Tricky questions that most Catholics cant answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter faithinjesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolltide said:
Not that I don’t believe you, because the prayer seems legit, but could you cite the document or speech?

Ok, not too much problem up to this point. Nothing blatantly heretical.

In the Bible, the mother, rather than the wife, of a king was proclaimed the queen. Catholics also associate the woman from Revelation with Mary, further confirming this title. Again, no problem. (Remember this later on, when we talk about her throne…)

This is praising the faith and holiness of Mary. She as often seen as a “new Eve”, accepting the instructions of God without question where Eve had rejected God’s instructions.

Conqueress is used in an earthly sense here, as she is the vessel by which Jesus was born, and as such made up for Eve’s rejection of God in many ways (although she did not redeem us as Jesus did). As the only human besides Jesus to be born free from sin, she is the perfect person to inspire us not to sin (to instill horror, so to speak)

We now enter the intercessionary portion of our prayer here…

Ok, this one sentence seems to be the heart of the problem, and it does require a bit of explanation. “YOUR throne” refers to the fact that Mary is Queen of Heaven, and thus a queen has a throne. In the Middle Ages, just because a prince or queen had a throne did not make them co-ruler with a king. “YOUR altar” refers to the fact that altars may be dedicated to saints. Many Catholic Churches have side-altars which are devoted the the celebration of specific saints. This doesn’t mean that we’re worshiping them. It’s no different than naming a church after a saint. If I go to St. Paul’s Catholic Church, I’m not going there to worship St. Paul! Likewise, there may be statues and paintings of Mary or a saint to commemorate that person’s actions (think “hall of fame” rather than worship), but we’re not worshiping them in the way that we worship God. The Mass that takes place on the altar is still dedicated to GOD. The decor is simply one of revering a saint.

Catholic Churches were originally designed with many stained glass windows, paintings, and statues back when Rome had collapsed and less than 1% of the population could read. These visual aids allowed the priest to use them as visual instruction tools to teach the faithful, which had no other way to learn about the Bible. Saints were included among these so that parishoners could learn about the stories and actions of the greatest people the church has ever produced, so that they would have wonderful examples of role models to emulate. (Again, the hall of fame reference.)

No problem here. She is the glory, joy, and honor of our people (the human race)! Think hall of fame again! She honored the human race with her actions as one of the greatest people in history, and we rightly thank her for it. (Just as we honor veterans for their service.)

This is your opinion, and everything presented above can be defended from the Catholic perspective.
Click to expand...
You will always refuse to see it won’t you. I gave you plain evidence of how Pius XII is literally leading the worship of Mary and you condone it, support it and defend it. This is so sad. And to claim support for this blaspheme spoken by Pius XII from Scripture is equally sad. The Mary of the Bible is a completely different woman than the Mary of Catholic theology.
 
Church_Militant said:
Yeah yeah yeah…Never spoken to someone that you really love have you?

There are a host of Biblical reasons for virtually every one of those, and your worst error is in rejecting The Intercession & Communion of Saints
Click to expand...
This is the pure stereotyping that Catholics do in painting all Protestantism the same color. The Communion of Saints and their intercession is real and I believe them both whole heartedly. My initial problem were the titles given to Mary and the worship of her. I never said that I don’t ask her and all the saints to intercede for and with me.
 
SIA said:
Hmmm. Then maybe you can explain why Pope Pius XII worshipped her in the Marian year he proclaimed during his reign.
Click to expand...
Pope Pius XII did not worship her. He venerate her. Catholics do not worship saints and Mary. That is due to God alone.

Repeat after me, “Catholics do not worship saints and Mary 100 times.”
 
SIA said:
You will always refuse to see it won’t you. I gave you plain evidence of how Pius XII is literally leading the worship of Mary and you condone it, support it and defend it. This is so sad. And to claim support for this blaspheme spoken by Pius XII from Scripture is equally sad. The Mary of the Bible is a completely different woman than the Mary of Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
Pius XII is also the pope that defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It was precisely due to challenges such as yours that he chose to use such strong language during his pontificate, so that there would be no question forever that the veneration of Mary was acceptable. (In essence, using the highly literary language of prayers like this for emphasis and effect.)
 
faithinjesus said:
There are several points, that when pointed out, the Catholic in question (of the faith not the person) the person gets amazingly defensive and refuses to answer or only gives a generic answer. These questions are such things like the worship of Mary. It doesn’t matter how its worded, its worship.

Your above comment already convicts you of your bias’s against Yours and mine Blessed Mother the Perpetual Virgin Mary;

Revelations 12:17
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

It doesn’t matter who lied to you or what opinions you have against Mary and the body of Jesus Christ on earth the Catholic church, God has the last say; the bible clearly states that those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus are of her (Mary’s) offspring.

Here is one that the bible states how we are to address the blessed Virgin Mary;

Luke 1:48
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

So do you obey God’s word, and call Mary blessed? as do all Catholics. You might misunderstand the difference between worship which is only given to God, and veneration of the Holy things of God. But maybe you are missing this beautiful aspect of heaven and faith if you only hold to the bible the Catholic church gave you.

God has revealed much more to the Catholic church about his mysteries and the heaven’s in addition to his written Word. You know the Catholic church is the steward of the mysteries of God on earth that is able to enter the Holies of holies and describe spiritual realities to you. I dont think it wise, to mock the mysteries of God from your humanity, without first coming to understand what the spiritual realities are.

IF you compare Catholics veneration to Mary as worship, can you imagine how the Catholic Church must Truly worship God that surpasses all human understanding? If you compare Mary veneration worship, then I dont think I need to ask how you worship God, because if it does not exceed the veneration of Mary, then you should consider reading the bible more, or taking up a Catholic course on the Mass. Or maybe learn from the source who gave you the bible, what pertains in the bible before you hurt yourself reading the bible on your own.

Peace
Click to expand...
 
Church_Militant said:
Tricky questions my foot.

I think I’ve answered that stuff so many times that you need only search for the topic words with my name to get the answers.

Besides which my Catholic blog has that same stuff as well.

Still, I doubt this guy really wants answers because scattergun posts like that are usually the mark of someone who just wants to use this forum as platform for (more) anti-Catholic propaganda.

We’ll see, but 🤷
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.
 
faithinjesus said:
There are several points, that when pointed out, the Catholic in question (of the faith not the person) the person gets amazingly defensive and refuses to answer or only gives a generic answer. These questions are such things like the worship of Mary. It doesn’t matter how its worded, its worship. The worship of Mary wasn’t even accepted until prayer to Mary was accepted in 600AD. 600 years after the death of Jesus. That has no direct link to the bible. That is a dogma, and a dogma means a belief thought to be fact. But its not. 43 main doctrines were established after 300AD up until 1965. Thats a long time. Why add things to the religion AFTER the completion of the bible. The only phrase that the bible calls Mary is “blessed”. And even in that verse it only says she will be blessed among women. Not men. Also, the 2nd commandment, the original, which is in Hebrew, states not to have an carven images. So bowing and praying to a statue falls into that.

Another topic is the Last Supper. Called the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The dogma is that the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is in the bread and wine. IF that was to be true, that would be cannibalism. Plain and simply. Added to that, and this is why people should read the bible themselves and not depend on what others tell them, Christ spoke of that AS He broke the bread and poured the wine, thus showing that it was symbolic. He meant for us to remember Him when we did this act. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. He meant that He is the substance that we need for eternal life. Not eat my literal actual physical flesh. The only times that cannibalism is mentioned in the bible was as a punishment through famines.

Next is the assumption that Mary was sinless. Not true at all. Yes she does deserve merit because she did give birth to the physical God, however, she was not sinless. If she was, then why did she say in Luke 1:47 “And my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior”. Why did she need a savior if she had no sin to be saved of? Also, and this goes for the “infallibility” of the pope,
Romans 3:23, “For ALL have fallen short of the Glory of God”.
So we all fall short and we all sin. No one but Jesus was sinless. Also there is no support biblically that anyone is infallible. That seems like a ruse to cover the butts of Catholic leaders. So that if they make a mistake, they are covered. But then again, if he did have that, he wouldn’t make a bad decision, which Popes have.

The last, at least for this post, is the claim that the true church is the Catholic Church and the true bible is the Catholic bible. The first true bible was the Torah, as the Jews were way ahead of the Catholics. Jesus Himself was Jewish. He was not Catholic. Most people know that the original bible, Genesis to Revelation was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So the claim that the change in the 10 commandments is because of numbering is wrong.
Click to expand...
How do I know your interpretation of the bible is correct?
 
reen12 said:
Good questions, faithinjesus.

Please be prepared for: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.
This may be quoted.
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”

The fact that Christ was unrecognizable, by the
15th century, seems to give no one pause.
Luther tried to save what he could, from the
wreckage of Christianity, yet he should have
just walked away. None of it had anything to
do with Jesus. Indulgences, treasury of merit,
economy of salvation, sacramental ‘system,’
Canon Law…
I can just hear Christ now:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisee, you hypocrites!
You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces."

Oh. That’s right. That’s what he said to the Pharisees.

For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus… 1 Timothy 5

Best wishes, faithinjesus, :tiphat:

reen12
Click to expand...
Wow! So the Gates of Hell prevailed!
 
faithinjesus said:
. . . That is a dogma, and a dogma means a belief thought to be fact. But its not. 43 main doctrines were established after 300AD up until 1965. Thats a long time. Why add things to the religion AFTER the completion of the bible.
Click to expand...
Interestng that you use 300 A.D. as your watershed. Since you doubtless believe that the Bible is the “source” of all doctrine, and you doubtless believe sketchy things like “Jesus is God” and “the Holy Spirit is God,” and you believe that the Bible is whole, complete, and authoritative . . .

Which is the cart and which is the horse. Seven books of the New Testament canon remained disputed until nearly 400 A.D.

The Bible ITSELF is one of the things “added to the religion” after the completion of the Bible.

As for Marian devotion in the 3rd Century, the prayer cited up thread, *Sub tuum praesidium *first appeared in an Egyptian Christmas liturgy, and refers to Mary as “theotokos” – Mother of God.
 
estesbob said:
Wow! So the Gates of Hell prevailed!
Click to expand...
That’s pretty good! 😃

Worrying about the gates of hell is not supposed to be
part of the 'Catholic experience."

Not to worry. The entire edifice - including the ‘gates’ -
is built on a fiction = original sin.

Moses and Abraham cooling their heels in Sheol? until the
salvific moment appeared.http://bestsmileys.com/cool/1.gif Salvation working in reverse,
producing an immaculate conception?

This is the stuff of fiction, but so many seem to enjoy it.

Best,

reen
 
faithinjesus has done another typical 1-time posting “drive by” with the typical (plagarized from Boettner) shotgun/buckshot questions that he is SURE we cant answer–though it seems reen has picked up the abandoned gauntlet…
 
It hurts me that those who oppose Gods church do so out of ignorance and false teachings.

I want you to read the sentance below and tell me what it says:

I didn’t say James stole your cookie.

How many ways can you interpret the above sentance? 7!!!

(I) didn’t say James stole your cookie.

I (Didn’t) say James stole your cookie.

I didn’t (Say) James stole your cookie.

I didn’t say (James) stole your cookie.

I didn’t say James (Stole) your cookie.

I didn’t say James stole (Your) cookie.

I didn’t say James stole your (Cookie).

Each time you read this, put the emphasis on the word in the parenthasis. It changes it’s meaning every time.

I use this example to ask you all a question. Who is to say what you read in the bible is the TRUTH? The bible is not self interpreting.

To get the answer, why not look at the writings of those who were there at the time and shortly after the time of Jesus as Christianity was taking root? I am referring to the early Church Fathers.
I would quote many writings here, but I have seen that done in previous threads and those who choose not to believe do so as to not to believe what WE say. If you read yourself, you may come to realize that EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches is directly from Jesus.

I was a “Fire and Brimstone” believer of the Protestant teachings most of my life. I was a youth minister and filled in for the Pastor when he was out. I led three different bible study classes. I KNEW the bible. I KNEW Christianity. However, I kept coming across teachings, or lack there of, of things that were not biblically correct. When I asked why we believed this or that, I was given the all powerful answer, “Because that is what the founders taught us”. I KNEW the Catholic Church was waaaaaayyy off course, so I began to research every chuch I could find and see why they believed the way they did. Then I began to study Christianity itself. From the beginning. I did this from a historical stand point rather than faith based as I did not want it to sway my findings.
I promise that if you do the same. Study Christianity from a historical stand point, you will find that the Catholic Church is THE Church Jesus started here on earth and everything she teaches is what Jesus taught. It was hard for me to swallow, but everything I had always been taught about the Catholic Church was wrong and everything the Catholic Church teaches is biblically based.

Don’t take my word for it, I know I would not have. Read the bible and read the early Church Fathers. Find the beliefs that were not only taught then, but were accepted as “unquestionable”.

Thank you for taking a moment of your life to see a glimpse of mine.
 
faithinjesus said:
There are several points, that when pointed out, the Catholic in question (of the faith not the person) the person gets amazingly defensive and refuses to answer or only gives a generic answer. These questions are such things like the worship of Mary. It doesn’t matter how its worded, its worship. The worship of Mary wasn’t even accepted until prayer to Mary was accepted in 600AD. 600 years after the death of Jesus. That has no direct link to the bible. That is a dogma, and a dogma means a belief thought to be fact. But its not. 43 main doctrines were established after 300AD up until 1965. Thats a long time. Why add things to the religion AFTER the completion of the bible. The only phrase that the bible calls Mary is “blessed”. And even in that verse it only says she will be blessed among women. Not men. Also, the 2nd commandment, the original, which is in Hebrew, states not to have an carven images. So bowing and praying to a statue falls into that.

Another topic is the Last Supper. Called the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The dogma is that the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is in the bread and wine. IF that was to be true, that would be cannibalism. Plain and simply. Added to that, and this is why people should read the bible themselves and not depend on what others tell them, Christ spoke of that AS He broke the bread and poured the wine, thus showing that it was symbolic. He meant for us to remember Him when we did this act. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. He meant that He is the substance that we need for eternal life. Not eat my literal actual physical flesh. The only times that cannibalism is mentioned in the bible was as a punishment through famines.

Next is the assumption that Mary was sinless. Not true at all. Yes she does deserve merit because she did give birth to the physical God, however, she was not sinless. If she was, then why did she say in Luke 1:47 “And my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior”. Why did she need a savior if she had no sin to be saved of? Also, and this goes for the “infallibility” of the pope,
Romans 3:23, “For ALL have fallen short of the Glory of God”.
So we all fall short and we all sin. No one but Jesus was sinless. Also there is no support biblically that anyone is infallible. That seems like a ruse to cover the butts of Catholic leaders. So that if they make a mistake, they are covered. But then again, if he did have that, he wouldn’t make a bad decision, which Popes have.

The last, at least for this post, is the claim that the true church is the Catholic Church and the true bible is the Catholic bible. The first true bible was the Torah, as the Jews were way ahead of the Catholics. Jesus Himself was Jewish. He was not Catholic. Most people know that the original bible, Genesis to Revelation was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So the claim that the change in the 10 commandments is because of numbering is wrong.
Click to expand...
You will continue to get “generic” answers so long you insist on using erroneous phraseology.

Catholics do not worship Mary. Yeah ,yeah, you’ve heard this before. But have you also heard of dulia, hyper-dulia and latria???

I’ll let you find out what those are or, I’m sure that someone else will jump in here and let you know. Yes, wording does matter.

The true and real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist… I guess that Jesus let a group of good disciples walk away from Him when He told them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood…and all because of a misunderstanding.

“hey guys” said Jesus, " c’mon back, I meant a symbol of my blood and my body".

Please CAF jump in here any time and get this guy straight.
 
my personal prayer for all anti-Catholics is that they get some new material. It has grown tiresome to me to see the same charges over and over again. At least in the last century, they tried revisionist history with things like the trail of blood and all that.

Come on guys. Give us something new and substantial. I am beginning to think that the Catholic Church is right. 😉
 
mangy_dog said:
The true and real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist… I guess that Jesus let a group of good disciples walk away from Him when He told them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood…and all because of a misunderstanding.

“hey guys” said Jesus, " c’mon back, I meant a symbol of my blood and my body".

Please CAF jump in here any time and get this guy straight.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right, and perhaps I can demonstrate why. When Jesus taught, He would speak in one of three ways, depending on the situation. Sometimes He would speak in parables, telling a story with some lesson attached to it. Often people didn’t understand the lesson, so He had to explain it. Sometimes He would speak in metaphor. Again, often people wouldn’t understand, so He either tried a simpler metaphor or just explained the meaning. And sometimes, He would just come right out and say whatever He was trying to teach. If someone asked for clarification, thinking it was a metaphor or parable, He would simply repeat what He had said, as many times as it took for them to take Him seriously.

Now, for those of you who doubt the Real Presence, which method was He using when He told His disciples that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood?
 
Just one comment re the charge that if Catholics were really eating the Flesh and Blood of Christ, it would be “cannibalism”:

Cannibalism is the eating of a DEAD body.

Christ Jesus’ body is no longer DEAD - right?

Therefore, the Eucharist is not cannibalism. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top