What is it?

[ptisme]

The last point is generally the hardest one for Protestants, since the (general) absence of the veneration of saints means that there are not the distinct levels of veneration, super-veneration (of Mary), and worship (of God): it all looks very much the same. I do understand the theology behind it, but, before I spent time researching it, I had the same impression and the same objection as TxGodfollower.

Good for you. Here’s something else you should know. When loud alarms and sirens are going off in the heads of non-Catholics at the term “veneration” of Saints, Catholics simply think to ourselves how we need to emulate that Saint. When we, for instance, keep around statues of Saints, we aren’t worshipping the Saint or the statue like we are God. We are simply calling to mind the life those people led and are trying to walk in their footsteps. Remember your first day of high school and you were nervous and you looked up to some of the Seniors? Perhaps you were out for a sport and you wanted to be like the Senior who played that same sport some day? You weren’t worshipping that upper class-man, you were simply reflecting on what that person did and how you want to walk in the path they did.

 

[ptisme]

The act of placing Mary in John’s care still does not work culturally when Joseph had other living children, because they ought to have been given that role ahead of John.

For a native speaker of English, reading those passages about Jesus’ “brothers” immediately suggests that Mary had other children, and so Catholicism seems to be ignoring the natural sense of Scripture and choosing a “tradition of men” in its place. Reading it in Greek gives a thoroughly different picture, but modern schools waste their time on frivolous subjects like mathematics, physics, and modern languages instead.

First off, Joseph wasn’t the biological Father of Jesus. Mary would have been placed in the care of her children.
Secondly, could you please show me the scriptural quote that suggests Mary had other children and what their names were? The bible is very painstaking about giving us names of people who are important. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that if there were brothers and sisters of Jesus the authors of the New Testament would have glossed that over? Thanks.

 

[ptisme]

“Scares” would be a misnomer; more of disagreement. But, because you asked, here’s a short list:

1. 
   *]Basis and Reason for Immaculate Conception
   *]Praying to Mary
   *]Mary having other children
   *]Emphasis placed on Mary

1. 
   This should answer question one. Please read and let me know if this takes care of that concern. thx PT
   ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

First off, Joseph wasn’t the biological Father of Jesus. Mary would have been placed in the care of her children.

Unless she did not have other children, in which case she was to be placed in the care of her nearest male relative. If Joseph had other children, they would appear at the top of that list.

Secondly, could you please show me the scriptural quote that suggests Mary had other children and what their names were? The bible is very painstaking about giving us names of people who are important. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that if there were brothers and sisters of Jesus the authors of the New Testament would have glossed that over? Thanks.

Could you please back your reaction up, and reread my comments? Nothing in them suggests that I believe that Mary had other children, and I have already stated to TxGodfollower that I do not believe that she did.

 

[Mystophilus]

As previously stated, I do understand the theology behind it.

 

[ptisme]

Unless she did not have other children, in which case she was to be placed in the care of her nearest male relative. If Joseph had other children, they would appear at the top of that list.

Could you please back your reaction up, and reread my comments? Nothing in them suggests that I believe that Mary had other children, and I have already stated to TxGodfollower that I do not believe that she did.

Fair enough… We’ll leave it there then:thumbsup:

 

[ptisme]

As previously stated, I do understand the theology behind it.

So you understand why she is the arc of the new covenant and queen of heaven then too?

 

[holyspiritgift]

i can tell if some one has the holy Spirit – it just like – when Jesus said to peter-- flesh and blood didint reveil that to you – but Jesus had the “wittness” of the holy Spirit-

this is why when 2 or more are born again with the Holy Spirit – the spiritual presence of Jesus is there–

other wise – it’s just some religious person – quotin some commentary that they memorized

The Mystery of The Holy Spirit - John Paul Jackson

youtu.be/UIupAtAUl_Y

This teacher has filled in the gaps that have made me throw up my hands in frustration when trying to read through and UNDERSTAND the bible!!!

I have been motivated to pick up scripture and read with abandon. I don’t have time for TV . I cannot wait to clear all my daily tasks in record time to get back to scripture, prayer and healthy associations.
I cancelled my cable subscription more than a year ago and have not missed it. I never ordered a single thing from this man…I do not need to…just need my Bible.

He is speaking truth.

He is a catalyst for many of us searching for truth. What would anyone have against a teacher? Wasn’t Jesus a teacher? He knew there were those who didn’t have quite the intellect to grasp deeper, abstract concepts, so he used parables for instruction to help many understand…he knew he could save more souls by teaching in a way that anyone would be able to understand!

 

[steve_b]

Well, like I wrote previously, a lot of reasons. I would not say that “I’ll never become Catholic,” because you never know what can happen. The majority of my reasons are doctrinal. The largest being the Catholic claim that it is “the one true church” and has never erred.

Just thinking outloud

If both those objections can be dispelled, does that mean you would become Catholic?

1. Surely you’d agree

• Jesus started one and only one Church
• and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it

So what’s the only Church that can show “in writing” it’s existence going back to the apostles? That’s gotta be Our Lord’s Church…agreed? It’s the Catholic Church. And here is the evidence “in writing” all properly referenced #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34) That Church is still here my friend. It’s guranteed to never fail.

2. The Catholic Church never claimed it doesn’t err. It claims it doesn’t err on matters of faith and morals. Big difference

Well, there’s your 2 biggest issues answered. Ready to become Catholic?
A:

I imagine, had I been born a Catholic, believing its doctrines would not be difficult. Also, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is a bit of a struggle for me. I understand the invincible ignorance argument, but even when that is broken down, it limits salvation a lot. I cannot think that my journey with Christ and many others journey with Him, have been a sham.

Did you know that **“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **comes from scripture?

Do you want to know where?
A:

Also, leaving the church of my birth (Reformed Presbyterian), which I am trying to slowly accomplish, is a very sensitive issue within my family; due to my family being a part of it for four generations and many are very anti-catholic.

I think you’ll agree

One of the hard statements Jesus made was Matthew 10:37

In a sense, isn’t this the same kinda struggle you’re experiencing now? (the greater context of that passage is included below Mt 10:34)

As an aside, ask your parents as part of the discussion, who started the Presbyterians? Can they say Jesus or the HS, or any of Our Lord’s apostles? Nope! Only Catholics can say THAT

When Jesus said He brought a sword Matthew 10:34 it was to divide those who accept Him vs those who don’t. Or those who would be in His Church vs those who won’t. On His Church however, Jesus wants “perfect” unity in the Church **He builds **John 17:20-23 on Peter.Matthew 16:16-19 NO DIVISIONS. NO SCHISMS. NO SEDITIONS etc etc…“perfect” unity behind Peter #812. Since God hates divorce Malachi 2:16 we also know what He thinks of division from His Church. Scripture condemns it as it does those who do it and remain in it.
A:

I consider myself an Anglican and enjoy the parish that I have become a part of, however, even the Anglican Church can be “too Catholic” in some of my family’s views. It is a scandal that I do not regularly attend the Church my family and extended family have attended for ages; I cannot imagine what it would be like if I became Catholic.

As to that last comment, You would enter into Our Lord’s Church #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)

Here’s a what if.

What if you pray to Jesus saying, “not my will Lord but yours be done” what do you think Jesus is going to say to you on this subject?
A:

Regardless, I enjoy the freedom of not having to hold to so many doctrines as an Anglican. I am afraid the RCC just has too many required beliefs–I understand them and the reasons for those beliefs, but I have trouble accepting all them. If I cannot accept all of them, I cannot join the RCC in good conscious.

Right now, you’re just choosing between which kind of protestant you want to be.

Here’s a quote from an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church. Card Henry Newman said, “to be deep in history is to cease being protestant”. Think about that statement. It says a TON !

As I said top of the page, I’m just thinking outloud with you

 

[gachristian]

gachristian;12771376:

Show me where Catholics (namely the Catechism) suggest the only way to God is the Catholic Church rather than Jesus please. I’d be very interested in this. Thanks, PT

I have seen it many times on the CAF.

Again, still working through all the posts.

 

[gachristian]

=gachristian;12767426]Yes, I did read James. The whole book. He is explaining the difference in saying you have faith and practicing it. When one accepts God’s gift of Jesus, it is the Holy Spirit that changes him and the evidence of that change come through his works. Works do not save you; only the grace of God (Eph2; 8-9). If a person does not have works to back up his faith, then his true faith is what is in question, not that he is saved by his works.

 

[gachristian]

This should answer question one. Please read and let me know if this takes care of that concern. thx PT
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

Thank you for the link. I have read it. I honestly see this as an interpretation of Scripture. It also is a doctrine that came about later on in the history of the Catholic Church and not one in the New Testament days of the Church.

Again thank yo for sharing this.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Do you mean
“What is it that is holding you back from formally joining the Catholic Church?”

• ?

In my experience, the Catholic Church isn’t particularly open or available to adults who have an interest in Catholicism.

I find that the Catholic Church is very well suited to be born and raised into it. But attempting to join it later is much more difficult.

Sometimes, I feel almost the way a black person would who tries to join an all-white group. There’s the fear “I’m never really going to be one of them” hanging over me.

I fear that the Catholic Church is such that someone who attempts to join as an adult will never be able to catch up with those who were born and raised in it. And that as such, such an adult will never experience the benefits that those do who were born and raised into it.

I am not opposed to joining the Catholic Church, but I don’t have the faith to ever catch up.

I’d respectfully ask that you re-think your position.
You can ask such Catholic luminaries as Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, David Anders, Jason Stellman, Tim Staples, Marcus Grodi, about a half-dozen Catholic Bishops, etc., etc., etc. whether THEY feel like they, as adult converts, have been able to “catch up.”

Seriously, check out some of their stories. Read “Surprised by Truth”, for example, or check out some websites like catholic-convert.com, calledtocommunion.com, or chnetwork.org.

 

[ptisme]

ptisme;12771485:

I have seen it many times on the CAF.

Again, still working through all the posts.

OK, Well when you see it, kindly ask them to look in the Catechism and square them away…

 

[ptisme]

Thank you for the link. I have read it. I honestly see this as an interpretation of Scripture. It also is a doctrine that came about later on in the history of the Catholic Church and not one in the New Testament days of the Church.

Again thank yo for sharing this.

True. But it came about in the VERY early church. Obviously the NT was written during and shortly after Christ died so you wouldn’t find this there… I think the best thing to do is take a look at whether the church can interpret scripture and the roll of the Pope. It’s tough to wrap your hands around doctrine until you understand the magisterium…

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Are you insinuating that Catholics believe we are saved by works?

In a sense, we are.

As St. James says:
Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So, at least in some sense, it must be true.

Yet certainly not by works alone.

And those works are themselves, while truly our works, also the Grace of God.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Thus, we are saved by Grace alone.

I know it’s not quite as simple as a bumper-sticker, but it MUST be true if the scriptures are inerrant.

 

[ptisme]

In a sense, we are.

As St. James says:
Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So, at least in some sense, it must be true.

Yet certainly not by works alone.

And those works are themselves, while truly our works, also the Grace of God.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Thus, we are saved by Grace alone.

I know it’s not quite as simple as a bumper-sticker, but it MUST be true if the scriptures are inerrant.

Catholics believe we are saved by grace and there is nothing you can do to attain heaven. Works and Faith are the fruit of God’s grace.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Catholics believe we are saved by grace and there is nothing you can do to attain heaven. Works and Faith are the fruit of God’s grace.

Yes, IF and only if we cooperate with God’s Grace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

holyspiritgift;12775094]i can tell if some one has the holy Spirit – it just like – when Jesus said to peter-- flesh and blood didint reveil that to you – but Jesus had the “wittness” of the holy Spirit-

this is why when 2 or more are born again with the Holy Spirit – the spiritual presence of Jesus is there–

Whoooh! Did John Paul Jackson teach this? Where is this revealed in the scriptures? As the OP puts it; What is it? What is a “spiritual presence of Jesus”? Can you expound on your statement of what it is? I am trying to grasp what is a spiritual presence of Jesus.

Is your spiritual Jesus keeping you from learning Catholicism or entering full communion with the Church Jesus built upon Peter?

 

[ptisme]

Yes, IF and only if we cooperate with God’s Grace.

As long as we stay along those lines when talking to Protestants