Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[PRmerger]

these beliefs were either foreign to the new testament authors or they were not important enough to be mentioned. In either case they should be rejected.

Where do you get the idea that a belief must be mentioned by the NT authors in order to be believed?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And as we pointed out to you, Dokimas, these “core beliefs” that you claim are necessary to believe as Christians are extra-biblical. They are a man-made doctrine that’s arbitrary, fallible, non-authoritative, and subject to any particular pastor’s whims.

For there is no list in Scripture of what’s a “core belief”.

I’ve been on this forum for a long time now and I’ve seen about a dozen different permutations, ostensibly by bible Christians, as to what’s a core belief.

The reason there is no common understanding about what’s a “core belief” is because Scripture gives us no indication that “core beliefs” are necessary to be a Christian.

Hello PRmerger,

If it’s not written in the Bible, according to our Protestant friends, it shouldn’t be believed. Where is the list of letters and epistles that should be included in the Bible listed in scriptures? They’re not! Men of the Church had to go through all the writings of those times and define the canon of scriptures.

 

[izoid]

these beliefs were either foreign to the new testament authors or they were not important enough to be mentioned. In either case they should be rejected.

Kinda strange that it took you guys 2000 years to figure it out for us huh? You really need to study church history before commenting like this.

 

[veritas4Christ]

these beliefs were either foreign to the new testament authors or they were not important enough to be mentioned. In either case they should be rejected.

Please provide the basis for your judgement of rejection. On what basis have you determined that these were “either foreign … or not important enough”?

Please provide the authority you have to make this judgement to be universally applied, other than your own personal opinion.

If it was your own personal Holy Spirit, then -

Has your own personal Holy Spirit ever suggested to you that the Scriptures were within an historical context? Has your own personal Holy Spirit ever brought the thought into your mind that the BVM was being protected? Has your own personal Holy Spirit ever had you consider what the Jews who were persecuting viciously the Christians would have done to the BVM if they could have found her?

The problem for the perpetually protesting and reforming is that by their own ethos the Church is not wrong. Just another opinion guided by the Holy Spirit to be argued over in a never ending cycle. Not a problem the Church has.

 

[TEPO]

there is a difference betwene having your eyes open and seeing things that arent even there. If you say the Holy Spirit lead you to give food to the hungry, I say great! if He tells you that You should pray for the sick, I say go for it! But when you say He is telling you to worship Mary in addition to God… Then I say its time to question what spirit you hearing from.

I seriously hope you are merely ignorant in your comment as opposed to intentionally lying.

God help you.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello PRmerger,

If it’s not written in the Bible, according to our Protestant friends, it shouldn’t be believed. Where is the list of letters and epistles that should be included in the Bible listed in scriptures? They’re not! Men of the Church had to go through all the writings of those times and define the canon of scriptures.

'zactly!

And, I often hear this by our Protestant brethren: “Scripture interprets itself” or “Scripture interprets Scripture”.

'cept there’s no verse in the Bible that claims that, so that’s another extra-biblical tradition they hold. :sad_yes:

BTW, was it you, Prodigal, that wrote out a list of different doctrines (see below) that have arisen from the use of Sola Scriptura? If so, I have posted that list about a dozen times in the past year or so and cited your authorship!

Different Doctrines resulting from “Sola Scriptura”

What is original sin and its effects on humanity
Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Homosexuality
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
Death/Soul Sleep
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
themselves)
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Predestination
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?

 

[Dokimas]

There is only one who can judge each of us…

However, I would have to wonder why someone would think their version of a Church would be better than the one Christ built upon Peter. **There is no better church than the one Jesus is BUILDING. The question is whether or not it is the CC OR the Body of Christ made up of all true believer in Jesus the Savior. Was there sinful men in the Church’s history? Most assuredly! But if the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ’s Church, can mere sinful men? ** I don’t understand this question.

I have to wonder why some would go to such great lengths to demean the mother of Christ** I do not demean Mary and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who has (I don’t read what others say real carefully unless it’s something I want to comment on or a comment to me.)** before those who believe she was full of grace, as scriptures state** (I think Mary was full of grace as the Bible says.). Why do Protestants beat on that subject so hard? I’d love to get off that subject but people keep bringing it up. Am I less a Christian because I believe the vessel of God was pure, as was the ark of the covenant? There is no such thing as lesser Christian. There are more or less knowledgable Christians. There are more or less obedient Christians. Both categories are up to Jesus to decide who fits what category level. Christ was the new covenant, why would God all of a sudden decide an impure vessel would do for the new and everlasting covenant? ** Does Christ live in you? If so, are you pure? If so, why?

Protestants beat the ‘it ain’t in the Bible’ drum too much and can’t answer simple questions like why does the inspired word of God tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth instead of scriptures? **Then it’s fair to say that catholics beat, ‘because the CC teaches it so it is true’ drum at least as often. **All you need is the Bible, is NOT in the Bible. It is a man made tradition. Why does the inspired word of God tell us to hold to the traditions learned, whether by word or epistle? You are assuming what you believe that is not in the Bible is the tradition mentioned in that verse, correct?

 

[SHW]

Ask yourself; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside in each believer and lead to understanding, then how can the statement above (1 Co 2) be true; or is this just to the Apostles, Elders and Deacons?

The Holy Spirit resides in every believer, but in different measure for each. The Holy Spirit guides each of us foremost through His Catholic/universal Church because He guides His Catholic Church into all Truth. In a smaller measure He guides the individual.

For example, perhaps the Holy Spirit guided you (an individual) to this Catholic Forum in order to learn the fullest measure of His truth through His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Just some charitable advise; look carefully at 2 Peter 1:1-15 and see how He is speaking to all of us and notice the words grow and knowledge as you read.

2Peter 1
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 **Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. **

Can you argue this is to Elders and Deacons?

These people were taught by the apostles and so they did indeed “receive a faith of the same kind as the apostles.”

These people did not make up their own faith by reading some Scriptures and personally interpreting them and then arguing with Peter and telling him that he is wrong because the Holy Spirit told them differently than what he is teaching them.

Peter is actually speaking “To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” who have been taught the true faith by him.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Who are the “others” and how do you know?

“The others” are the persons that the faithful men will ordain after they are themselves ordained by the Bishop Timothy. (“Faithful men” are men who learned the faith from the apostles and who also live their faith in imitation of Christ). Timothy will first choose these faithful men and then he will train them in priestly duties and then he will ordain them. As the Church grows, then these faithful men will in turn **teach **and then ordain others (who are also faithful men) by the laying on of hands.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. (priesthood)

2 Timothy 1:6
Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. (Holy Orders)

These letters from Paul to Timothy are sent as a reminder and for encouragement and also for further instruction for Timothy so that he will be a good bishop and so that he will also know what to look for when he chooses men for Holy Orders (the bishops/priests, priests/elders/ and deacons).

We can say the same about Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, et al
Yes He did promise, He has several missions and one is to teach, lead and guide EACH individual into the grace and knowledge of His Word. That is the only way a will grow and understand. As you said, not from man and a personal interpretation.

**
Jesus Christ commissioned/authorized the Catholic Church’s hierarchy** (apostles/bishops, priests, etc.) to go out and baptize persons in order to make them Jesus’ disciples (make them Christians) and to teach them to observe what Jesus has commanded them.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

**Jesus never ever told anyone to pick up a Bible and then interpret it for one’s self. He wants us to listen to His Church and obey her. **

Luke 10:16
He who hears you (Church) hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Think of it this way. A teacher of the Bible could be in a classroom and be lecturing on the meaning of Hebrews 7,8 & 9; some students will understand the truth and some students will not? Why? Some have the Living Interpreter, which allows them to understand the truth and reject which is false and some do not and cannot. So who is it that actually interprets that which was said? Not the person, but the Holy Spirit in the person manifesting the truth to the Christian.

Unless the teacher learned the truth (the correct interpretation from the CC), then he may or may not be teaching the truth. It is anyone’s guess. The Holy Spirit does not promise individual guidance for the interpretation of Scripture. He promises it to His Church.

 

[TEPO]

Anyone who has salvation is apart of THE church but they may or may not be apart of your church.

Which Church is “THE church” ??? Do you expect people to believe that various peoples from all denominations make up some sort of “invisible”, “secret” church ?

Which Church ?

 

[Dokimas]

Hello PRmerger,

If it’s not written in the Bible, according to our Protestant friends, it shouldn’t be believed. Where is the list of letters and epistles that should be included in the Bible listed in scriptures? They’re not! Men of the Church had to go through all the writings of those times and define the canon of scriptures.

You’re not exactly accurate. What I believe, and I only speak for myself, it that if it contradicts Scripture then it is not correct.​

It has been shown that there are incorrect teachings in books rejected by protestants. I have not studied this so don’t bother asking me for chapter and verse. It is not of interest to me. I’m sure, it you’re truly interested, you could google it and find your answer.​

I do have a question: If I understand history correctly, 27 books NT and 39 books OT were accepted first and others were questionable. Then other were added later. Why weren’t they accepted by church leaders the first time? Did they make a mistake or did those who added them later make the mistake?​

BTW, I’m sure there are good things in those letters (books). That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there are things in them that would rule them out as being part of the Word of God.​

As for the list of acceptable books in the Bible itself, it must be a common arguing point for catholics against non-catholic Christians. Funny you guys accuse us of having arguing points. Guess none us should throw stones! Yes?

 

[izoid]

Which Church is “THE church” ??? Do you expect people to believe that various peoples from all denominations make up some sort of “invisible”, “secret” church ?

Which Church ?

This is exactly what they believe. It makes zero sense to interpret it this way but this is exactly what they do. If they would only do some research they would see how silly that understanding really is.

Come on, we are being taught how to behave in the house of the Lord, the Church. This is to be taken as some mystical unidentifiable group of people? How then are we to know when to behave as we are taught to in the house of the Lord.

Anyone seeking the truth has to acknowledge that Paul was speaking of a physical Church. A congregation, a physical and real entity.

 

[tweetymom]

You’re not exactly accurate. What I believe, and I only speak for myself, it that if it contradicts Scripture then it is not correct.​

It has been shown that there are incorrect teachings in books rejected by protestants. I have not studied this so don’t bother asking me for chapter and verse. It is not of interest to me. I’m sure, it you’re truly interested, you could google it and find your answer.​

I do have a question: If I understand history correctly, 27 books NT and 39 books OT were accepted first and others were questionable. Then other were added later. Why weren’t they accepted by church leaders the first time? Did they make a mistake or did those who added them later make the mistake?​

BTW, I’m sure there are good things in those letters (books). That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there are things in them that would rule them out as being part of the Word of God.​

As for the list of acceptable books in the Bible itself, it must be a common arguing point for catholics against non-catholic Christians. Funny you guys accuse us of having arguing points. Guess none us should throw stones! Yes?

I also speak for myself,if it ain’t in the Bible I do not believe it. I with the help of the Holy Spirit read the Bible.

 

[Dokimas]

Which Church is “THE church” ??? Do you expect people to believe that various peoples from all denominations make up some sort of “invisible”, “secret” church ?

Which Church ?

Invisible, yes, because it’s truly ‘universal’ and has no wall. Secret, no, not at all. Aren’t we told not to be ashamed. However, for many, they really pay a big price for becoming Christian, they may even be killed by their family members.

 

[TEPO]

Would you say wheter or not Mary was a perpetual virgin is a salvation issue?

If it were, would you be able to accept it ?

 

[Dokimas]

I also speak for myself,if it ain’t in the Bible I do not believe it. I with the help of the Holy Spirit read the Bible.

I’d agree but I know I’m the one that is fallible, not the Holy Spirit. I don’t know all nor do I understand correctly all things.

 

[tweetymom]

I’d agree but I know I’m the one that is fallible, not the Holy Spirit. I don’t know all nor do I understand correctly all things.

Amen

 

[Dokimas]

If it were, would you be able to accept it ?

Good question. Could you please show me in the Word of God where it says this?

 

[izoid]

You’re not exactly accurate. What I believe, and I only speak for myself, it that if it contradicts Scripture then it is not correct.​

It has been shown that there are incorrect teachings in books rejected by protestants. I have not studied this so don’t bother asking me for chapter and verse. It is not of interest to me. I’m sure, it you’re truly interested, you could google it and find your answer.​

I do have a question: If I understand history correctly, 27 books NT and 39 books OT were accepted first and others were questionable. Then other were added later. Why weren’t they accepted by church leaders the first time? Did they make a mistake or did those who added them later make the mistake?
The Catholic Bible was not questioned until the protestant reformation. It was the development of the printing press and the protestant refusal to include all of the books of the Bible. THese books were omitted because they supported Catholic teachings that were rejected by the reformers. Heck, Luther even wanted to get rid of James! If you were to do some research you will see the history of what is and what isn’t in the Bible.​

BTW, I’m sure there are good things in those letters (books). That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there are things in them that would rule them out as being part of the Word of God.
Only in the mind of a protestant.​

As for the list of acceptable books in the Bible itself, it must be a common arguing point for catholics against non-catholic Christians. Funny you guys accuse us of having arguing points. Guess none us should throw stones! Yes?

Again, you revert to a silly argument. You break away from us and tell us that certain books of the Bible need to be omitted and call us arguers?

 

[TEPO]

Invisible, yes, because it’s truly ‘universal’ and has no wall. Secret, no, not at all. Aren’t we told not to be ashamed. However, for many, they really pay a big price for becoming Christian, they may even be killed by their family members.

If its not secret, then who is part of it ? Anyone who believes?

Like I said earlier, this is no more than an attempt to disprove the catholic Church, and create some new --easy to follow / anything goes-- kind of watered down Christianity… You expect me to believe that the Church was good for 1500 years, and then God decided to change the rules… Yeh, right.

 

[izoid]

Good question. Could you please show me in the Word of God where it says this?

YOu are the one who keeps talking about essentials and non essentials. THe onus is on you to provide that list.