The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[PRmerger]

I’m not claiming that we can or should dismiss any scripture. You are wrongfully attributing that to me when I never said or implied it. Please stop. It’s your invention, not mine.

It’s the logical conclusion of your paradigm.

You keep ignoring the part about John saying “in this book” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

I’m also not claiming to know what is necessary for salvation.

Good. For that would be something that’s not in the Bible.

I’m only commenting on what John wrote, which can reasonably be read to mean that the contents of his book are sufficient to understand who Jesus is, and by believing we may have life in His name.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that! Yes, Scripture does indeed have “material sufficiency”

Also, I asked you what your understanding is of John’s comments in John 20:30-31.

Apparently, it’s the same as yours!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Adam Z,

Welcome to CAF. I think you will find this a dynamic and insightful list. Now, let’s see what you have here…

Of a truth, the Blesseth Mother Mary did not know a man, but her Son was born according to the Law.

I do not understand the “…but…” you placed in the above sentence. The Old Testament has numerous statements that the Savior - the Messiah - was to be born under the Law of Moses. There is no conflict here. The Blessed Virgin Mary, pregnant with Jesus, and her husband travel to the City of David for the fulfill their civic duty with the Roman census.

However, according to the scriptures, the Blesseth Mother was bought barren but just like anything bought sight unseen, buyer beware.

And what is the scriptural reference you have to identify that Mary was ‘bought’ by anyone? To the best of my knowledge, no such reference exists. Mary was not a slave.

And due to a lack of contractual law provisions under the OT, Joseph was pretty much stuck with her when an Angel appeared to Joseph and told him that she wasn’t untruthful, try to find an honest woman nowadays and brother thou has found a goldmine.

I really have to ask again, Adam Z, what are you using for a reference to back up these statements of yours? It appears to me that you are shooting from the hip on these statements.

If the Angel wasn’t enought to freak you out, a pregant woman that was not defiled by man is more than this mortal could handle, but Joseph being a just man, trusted in the Word of the Lord.

I really am not sure just what your point is here. Please clarify so that I can follow your line of thought.

Now Satan, the physical being whom rules this world,

And, where do you get the idea that Satan is a ‘physical’ being - the devils in hell are fallen angels - and as such are spirits and are not physical.

cherished the man child,

What ‘man child’ are you talking about? Christ? Let me refer you to Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you…” where you will find there is little to cherish - and this enmity has a long history.

but the Holy and Pure Father sent His Son, the Holy Ghost to dwell within the child, and upon conception, the Son of the Holy Spirit entered into the flesh and walked and talked upon the face of the earth before all mankind.

And denying his flesh, the only begotten Son of GOD refuted SATAN and well, you probably don’t want to hear anymore of my foolishness… You know the truth already.

I really do not know what it is you want to present here - so, please, tell me.

God bless

 

[PLeeD]

I’ll tell you what John 20:30-31 does not say. It does not say that everything we need to be saved is written down and it also does not say that what is written down is all we need.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I’m just looking for the truth about what John did write.

When I read that passage it does seem to imply that we can be saved by the knowledge contained in John’s book. Otherwise, what does “…you may have life in his name” really mean?

It’s a bit pedantic, but I’ll go through it line by line. Please correct me where I’ve gone off course…

John 20:30-31 says:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

It is obvious that everything that happens over the course of the life of a 30-something year old person cannot be contained in a few pages. This goes without saying, and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

31 but these are written…

IOW, the things John feels are important enough to include…

that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,

Self explanatory…

and that *believing *you may have *life *in his name." [John 20:30-31 RSV]

Two things here.

1. Believing means more than believing as the demons. To truly believe Jesus would mean to seek his truth and follow his teachings. This is illustrated by the teaching about the shepherd and the flock, the vine and the branches, etc.
2. “Life”. I take that to mean eternal life. We get to spend it with Him.

I’ve read John quickly through one time yesterday. It’s obviously meant primarily to be a record of his miracles. I’ll need to look further to see how much one could construct a recognizably Christian life from its contents. I did note that it does briefly mention both baptism and grace.

It is not the ringing endorsement of sola scriptura that protestants like to think it is. For one thing if it was then it would contradict 2 Thess 2:15

Guess I disagree on the meaning of 2 Thess 2:15. The people who received the letter heard the words of Paul’s teaching with their own ears. It makes sense for the Thessalonians to go by both what Paul taught to them directly with words, or what Paul and the other apostles wrote in letters.

We don’t get the opportunity to hear Paul’s own words. I can’t accept that verse as a directive to adhere to 2000 years of subsequent tradition when we have the actual original texts of the apostles. And that’s not to say that the RCC tradition is wrong, I just don’t find myself convinced that it’s necessary. You can go on with all the verses about “one church”, I just don’t find it convincing for me personally.

So did you ever read what Polycarp and Ignatius taught? How about the other early church writers like Irenaeus who followed Timothy , Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and the others?

I’ve started reading those works. I’ve read Clement and Justin. Sounds like Polycarp and Ignatius should be next on my list.

But really, I’m looking for a “smoking gun” from the ECF that unequivocally supports the RCC positions. So far I haven’t seen it. Maybe reading these other works will change my mind.

One more thing. Do you think that when John wrote verse 31 of chapter 20:
…
That he meant that was all one had to believe?

Well, possibly.

Honesly, I think that reading John 20:31 to mean that book contains all that is necessary to gain life in Jesus’ name is no more a stretch than interpreting 2 Thess 2:15 the way the CC does.

I mean, John does not mention the Ascension at all.

He alludes to it in John 1:50-51.

He does not mention the commands of Jesus to “do this in rememberance of me”…

It’s odd that John recounts many events that occurred during the last supper, but doesn’t mention the first communion.

or to go and teach the gospel and to baptize.

John 17:18-20; Jesus prays for his disciples to be sactified as they carry his message into the world. He also prays for those who will receive and believe His message from the disciples.

In John 3:22 Jesus is baptizing people with his disciples. Then John 4:1-2 recounts Jesus’ disciples baptizing people.

 

[Adam_Z]

And what is the scriptural reference you have to identify that Mary was ‘bought’ by anyone? To the best of my knowledge, no such reference exists. Mary was not a slave.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt 1:18

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.Luke 1:27

And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.2 Sam 3:14

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, o redeem them that were under the law. Gal 4:4-5

If you can not understand the physical laws of this world’s nature how much less can thou know of the Divine Law of the Eternal Nature wherein Mary is clearly the Mother of God for the faithful whom trust in CHRIST, the only begotten Son of GOD.

 

[PRmerger]

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt 1:18

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.Luke 1:27

And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.2 Sam 3:14

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, o redeem them that were under the law. Gal 4:4-5

If you can not understand the physical laws of this world’s nature how much less can thou know of the Divine Law of the Eternal Nature wherein Mary is clearly the Mother of God for the faithful whom trust in CHRIST, the only begotten Son of GOD.

No verse you cited states that Mary was “bought”.

 

[inkaneer]

Guess I disagree on the meaning of 2 Thess 2:15. The people who received the letter heard the words of Paul’s teaching with their own ears. It makes sense for the Thessalonians to go by both what Paul taught to them directly with words, or what Paul and the other apostles wrote in letters.

We don’t get the opportunity to hear Paul’s own words. I can’t accept that verse as a directive to adhere to 2000 years of subsequent tradition when we have the actual original texts of the apostles. And that’s not to say that the RCC tradition is wrong, I just don’t find myself convinced that it’s necessary. You can go on with all the verses about “one church”, I just don’t find it convincing for me personally."

But you have to agree that the words of scripture since they are ‘‘God breathed’’ are immutable [unchanging] and therefore Paul’s words to the Thessalonians to hold onto the oral teaching is valid for today’s christians as it was for the Thessalonians of Paul’s day. In fact there is no way for a christian to disagree as that would completely negate all scripture. Therefore, one has to ask the question of where does one find the oral teaching. The answer is the Church. Jesus established a Church. He went to great lengths to establish it. There had to be a reason for Him to do that. That book you call a Bible is a product of the Church. There is no way you can know that any of the books of the New Testament are God breathed unless the Church told you. God didn’t tell you. The Bible did not drop out of heaven leather bound, gilt edged, in the King’s English, and with the words of Jesus in red ink. The Church gave you the Bible. And the belief that the books of the Bible are indeed inspired of God rests solely on the authority of the church to bind and loose on earth as in heaven. That is why Paul can tell Timothy that it is the church, the household of God that is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Not scripture, but the Church.

 

[1holycatholic]

But you have to agree that the words of scripture since they are ‘‘God breathed’’ are immutable [unchanging] and therefore Paul’s words to the Thessalonians to hold onto the oral teaching is valid for today’s christians as it was for the Thessalonians of Paul’s day. In fact there is no way for a christian to disagree as that would completely negate all scripture. Therefore, one has to ask the question of where does one find the oral teaching. The answer is the Church. Jesus established a Church. He went to great lengths to establish it. There had to be a reason for Him to do that. That book you call a Bible is a product of the Church. There is no way you can know that any of the books of the New Testament are God breathed unless the Church told you. God didn’t tell you. The Bible did not drop out of heaven leather bound, gilt edged, in the King’s English, and with the words of Jesus in red ink. The Church gave you the Bible. And the belief that the books of the Bible are indeed inspired of God rests solely on the authority of the church to bind and loose on earth as in heaven. That is why Paul can tell Timothy that it is the church, the household of God that is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Not scripture, but the Church.

Your words seem to be falling on deaf ears.

 

[inkaneer]

Your words seem to be falling on deaf ears.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/images/jesus_mural.jpg

Maybe, maybe not. One never knows, does one?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Adam Z.

So, according to you and your sources, all women (at least those who are or will be married) are considered as property to be bought and sold? Is this what you mean? I was almost wondering how your original name-sake handled his wife Eve…

Seriously. The idea that women through our history were bought and sold and that this is based in the Bible is a truly unique view.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt 1:18

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.Luke 1:27

And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.2 Sam 3:14

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, o redeem them that were under the law. Gal 4:4-5

If you can not understand the physical laws of this world’s nature how much less can thou know of the Divine Law of the Eternal Nature wherein Mary is clearly the Mother of God for the faithful whom trust in CHRIST, the only begotten Son of GOD.

And, yet, you and your unique sources would have her as property or as a slave? This simply can not be.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hey, PLeeD,

Is my post #402 giving you a problem…? I really would like you to address this matter.

Thanks

God bless

 

[roveau]

The witnesses for Padre Pio are still alive and can vouche for their own testimony. Rather than express doubt at something why not investigate it for yourself?
.

The opinion on Padre Pio even within the Catholic church is not uniform. Pope John XXIII basically thought of him as a fake. This opinion was not shared by most other popes, I must add. It just shows that we do have differing opinions on matters that are not crucial to salvation.

I have a strong backgound in the study of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. I find that Scriptural proofs argued by many Catholics here to support some favourite point are often, frankly, lame. I have now almost completed reading this thread and I find myself unconvinced by the bulk of the use of the Scriptures to prove points discussed here. In fact I have found this discussion, though impelling, very depressing.

I am also worried about the very pharisaical attitude of some Catholics getting in the way of the very clear messages of Christ.

I think the Scriptures should be at the top of our list of authorities for our faith - they come from the direct witness of Christ on earth. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has been busy with Christians for 2000 years, the Church of the Apostles did not stand still in time. I also believe in complete obedience to the Catholic church. Where I am unconvinced in some matter of doctrine, I accept the authority of the Church above my own understanding.

I think prospective converts from the Protestant churches are being put off by the Marian hardliners. I ask Mary (and the saints) to pray to Jesus for me for certain petitions (the nuns used to tell us that we don’t pray to Mary and the saints, we ask them to pray for us). Otherwise I nearly always pray to Jesus directly or to the Father in Christ’s name, just like we are told to in the Gospels. I personally think that we don’t need any more Marian doctrines, we have enough to deal with just keeping the basics of our Catholic/Christian faith as it is, like, love your neighbour as yourself, for example.

 

[inkaneer]

The opinion on Padre Pio even within the Catholic church is not uniform. Pope John XXIII basically thought of him as a fake. This opinion was not shared by most other popes, I must add. It just shows that we do have differing opinions on matters that are not crucial to salvation.

Yeah, well what John XXIII thought doesn’t matter does it? I mean, the man is a canonized saint now [feastday is Sep 23]. But the church has taken the same attitude with many of its saints. Try reading some of their stories of how they were suppressed.

I have a strong backgound in the study of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. I find that Scriptural proofs argued by many Catholics here to support some favourite point are often, frankly, lame. I have now almost completed reading this thread and I find myself unconvinced by the bulk of the use of the Scriptures to prove points discussed here. In fact I have found this discussion, though impelling, very depressing.

You say you have a “strong background in the study of the scriptures”, I take that to mean you don’t have a degree in theological studies. Welcome to the club. No one here is a professional apologist but let’s not get so puffed up with ourself to think that our own view is better than others. That, after all is extremely protestant.

I am also worried about the very pharisaical attitude of some Catholics getting in the way of the very clear messages of Christ.

Then you should worry about your own attitude as expressed above. You know the Pharisees had “a strong background in the study of the scriptures” too.

I think the Scriptures should be at the top of our list of authorities for our faith - they come from the direct witness of Christ on earth. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has been busy with Christians for 2000 years, the Church of the Apostles did not stand still in time. I also believe in complete obedience to the Catholic church. Where I am unconvinced in some matter of doctrine, I accept the authority of the Church above my own understanding.

That is wonderful, simply wonderful.

I think prospective converts from the Protestant churches are being put off by the Marian hardliners. I ask Mary (and the saints) to pray to Jesus for me for certain petitions (the nuns used to tell us that we don’t pray to Mary and the saints, we ask them to pray for us). Otherwise I nearly always pray to Jesus directly or to the Father in Christ’s name, just like we are told to in the Gospels. I personally think that we don’t need any more Marian doctrines, we have enough to deal with just keeping the basics of our Catholic/Christian faith as it is, like, love your neighbour as yourself, for example.

The Church has the mission to proclaim the truth. It does not have the mission to try to determine how that truth will be received. Bigots and hate groups will invent reasons to falsely accuse the Church. People open to the truth will be naturally drawn to it. No one gets dragged into heaven kicking and screaming or resisting all the way. Neither Heaven nor the Church is a democracy and this is not a numbers game.

 

[PLeeD]

…I find that Scriptural proofs argued by many Catholics here to support some favourite point are often, frankly, lame. I have now almost completed reading this thread and I find myself unconvinced by the bulk of the use of the Scriptures to prove points discussed here…

It seems that the scriptural proofs offered in support of CC doctrine, while nominally reasonable, aren’t really proofs. The verses offered can usually be interpreted in more than one way. Typically, the CC doctinal positions would be reasonable propositions to draw from the verse in question, but in no way is it the only proposition that can be drawn.

What is discouraging is that when asked to address the other possible meanings of a verse, there is a tendency to simply ignore other possible interpretations, and reply with “I believe it means what the church says it means”. That’s fine to believe that, but it’s not convincing to others.

I am also worried about the very pharisaical attitude of some Catholics getting in the way of the very clear messages of Christ.

I’m by nature wary of large organizations, whether political, corporate, or religious. I guess the hierarchical nature of the CC is the biggest turn-off for me. From the outside, the practices of the CC bare a lot of resemblance to the man-made system imposed by the Pharisees. It had the appearance of spirituality but served as an obstacle to a real connection to God. I’m not doubting that committed catholics feel a deep connection to God through the CC, but I’m not drawn to it in the same way.

Is my post #402 giving you a problem…? I really would like you to address this matter.

Not at all. Though not replying to you directly, I figured I had responded to most of your points in other replies. Here goes.

“…just what IS necessry for salvation - according to Scripture.”

I don’t claim to know. I’m attempting to understand.

“So, we ‘believe in Jesus’ and are saved? OK.”

John implies that, not me. That salvation requires more than simple belief is illustrated by the demons who know and believe exactly who Jesus is. I think when John talks about belief, he means believing that the teachings of Jesus are the truth, and following them as best we can.

“Isn’t there a requirement in Scripture to be baptized - and not just dunked or spashed with water, but (Matt 28:19) baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Given the entire new testament, it’s safe to say we should be baptized. It’s certain to say that we shouldn’t reject baptism. But, if it’s a requirement, then why is it that according to CC teaching there will be plenty of people in heaven who were never baptized on earth?

It’s an odd topic. My baptism is valid according to CC teaching, and I think that’s the way to go. Even so, I wouldn’t criticize someone who honestly holds different views from me over the issue of baptism. I certainly wouldn’t question their salvation over the issue.

“Yes, the Divinely Inspired Bood of Matthew does not REQUIRE us to say the Our Father - but, in my view, it would be a foolish person indeed who claimed to follow Christ but ingore one of the methods (formula) of praying to God.”

In my view it would be foolish as well. Well, not so much foolish as needless. There is no reason to ignore it. That’s not the question. The question is, is it necessary?

BTW, you are doing the same thing as PRmerger. I’m not saying that any scripture should be ignored. I’m only trying to consider what is necessary. John seems to imply that his book contains what is necessary.

“But apparently, salvation requires EVEN MORE (dare I say, “Works”!)”

This is a word game. Salvation doesn’t require works. If we are saved then good works should follow. There is a difference.

“So, for those who say salvation is one item - I think such a view should be re-examined in light of all of the New Testament - and not just cherry-pick a verse here and there. What do you think?”

I agree.

I don’t think I know anyone personally who would claim “once saved always saved”. I certainly don’t. My church doesn’t teach that. I do know of people who think that everyone is saved regardless (universalists). That’s crazy talk IMO.

BTW, there is a lot of catholic cherry-picking going on here. E.g., taking Paul’s statement in 2 Thess as a blanket commandment to accept anything the RCC has to say. I think that’s a big stretch. It’s not unreasonable as a basis for the proposition, but it’s hardly proof.

And, back to the original topic, I find the proof-texting on the issue of Marianism to be particularly weak.

But again, I hold to Romans 14 when it comes to these things. Guess I read a much broader interpretation of that chapter than catholics. Regarding Mary and ST, I assume that catholics practice these things in good conscience, and are living in the grace of God. I’m equally secure in my conscience that I am following the path the Holy Spirit is leading me. I hope soon we’ll all be side by side in heaven worshipping God as one!

 

[tqualey]

Thank you, PLeeD.

I hope soon we’ll all be side by side in heaven worshipping God as one!

I, too, share this hope.

God bless

 

[1holycatholic]

It seems that the scriptural proofs offered in support of CC doctrine, while nominally reasonable, aren’t really proofs. The verses offered can usually be interpreted in more than one way. Typically, the CC doctinal positions would be reasonable propositions to draw from the verse in question, but in no way is it the only proposition that can be drawn.

Since the Bible is a Catholic book you’ve got a major problem telling the Catholic Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth what a particular passage means since you aren’t the pillar of truth and your private interpretation of the Bible carries no authority whatsoever.

 

[inkaneer]

It seems that the scriptural proofs offered in support of CC doctrine, while nominally reasonable, aren’t really proofs. The verses offered can usually be interpreted in more than one way. Typically, the CC doctinal positions would be reasonable propositions to draw from the verse in question, but in no way is it the only proposition that can be drawn.

What is discouraging is that when asked to address the other possible meanings of a verse, there is a tendency to simply ignore other possible interpretations, and reply with “I believe it means what the church says it means”. That’s fine to believe that, but it’s not convincing to others.

Well let’s make up our minds right here before we go on any farther. Is there one truth or are there as many truths as there are interpretations? And how does one find the truth among so many interpretations? There is a disconnect in the protestant logic which protestants want to ignore choosing only to go with their denomination’s interpretation even though they acknowledge that their denomination has no authority so their interpretation of scripture can be totally wrong.

However, Jesus did not establish a church that was a 97 pound weakling. The church He established had authority and Jesus even said it did. It had the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven [Mt 16:19]. No protestant church claims that power. There is only one church who has laid claim to that power and that is the Catholic Church. NOW, if you say that you do not agree that the Catholic Church is the Church that has that power then please tell us which church does. Because the church founded by Jesus that has that power did not go out of existence [because He said it won’t] so it is still here. Now which is it???

I’m by nature wary of large organizations, whether political, corporate, or religious. I guess the hierarchical nature of the CC is the biggest turn-off for me. From the outside, the practices of the CC bare a lot of resemblance to the man-made system imposed by the Pharisees. It had the appearance of spirituality but served as an obstacle to a real connection to God. I’m not doubting that committed catholics feel a deep connection to God through the CC, but I’m not drawn to it in the same way.

You realize then that you are wary of the church established by Jesus. The one Jesus said he would remain with until the end of the age and the one that is guided by the Holy Spirit. Tell me are you wary of God? I don’t know if you realize it or not but your logic is illogical. You write, “…the practices of the CC bare a lot of resemblance to the man-made system imposed by the Pharisees” What did Jesus say about the Pharisee’s authority? Do you know? Go to Mt23:1-3

‘1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’

Re-read verses 2 and 3:

"2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’

Jesus recognized and is telling them the Pharisees have authority [Moses’ seat]. Jesus tells His followers they must observe and do what the Pharisees tell them. He only cautions them to not do as the Pharisees do. It wasn’t the Pharisees preaching that Jesus despised them for it was their hypocriscy because they did not do what they told others to do.

 

[beehumble]

The opinion on Padre Pio even within the Catholic church is not uniform. Pope John XXIII basically thought of him as a fake. This opinion was not shared by most other popes, I must add. It just shows that we do have differing opinions on matters that are not crucial to salvation.

I have a strong backgound in the study of the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament. I find that Scriptural proofs argued by many Catholics here to support some favourite point are often, frankly, lame. I have now almost completed reading this thread and I find myself unconvinced by the bulk of the use of the Scriptures to prove points discussed here. In fact I have found this discussion, though impelling, very depressing.

I am also worried about the very pharisaical attitude of some Catholics getting in the way of the very clear messages of Christ.

I think the Scriptures should be at the top of our list of authorities for our faith - they come from the direct witness of Christ on earth. I also believe that the Holy Spirit has been busy with Christians for 2000 years, the Church of the Apostles did not stand still in time. I also believe in complete obedience to the Catholic church. Where I am unconvinced in some matter of doctrine, I accept the authority of the Church above my own understanding.

I think prospective converts from the Protestant churches are being put off by the Marian hardliners. I ask Mary (and the saints) to pray to Jesus for me for certain petitions (the nuns used to tell us that we don’t pray to Mary and the saints, we ask them to pray for us). Otherwise I nearly always pray to Jesus directly or to the Father in Christ’s name, just like we are told to in the Gospels. I personally think that we don’t need any more Marian doctrines, we have enough to deal with just keeping the basics of our Catholic/Christian faith as it is, like, love your neighbour as yourself, for example.

We (the Catholic Church) will have as many Marian doctrines as God wills us to have. It is up to Him, not you or I. The ones we do have come from Him, and any future ones will come from Him. That’s what it means to be Catholic Our decisions are such matters are actually God’s, not some outside groups who think we have too much of this or that.

And many of the Scriptural proofs here are sound, whether you personally like them or not. Maybe you could read or re-read some books on Mary by Scott Hahn to firm up your understanding.

God bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Inkaneer,

I only have one problem with your post…

However, Jesus did not establish a church that was a 97 pound weakling.

You just can not use the analogy of a “…97 pound weakling…” without referencing someone kicking sand in someone’s face! And, we owe all that creativity to the late Charles Atlas. Here is a link: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Atlas)

But, besides that tid-bit of trivia… yours was an excellent post - and one that really calls for a ‘fish or cut bait’ response from those who want to continue to waffle on the CC not being Christ’s Church founded on Peter - but, no one else’s church is, either! Yeah… go figure that one out!

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

It seems that the scriptural proofs offered in support of CC doctrine, while nominally reasonable, aren’t really proofs. The verses offered can usually be interpreted in more than one way.

No doubt. As can any verses non-Catholic Christians use to support their doctrines.

What is discouraging is that when asked to address the other possible meanings of a verse, there is a tendency to simply ignore other possible interpretations, and reply with “I believe it means what the church says it means”. That’s fine to believe that, but it’s not convincing to others.

The alternative, then, is this obscenity of thousands and thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct one. This is the design of the Author of Chaos and Confusion.

Now, we are left with millions of followers of Christ who don’t know whether
-baptism is an ordinance
-or a sacrament
-or it’s simply a means of getting wet

We don’t know whether
-baptism of infants is required
-or one must be at the age of reason
-or an adult

We don’t know whether
-one must go to a river to be baptized
-or in a pool
-or just be sprinkled

We don’t know whether
-Sunday is the Lord’s day
-or we must honor the Sabbath

We don’t know whether
-when we die we enter “soul sleep”
-we are annihilated
-we go straight to heaven

When we profess to become a Christian, we don’t know whether
-we’re saved once, and always
-or we can lose our salvation.

We don’t know whether…

 

[catholictiger]

No doubt. As can any verses non-Catholic Christians use to support their doctrines.

The alternative, then, is this obscenity of thousands and thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation is the correct one. This is the design of the Author of Chaos and Confusion.

Now, we are left with millions of followers of Christ who don’t know whether
-baptism is an ordinance
-or a sacrament
-or it’s simply a means of getting wet

We don’t know whether
-baptism of infants is required
-or one must be at the age of reason
-or an adult

We don’t know whether
-one must go to a river to be baptized
-or in a pool
-or just be sprinkled

We don’t know whether
-Sunday is the Lord’s day
-or we must honor the Sabbath

We don’t know whether
-when we die we enter “soul sleep”
-we are annihilated
-we go straight to heaven

When we profess to become a Christian, we don’t know whether
-we’re saved once, and always
-or we can lose our salvation.

We don’t know whether…

this is why we must have a authority on scripture and teaching becuase without it noone knows what is the truth. Luckily for us catholics we have the church to tell us what the truth is and what teachings for us to follow.

I think some Protestants well atleast the ones i encountered yesterday believe that if they have the holy spirit in them they can discern the truth and with they can see who has christ has and who doesn’t

it was kinda funny this guy said you can’t judge me but i can judge becuase i have the spirit in me. The seems like this is far from the truth.

but about this spirit thing I don’t think anyone of us are holy enough to be able to discern god’s word, and determine what the truth is. First of all and mainly we are sinful and becuase we are sinful we aren’t pure of heart meaning we can’t see God and if we can’t see God this means that we can’t possible know what the whole truth is and if you don’t know the entire truth you can’t possibly know the way to heaven and you can’t always know if you are following Christ, so you must trust someone who is wiser then you who has more expeince, and you must also trust the church that she contains the truth of Jesus Christ in its fullness.