Struggling with converting to Catholicism

[tgGodsway]

You have taken it out of context to make it support your statement which it does not.

There is a transcending truth here that goes beyond the specifics of Matthew 18, otherwise Jesus would not have borrowed it from Deut. 17. Paul would not have borrowed it in the context he used it. Getting to the truth of a matter requires real and tangible witnesses, is my point. That is not out of context.

 

[tgGodsway]

Pardon me if I am lost here in your post. What are you trying to say here?

 

[tgGodsway]

The Apostles knew her well, and she was with them in the Upper Room at Pentecost, and was an ongoing resource for them throughout her life. No one on the face of the earth spent more time with Jesus than she.

I agree with your statement here. But there is no argument that Mary was part of that inner circle of believers. We know she was.

But the RCC elevated her way beyond this. Today she is called the queen of heaven, a sinless birth and life along with a miraculous ascension to sit at Jesus side and make intercession for the Church.

She has been set apart from that inner circle and exalted beyond the narrative of any passage of scripture. There is no inspired and infallible record that placed her there, only an un-confirmed tradition.

 

[fhansen]

-I have read articles of Catholics that flock to the streets to have a chance to touch the Black Nazarene statue as they believe it somehow has the power to work miracles. People fighting one another just to get close to the statue as if it were a real person. I know that this has been referred to as “devotion” by Pope Innocent X. How is this not considered idol worship since they are putting their faith and belief in the statue itself? Why is it so important to touch this statue when it is only a material thing that was created by the hands of men here on earth?

-Mary’s immaculate conception has been explained as though she was born free of original sin because of the merits of Jesus future birth, death, and resurrection. That God kept her free of sin because of her going to give birth to Jesus. However, what if she would have said no to the request from God to give birth to Jesus? She would have been given the gift of freedom from original sin for no reason. Some may argue that God saw the future and knew she would say yes and that’s why she was kept free of original sin. However, would that not also mean that God chose her because he knew she would say yes? If that were the case would that not downplay the veneration and adoration that she is given for saying yes to God since she would have simply been hand selected by God himself because he knew she would say yes? Does it not seem even more plausible and even a greater feat that she instead was not given the gift of freedom from original sin, but that she lived such a perfect life to God’s standards that she found favor with God and this is why she was approached by Him to give birth to His son? Some may argue that without her being free from original sin then Jesus wouldn’t have been free from it as well since he was born from her womb. However, why is it not considered just as easy for God to keep Jesus free from original sin through His conception just as it was thought that God did for Mary? If Mary needed to be free from original sin to keep Jesus from it since he was to be born of her womb, would that not also mean that Mary’s mother would have needed to be free of original sin as well to keep Mary from it and then Mary’s Grandmother to keep Mary’s mother from it and so on and so forth? Would it not make more sense that Jesus conception was indeed the immaculate one and not Mary’s?

Mary was always free to say “no”. And the extreme practices you mentioned are done by a similarly extreme minority.

 

[hope]

There is a transcending truth here that goes beyond the specifics of Matthew 18, otherwise Jesus would not have borrowed it from Deut. 17. Paul would not have borrowed it in the context he used it. Getting to the truth of a matter requires real and tangible witnesses, is my point. That is not out of context.

Jesus borrowed nothing it was His to begin with as He is God and as you have said Scripture is inspired by God. You used scripture to prove that in order to believe in the Immaculate Conception we needed witnesses. Belief doesn’t need a witness. Truth does not need a witness. When the scripture speak of witness it is about accusing others of sin. It isn’t about belief.

Okay… so the Apostles and Dr. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, plus Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s narrative-gospels who recorded the eye-witnesses at the empty grave, is all we’ve got. The three Marys who witnesses the grave mean nothing? Add to all of this, the historical records outside of the scriptures, both oral and documented. Do they not make a compelling case?.. unless these records are not real and these people didn’t exist. But if that is true, we could also say the same thing about Jesus himself. I choose to believe the documented records, the oral traditions, and, most importantly, the scriptures.

I didn’t say or indicate any of this.

Pardon me if I am lost here in your post. What are you trying to say here?

We are both lost. I don’t know what you are referring to? I would clarify if I could.

 

[guanophore]

But the RCC elevated her way beyond this. Today she is called the queen of heaven, a sinless birth and life along with a miraculous ascension to sit at Jesus side and make intercession for the Church.

I think you have misunderstood what has occurred, tgG. The RCC did not “elevate” Mary, Jesus did this. And the recognition of this started in Palestine, then moved East to Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians. We know this is not a “Roman” invention because it exists in the East before and after the Schism.

Have you ever read about the role of the King’s mother (the gebirah?) You are strong on your OT prototypes, so can you see how this applies?

1 Kings 2:19
19 So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.

Jesus honored both His mother and father, according to the commandment.

Mary recognized after the visitation how signifcant her role would be.

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

He who is mighty has done great things for her.

But you are wrong about “ascension”. She is a creature, and cannot raise herself as Jesus did. She was raised by Him, and taken to Him. This is why we call it the Assumption. She sits as the Gebirah, next to the throne of her son.

 

[tgGodsway]

Again taken out of context and strung to another verse to try to support your view.

I disagree. I’ll give you another one. The SUM of Thy word is Truth, Ps. 119:160. ESV

-the word sum=added parts. its an accounting term

You do not arrive at a “truth” until or unless all the added parts (testifying witnesses) on that given subject come together and agree. This is why your famous Mt. 16 passage on Peter fails to persuade us. There is no other voice (witnesses from scripture) to agree. And push come to shove, the argument by itself does not stand on its own. (but that is neither here nor there.)

This concept is similar to the one I gave you, how the truth is established only when real witnesses come together to establish that truth. The principle of a three-fold cord is not easily broken only supports the principle.

Jesus said, if two will AGREE on earth as touching (identifying with) anything they ask, it shall be done for them…" Mt. 18:19. The message here is: agreement by at least two people (through prayer) or otherwise will grant them their answer.

Independent testimony, such as unchecked tradition, on the other hand, will not establish the truth.

Biblical witnesses become the support beams to the structure. Without them, the tradition by itself is not rooted and established.

Paul was administering discipline in 2nd. Cor. 13 and applied this biblical principle to get to the truth of the matter on the specifics he needed. That is not out of context. Your splitting hairs.

 

[guanophore]

You do not arrive at a “truth” until or unless all the added parts (testifying witnesses) on that given subject come together and agree.

I agree. It is just that we have more Source than you, because you are confined only to the Scriptures. This is the consequence to those who refused the Apostolic command:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

It is not your fault. You cannot stand firm in that which you never received.

This is why your famous Mt. 16 passage on Peter fails to persuade us. There is no other voice (witnesses from scripture) to agree. And push come to shove, the argument by itself does not stand on its own. (but that is neither here nor there.)

Although I disagree, I do understand how it seems that way to you, lacking part of the divine deposit of faith as you do.

Biblical witnesses become the support beams to the structure. Without them, the tradition by itself is not rooted and established.

I think this works both ways, as all the early heresies were fought with the Sacred Tradition from the Apostles, along with the Scripture. The Church is also the pillar and ground of the Truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture work together to uphold the Truth.

 

[tgGodsway]

Indeed not. You are your own prophet!

This might be true on this web site, but millions of people around the world represent the views I’ve offered here.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

If I were you @tgGodsway, I would take a break from arguing about Mary and do some studying about her first. Read these two books:
Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples
Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn
They’re both on Amazon.
Read them with an open mind, just so you can hear the Catholic position in a calm, logical sequence, instead of fighting on an internet forum. This fight is getting you nowhere. So read and study, and after reading those two books, if you’re still not convinced but still interested, then come back for some more recommendations.
Also, start listening to Catholic radio, like EWTN or Relevant Radio (they both have apps). Visit The Journey Home, with Marcus Grodi - The Coming Home Network for Marcus Grodi’s resources. Also visit Calledtocommunion.com and listen to their shows. And the main Catholic Answers website has tons of articles and resources as well. If you want to know the truth about Mary and the Church, you gotta start digging for it.

@KnowledgeSeeker I got temporarily confused and thought tgGodsway was the OP. I’m sorry your thread got so derailed. I hope some of the resources I listed would be of use to you, as well.

 

[hope]

I disagree. I’ll give you another one. The SUM of Thy word is Truth, Ps. 119:160. ESV

-the word sum=added parts. its an accounting term

You do not arrive at a “truth” until or unless all the added parts (testifying witnesses) on that given subject come together and agree.

Other translations are:
Your every word is enduring; all your just edicts are forever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
All of your words are truth. Every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever
All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. >Sin and Shin
The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever
Sum here is speaking of the total word of God

This is why your famous Mt. 16 passage on Peter fails to persuade us. There is no other voice (witnesses from scripture) to agree. And push come to shove, the argument by itself does not stand on its own. (but that is neither here nor there.)

I don’t believe there has to be but if you want some then try
Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13 Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2 Lk 22:32
As someone else said, you don’t find things looking through your prism of Protestantism.

Pilate asked him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, `You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.
‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’

The idea that truth is only established by witnesses is false

 

[hope]

This might be true on this web site, but millions of people around the world represent the views I’ve offered here.

Fallacy Appeal to Common Belief

 

[tgGodsway]

You made some really good points fhansen.

I do not buy-in to the premise that says Jesus could not be sinless UNLESS Mary was sinless. Is it not a miracle in of itself that Jesus was sinless through a person who had the stain of original sin?

To me, that is more of a miracle where God alone gets the glory.

Someone had to have made this decision to go with a sinless Mary with the belief that unless she was sinless, Jesus could not be sinless. It wasn’t the Apostolic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus said, if two will AGREE on earth as touching (identifying with) anything they ask, it shall be done for them…" Mt. 18:19. The message here is: agreement by at least two people (through prayer) or otherwise will grant them their answer.

If you believe this, then why do you think when the believers prayed that all things taught to them by the Apostles would be brought back into their minds, God did not do it?

 

[steve-b]

I was raised Protestant and recently discovered the Catholic Church was the one created by the apostles. I want to join and go through the RCIA,

You just acknowledged that you’ve come to the knowledge of truth. You found His Church. The only one He founded on Peter and those in complete union with him.

KnowledgeSeeker:

-I see so many videos of Catholics walking around and carrying these massive statues of Mary that are adorned with different clothing and golden fixtures. Almost as if they are worshiping them. I understand that Mary said yes to God, but so did Jesus when he chose to go through with his crucifixion. Was Jesus “yes” not so much greater than Mary’s? Why not have these large processions carrying a statue of Jesus instead of Mary?

-I have read articles of Catholics that flock to the streets to have a chance to touch the Black Nazarene statue as they believe it somehow has the power to work miracles. People fighting one another just to get close to the statue as if it were a real person. I know that this has been referred to as “devotion” by Pope Innocent X. How is this not considered idol worship since they are putting their faith and belief in the statue itself? Why is it so important to touch this statue when it is only a material thing that was created by the hands of men here on earth?

-Mary’s immaculate conception has been explained as though she was born free of original sin because of the merits of Jesus future birth, death, and resurrection. That God kept her free of sin because of her going to give birth to Jesus. However, what if she would have said no to the request from God to give birth to Jesus? She would have been given the gift of freedom from original sin for no reason. Some may argue that God saw the future and knew she would say yes and that’s why she was kept free of original sin. However, would that not also mean that God chose her because he knew she would say yes? If that were the case would that not downplay the veneration and adoration that she is given for saying yes to God since she would have simply been hand selected by God himself because he knew she would say yes?

[snip for space]

KnowledgeSeeker,

Jesus promises, NOT EVEN THE GATES OF HELL will prevail against my Church. Do you believe Him and His PROMISE for His Church?

Re: Mary and statues of her I say to these critics,

• never take another picture of someone or something they love , putting such reminders on home walls and display, and instead, burn all the [pictures and momentos they have] don’t ever look on these EVER AGAIN.

How many of those critics do you think will do that to their stash of photos etc.? After all to look on them is worship (in their words).

May I suggest a better sequence of questions.

• what’s the benefit of being in His only Church and following all the Church teaches?
• What’s the consequences for one knowing the Catholic Church was created by Jesus and won’t be in His Church or remain in it?

 

[hope]

Someone had to have made this decision to go with a sinless Mary with the belief that unless she was sinless, Jesus could not be sinless. It wasn’t the Apostolic Church.

Oh another fallacy strawman

 

[tgGodsway]

I’m unclear what you are saying here.

 

[tgGodsway]

Oh another fallacy strawman

Well, overcome my argument with a substantive and biblical response and you will win me hope. Otherwise I choose inspired scripture to be my primary guide.

 

[tgGodsway]

Fallacy Appeal to Common Belief

again, easy words but difficult to substantiate. My views on Christ and salvation are main-line reformed to which millions of people around the world adhere to.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think Mary’s sinlessness had anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’s sinlessness. Only that God might consider it appropriate for His Son to enter the world thru a pure vessel.