level.

IMO, one reason these kinds of Protestants sweep Mary under the rug is because they are ashamed of Mary and the infant Christ. It looks too much like Isis and her kid to them.

 

[Cling2Cross]

Who gave you authority to damned people? Well, there are these supposed Catholic who do not believe what the CC teaches, especially about Mary are poorly catechized in the faith.

Our belief concerning Mary is Biblical and the writings of the ECF affirms our beliefs. These were handed down to us. The Church has the authority to declare this so. Second, you aren’t the first one who cite the Glories of Mary. That is just a devotional expression for the love of Mary.

It is no different than me writing to a girlfriend, expressing my deep love for her. I have often heard married couples, say to one another. “You are my love, my life, my hope, my precious.” When they say this, does it mean they worship them above God? Hogwash…

I did not damn them - they damned themselves in accordance with statements of the Pope who said if you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception - you are damned. So…if they do not agree, then they are damned.

 

[EphelDuath]

I did not damn them - they damned themselves in accordance with statements of the Pope who said if you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception - you are damned.

That is not a teaching from the Magisterium. If it is, quote a Church document immediately.

 

[Cling2Cross]

No, I think Cling2Cross is saying that he knows a lot of “damned” people, as in, people that he thinks the Catholic Church would consider “damned” for denying a Catholic doctrine. He isn’t saying that he agrees they are damned. In other words, he is saying, “I know a lot of people who reject this Catholic teaching even though they consider themselves Catholic.”

But Cling2Cross, I am confused. Have you personally read “The Glories of Mary?”

No - do I have to?

 

[Cling2Cross]

That is not a teaching from the Magisterium. If it is, quote a Church document immediately.

Posting 9 in bold at the bottom.

 

[SPH1]

I did not damn them - they damned themselves in accordance with statements of the Pope who said if you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception - you are damned. So…if they do not agree, then they are damned.

Even if everything you say about the supposed Papal statement were true (which I doubt), IMO, so what?

 

[EphelDuath]

Posting 9 in bold at the bottom.

That Papal quote condemns heresy. Not understanding a Church doctrine is not heresy, it is ignorance. God damns no one for ignorance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I did not damn them - they damned themselves in accordance with statements of the Pope who said if you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception - you are damned. So…if they do not agree, then they are damned.

Well, actually the Document that declare Mary to be Immaculate does not declare the unbeliever to be damned. It is required for all Catholic faithful to believed. It is no different than the belief of the Trinity.

Let me quote you the entire context of the Document. The document is called Ineffabilis Deus written in 1854 by Pope XI.

Look at the document yourself and it made no mention of damning anyone who doesn’t believe in it.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

I have no idea where you get this Anti-Catholic bias you have. I’m pretty sure the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has look into this dogma seriously. It is part of the deposit of faith. Prior to this, as early as the 3rd Century, the Early Church Fathers believe Mary to be sinless, pure.

The document doesn’t damn anyone but does made this statement.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

This of course pertains to the Catholic faithful, not Non-Catholic Christians. The statement doesn’t say that the Church damned you, rather, the man who doubt this belief condemned himself, not the Church.

Get your facts straight my friend.

 

[Scottgun]

No - do I have to?

If you want any credibility on the subject with people who have, you ought to. Otherwise it’s second-hand cut-n-paste. (and needs proper citation to boot). As it was in algebra class, we need to show our work.

 

[Cling2Cross]

Well, actually the Document that declare Mary to be Immaculate does not declare the unbeliever to be damned. It is required for all Catholic faithful to believed. It is no different than the belief of the Trinity.

Let me quote you the entire context of the Document. The document is called Ineffabilis Deus written in 1854 by Pope XI.

Look at the document yourself and it made no mention of damning anyone who doesn’t believe in it.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

I have no idea where you get this Anti-Catholic bias you have. I’m pretty sure the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has look into this dogma seriously. It is part of the deposit of faith. Prior to this, as early as the 3rd Century, the Early Church Fathers believe Mary to be sinless, pure.

The document doesn’t damn anyone but does made this statement.

This of course pertains to the Catholic faithful, not Non-Catholic Christians. The statement doesn’t say that the Church damned you, rather, the man who doubt this belief condemned himself, not the Church.

Get your facts straight my friend.

Accountable.

 

[Cling2Cross]

If you want any credibility on the subject with people who have, you ought to. Otherwise it’s second-hand cut-n-paste. (and needs proper citation to boot). As it was in algebra class, we need to show our work.

This is a cop-out

 

[Mannyfit75]

Accountable.

The person himself is held accountible. It is much like, a person who is damned himself. A Catholic who does not believe this is guilty of the sin of heresy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

2089 Incredulity is** the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it**. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

The Church throughout history has never damned anyone to hell for heresy. Like I said, get your facts straight, Protestant.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

here is an assumption sent to me via my latest debate on a certain website…what can you say about this?

http://i4.tinypic.com/89hbcdw.jpg

What is there to refute ? Everything in the second column is accurate (though it would be even more accurate to say that she was supernaturalised rather than supernatural)​

Only what is untrue is refutable - & the claims about Catholic ideas & practices are as described; so they cannot be refuted. Whether the CC is right to allow, believe or practice them, is a completely different issue.

So what’s the problem ?

 

[heisenburg]

This is a cop-out

I am confused,

How is asking for a source a cop out. People have and will post anything they want to and SAY it is fact. For example, there is a SDA myth around that says the name on the papal tiara adds up to the number 666. However, there is no proof for it. In fact, it has easily been shown as a fraud.

Someone Lied.

I could say that the Baptist church is a descendant of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra, and that their general belief in OSAS is really rooted in pagan ideas of making deals to ensure ones security. I could go on to say that this was taught by the head of the Southern Baptist Convention in the year 1913 as one of their few ‘Authoritative’ statements.

However, It would be lying…

If you then asked me for proof and I refused. Who is actually copping out?

You the individual attempting to verify my statement? or Me for failing to provide the source…

Asking for a source when claims are made is the first step in ANY proceeding. Whether legal, scientific, or religious.

If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up WITH sources, otherwise you have no credibility at best, or a liar and deceiver at worst.

In Christ

 

[Church_Militant]

I love your strong and emotional language. Garbage! Ha.

You’re welcome. Regardless… the allegation is still garbage.

By the way, I know a lot of damned people because they do not believe everything about Mary that the CC teaches.

If you say so, though that’s completely irrelevant to this discussion. I won’t even bother with the similar statement that can be made regarding those who differ with any given n-C interpretation.

Probably about 90% of the Catholics that I have ever talked to about these very issues.

and here again, the same applies.

All of this is irrelevant.

Pick a column and make your case in support of it or don’t, but let’s stick to the topic. The Glories of Mary are not anywhere an issue here though we’ve answered it anyway.

Now…was there something that you agree with on that chart and why?