Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[MyRdmrLvs]

Or the beliefs were widespread and not in danger. Certain beliefs required Church decrees to be protected as heritics came out with false messages. We can show you numerous writings from early Church fathers that believed.

So if something was not written about, it should be rejected?

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

we can be confident that God included in His word what was necessary to please God and for our own salvation.

 

[SHW]

You know your catechism.​

No I don’t have any questions but feel free to jump in an correct me as I go.​

Oh yes, I may have a question, if I am ordained, could I get encouragement by the 1 John 2 verse?

Ordained as what?

 

[Dokimas]

Ordained as what?

pastor

 

[usma82]

.

I’ve never known ANY non-Catholic who dislikes Mary. Even non-Christians that do.



.

I recently had a fundamentalist/creationist tell me that “praying to Mary was Satan’s way of keeping us from focusing on Jesus”. She was white-faced with anger. This feeling of hers, I think, counts for more than just “dislike”. This was a friend who said this to me and another friend/Catholic: my Catholic friend and I were stunned. We both feel as though we have lost someone close to us, as this comment cut us to the core. We tried to explain, that among other reasons, that we prayed to Mary as an advocate to help us understand Jesus. I would appreciate insight as to how to proceed.
thank you
P

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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

I dont necessarily, however if it contradicts the new testament or if you have to start claiming the Mary never married Joseph, those weren’t really His brothers,that she never had sex with her husband and that its ok to worship and pray to her then its time to say stop! Its time to ask why are we going so far beyond what Gods word says. I have to decide that the Bible says to worship only God, so I will worship only God. Jesus gave instructions on how to pray and to whom we should pray, so I will pray only to God. I will someday stand befor my Lord and He will know that I believed HIM! I will not be condemned for believing God.

Do you think I will be condemned for believing God???

 

[SHW]

Then are you saying that we do not agree. that we must believe that we should trust that God did for us what we are unable to do for ourselves? and that salvation comes in belief in what He did for us at the cross?

**What Christ did for us that we could not do for ourselves is that He atoned for Adam’s Original Sin so that we could all be reconciled to God through water baptism (by which He applies the merits of His blood sacrifice to our souls and washes away Original Sin and also all of our personal sins that are on our souls at the time of our baptisms) and thereby give us hope of eternal life. And, if we continue to obey Him and do His Father’s Will for our entire lives until we die, then we will be found worthy and we will then be approved to receive the crown of eternal life.
**
Salvation is a life-long process, not a one-time event.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Thats not true all Christians honor Mary as the mother of Jesus and God’s chosen vessel to give His Son to us.

But I and others don’t see her remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus or having some special status beyond the honor God granted her. The Bible clearly worded her status as a virgin and her husband not knowing her until after the Birth of Jesus, which means to me after she had a normal married life with her husband including sexual relations and additional children.

I would say we don’t therefore dislike her she is very much loved but she has a place that is not elevated to the level the Catholics and Orthodox churches place her as a Saint. But rather women should look to her example as a wife and mother worthy to emulate in modesty, love and devotion to her family.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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.

Are you claiming that perpetual virginity, Roman authority has been believed by all the churches? or do you dismiss all other churches that dont agree with Rome as inauthentic??

You are forgetting that Rome wouldnt allow the Bible to be translated into the common languages and when it was and when it was mass produced it didnt take long before people not only found errors but they found intentional corruptions of Rome. Example, Indulgences! this was the Church of Rome fleecing the flock. I notice it is no longer done!?! Good for the Church of Rome today for abandoning such practices.

 

[izoid]

Look at the Greek for the “came & together”. In the vernacular it would be equivalent to the prison system in the US which allows “conjugal visits”.

We know it must mean this because it is crystal clear that Jesus had biological siblings.
Did you not throw logic out the window with the notion of Joseph having children in a previous marriage? This is how I know there is no Scriptural leg to stand on.

To answer your last question; it does and has and will continue to be a distraction.

To your first point. You only give us a part of the definition, here is the rest:

**accompany, assemble

From sun and erchomai; to convene, depart in company with, associate with, or (specially), cohabit (conjugally) – accompany, assemble (with), come (together), come (company, go) with, resort.**

We see that it can mean what you claim but it has many other meanings. Certainly not an open and shut case. BTW…what does the word conjugal mean? Does it necessitate sex?

It is simply your opinion that Jesus had biological siblings. There is NO, NADA, ZERO proof to that claim. I will ask the same question that I have posed to you without answer; do you call your fellow Christians brother?

Finally, how is the Catholic teaching on Mary a distraction?

 

[SHW]

pastor

I thought so, but wanted to make sure.

Every Christian, whether Catholic Christian or not, receives graces through baptism by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. And, if the Protestant Christian continues to obey God’s commandments and do the Father’s Will until his death, then he will be saved.

(This is only valid if he does not know that his beliefs are not in line with Jesus’ true Church, the Catholic Church. If he knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church and still does not join her because of fear of what family and friends will say, then Jesus will deny him before His Father, because this person denied Him before men. Matthew 10:33) If a person knows that the Catholic Church is His Church and he still refuses to join His Church, then he is rejecting Him. Reject His Church and you reject Him.

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

Not to worry though; God knows every person’s heart, and if a person truly is not able to understand the Truth, God will not hold it against him.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

One can use Jewish custom and tradition in this. Odds are Mary being a virgin woman was likely married at around 14 or 15 to a man in or around 30. And Jewish placement of a wife gave her main duty to have children (plural barring medical reasons to not have children) and secondarily keeping a home. I talked to a Rebbe about this and they are very wise in such matters this dated back to very ancient texts and teachings. His opinion if it matters is she could have been a virgin and has Jesus following our beliefs as Christians but after that her duty would be as a wife to have more children and tend the home. The latter less important.

So using that common sense would lean to Mary indeed having added half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus it would have been demanded of her own culture. That and her duty and the husbands would include sexually pleasing each other that is also custom and tradition. And considered very good a blessing not a sin.

But for me its not an issue at all who cares as long as she was a virgin up to the birth of Jesus, the issue of her status is not that complicated its not necessary for salvation to most.

 

[izoid]

Are you claiming that perpetual virginity, Roman authority has been believed by all the churches? or do you dismiss all other churches that dont agree with Rome as inauthentic??

You are forgetting that Rome wouldnt allow the Bible to be translated into the common languages and when it was and when it was mass produced it didnt take long before people not only found errors but they found intentional corruptions of Rome. Example, Indulgences! this was the Church of Rome fleecing the flock. I notice it is no longer done!?! Good for the Church of Rome today for abandoning such practices.

Please help me understand who “all the churches” are that you refer to.

I haven’t forgotten anything. I just think you are rude and disrespectful and was reminding you that the Catholic Church and her teachings existed log before your church ever did. The fact that you feel it necessary to attack and condemn her teachings shows your ignorance. I was simply pointing it out.

You obviously have some deep seated anger, possible hatred, towards the Catholic Church. It shows in your posts and makes you very unreliable. If there is something that bothers you so deeply, there is an appropriate way to discuss it. I hope you find that way.

 

[izoid]

One can use Jewish custom and tradition in this. Odds are Mary being a virgin woman was likely married at around 14 or 15 to a man in or around 30. And Jewish placement of a wife gave her main duty to have children (plural barring medical reasons to not have children) and secondarily keeping a home. I talked to a Rebbe about this and they are very wise in such matters this dated back to very ancient texts and teachings. His opinion if it matters is she could have been a virgin and has Jesus following our beliefs as Christians but after that her duty would be as a wife to have more children and tend the home. The latter less important.

So using that common sense would lean to Mary indeed having added half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus it would have been demanded of her own culture. That and her duty and the husbands would include sexually pleasing each other that is also custom and tradition. And considered very good a blessing not a sin.

But for me its not an issue at all who cares as long as she was a virgin up to the birth of Jesus, the issue of her status is not that complicated its not necessary for salvation to most.

What do you think that same Rabbi would say about the firstborn son assigning someone outside of the family a His mothers caregiver upon His death? Would this be done if there we younger siblings in the family?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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

God help you.

I know Im not lying but I could be ignorant.

If you claim that you worship mary but that your worship of mary is some kind of lesser worship I say you are in error for worshiping a created being. If you on the other hand say that you dont worship Mary but you just love her and think she is special. then I say great, I will take you at your word. Has this clarified my position?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Forgive me for saying this so bluntly, but you are an accuser like the pharisees.

I thank you and I praise God for the blessing and pray He will one day bless you in the same manner.

You cannot handle the fact and so you twist my words and say that the things from God came from the other side…

If I twisted your words, then I apologize, but at least show where the twist occurred.

I asked God to put me where He wanted me!
I can only challenge you to do the same as I did then: to say in truth and sincerety: “GOD I want to be where YOU want me to be! Not where I want me to be. If you will, I will be Catholic tomorrow”. I dare you today!!!

God’s will for all people is not a mystery; it is clearly stated in the Bible and the first and foremost is God wills that All men would be saved. Apart from Salvation; one cannot seek nor find the will of God as Scripture teaches.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3b-4

I asked sincerely and God answered me.

I do not doubt that you did.

The brothers you quote Jesus for having were also following Jesus… I could mention James called “the brother of Jesus”. John was not kin to Jesus, but James was and he was a disciple, and he should absolutely have taken care of Mary according to you since he, according to you, was both disciple and Mary’s own son. But Mary was given to John.
So your argument does not hold if you say none of Jesus relatives followed Him and that this was the reason why Jesus would give his mother to a spiritual follower… . Mary was given to none of those you believe to be her children…So according to you the passage at the Cross is rather useless because Mary would not need John then, she had James, the brother of Jesus, her own son… according to your interpretation…
No matter how you wriggle, you cant twist Scripture.
There was no child of Mary there except Jesus… admit it man.

You have a fatal flaw; James, the brother of the Lord, was not a believer until after the resurrection, so your chronology is incorrect; otherwise you would have a valid point. Also, the brother of the Lord, James, is not one of the 12.

This is what the Lord gave me to understand and you try so hard to find fault in it.

How do you know it was from the Lord; is this based on feeling?

You remind me of the pharisees whom Jesus admonished because they let people give money to the temple which should have been used to provide for their old parents (Matt 15: 5). When Jesus was so harsh on people who did not respect the command to honour one’s parents how do you think He likes your games right now, just to get out of the obvious fact that Jesus would never take away the duty of a biological brother (that would bring him blessings and a long life)…

Again, thank you and praise God for the blessings.

You are confusing legalism with righteousness. Jesus prefers obedience over sacrifice. Jesus already stated who were His real brothers, sisters and mothers; those who do the will of My Father who is in heaven; James did not meet that righteous standard at the time and John did.

You really have entangled your self and call Jesus a man who breaks the law on behalf of others and put even the ten commandments out of effect… next thing I guess you will say Jesus did not honour His mother.

You are amazingly proud.
As I was given the word from Scripture, I was also given in that same flash, the meaning of it. But the truth is you can’t handle what has been passed on in the Church from the beginning and which the good Lord confirmed to me when I prayed a prayer you probably never prayed because you are so steeped in mistrust towards the Catholic Church.
Give your will and mind over to the Lord… that’s all I can say to you.

Do not confuse pride nor arrogance nor self confidence, which I have none in myself, but I do fully trust in Jesus Christ, His Word and His Truth. Where do you put your trust? In men or God?

The most important thing one can do is ask themselves; have I dealt with my sin problem with God. Most people who profess to be a Christian have never dealt with the most basic issue that separates themselves from God and that is the issue of sin.

This is why Jesus makes this statement “If anyone desires to follow me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross daily and follow me.” If you do a word study on the emphasis of the word “desires” and particularly “deny”; you will grasp what I am saying above.

God bless and pray your walk is fruitful.

 

[guanophore]

Hi lfl,
Here’s what I do know: when diagnosed with prostate cancer 4 years ago, I made it a point to read about St. Peragrine, and while I did not pray to him, knowing of how he handled his affliction gave me comfort and courage. To this day I carry his likeness in my wallet. That, to me, brought a renewed understanding of the importance of the saints as examples of faith for us to emulate.
Was this a wordless request for intercession? I don’t know, but it is what it is, and I thank God for it.

Jon

You are so awesome brother Jon!

Yes, you can be sure the Lord knows what you have need of before you ask it, and His inspiration led you to Peragrine. If the Lord allowed Perigrine to intercede for you, perhaps this is part of why he is an inspiration for you today.

This is the true meaning of the Communion of saints.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Bible research done by scholars and professors, can override what monks and priests interpret through intense prayer and petitions to the Holy Spirit ?

The Church leaders have physical commitments to God including: Baptism, confession, Communion, Confirmation — they go on to take part in the Vocation of priesthood and then so on… These people have no agendas besides doing Gods will.

Why would they lie about Mary?

Circular; it is equivalent to saying because my church said it is so; therefore it is so. What does the Word of God say? For example, where did the confessional booth and those who man them come from according to Scripture?

 

[izoid]

You are confusing legalism with righteousness. Jesus prefers obedience over sacrifice. Jesus already stated who were His real brothers, sisters and mothers; those who do the will of My Father who is in heaven; James did not meet that righteous standard at the time and John did.

Do not confuse pride nor arrogance nor self confidence, which I have none in myself, but I do fully trust in Jesus Christ, His Word and His Truth. Where do you put your trust? In men or God?

Wow, this is beginning to be a pattern with you Timothy. I have now read several posts indicating your prideful, arrogant attitude. You respond the same way each time; we are wrong.

You might care to reevaluate your approach and make a self evaluation. If more than one person is feeling the same way about you it could be because it is true.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

though it is true that the General Catholic Church settled on the cannon based on what books were most widly used and excepted by ALL the churches, not just the church in Rome.

Various collections of the books were held by different churches.

Different Churches in different locations…one Catholic Church.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.**

Care to share any writings from that ‘general Catholic Church’?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

'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?

And you believe that your church has settled these questions and so has mine. The question is what does it mean for those that are wrong the Catholic church has not always came to the same conclusion as they do today. for example. I would be considered a Heretic a few hundred years ago what would the pope do with me today compared with a few hundred years ago? I would gladly debate this list with the pope or other protestant believers. but the truth is I would agree with the pope on most of them.