Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[Timothy_Piper]

You lied when you said that Catholics worship (latria) Mary. We “worship” her in the sense of giving her respect and veneration.

We only give Latria (adoration) to God alone.

[SIGN]However, “worship” has more meanings than “the adoration due only to God”, [/SIGN]as can be seen even today in any dictionary. It can mean respect and veneration. In that context, it can be said that we “worship” Mary, as has been stated in an encyclical by Pope Pius X: (AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM–encyclical on the Immaculate Conception)

“For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands.”

[SIGN]In this context, it is used as “respect and veneration”. [/SIGN]

You just can’t get over that your own church teaches that you indeed do worship Mary, relics and so on. Rather than doing the Christian thing, which was to apologize for calling someone a liar; you in turn call someone else a liar, who is the one who showed you what your church teaches and in context. The difference between latria and dulia are synonyms in ancient times, not until Irenaeus ( I believe it was him, if it the same person who came up with the bizarre story of Mary’s asension) came around and added nuances, then the church invented hyperdulia as part of her ongoing Marianolgy push.

You should really be ashamed of yourself, now you have called two people liars without reason or provocation.

I’m done with you unless otherwise warranted and put you in the hand’s of the Lord, but I do appreciate all of your blessing and praise and give thanks God for you. .

 

[tweetymom]

I did not see anything filthy about his comment.

 

[tweetymom]

[SIGN]Originally Posted by PRmerger
Indeed.

Most Protestants have bought the **Evil One’s lie **that sex without a baby ever entering the picture is our entitlement as human beings. [/SIGN]​

1 Corinthians 7:1 ¶ Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Is this about sexual relations between husband and wife?​

Is this about child bearing?​

Is this about the pleasure of the relationship? Note ‘affection due her’ in verse 3.​

Was this inspired by the Evil One?​

Should you be more careful what you say?

I tend to think it is about sexual relations between husband and wife.And the pleasure of said relationship.

 

[Cristian_B]

I will tell you guys a story which may seem familiar:

There was once a bride and a groom. The groom had to go in voyage to prepare the wedding, and unfortunately, he could not take the bride with him. He gave his bride detailed instructions on what she had to do while he was gone. Shortly before leaving, he told her that, just after leaving, he would send his friend to remind her everything he told her. Now, the groom did not put his bride in charge, but sent his friend to remind her what to do, thus he would still be in charge; though he was not there, his instructions would still remain. Because he gave detailed instructions on what to do in any case, it’s like if he would still be there.

The bride is the Church, the groom is Jesus and His friend is the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not put His Church in charge of His Law, but gave us the Holy Spirit to remind us His Law, His Sacrifice, His teachings and His promise. To say that the Church has authority to change His Law (based on the passage of Matthew 16:19) is madness. It’s like if His Bride rebelled, and that is she’s not under the Groom’s authority. The Holy Spirit takes what is Jesus’ and gives it to us (His Word). In this age, the Holy Spirit cannot change the Law, because he does not speak from himself, but from God/Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. he only says what the Groom said. If he would speak from himself, he would be a liar. Therefore, Jesus did not put His Church in charge, or in His place. He sent the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, based on the Trinity) to remind us that there is still a Law which we must follow. If the Holy Spirit is here, it means that Jesus is spiritually here as well and saying that you have the authority to change His Word, is like rebelling against Him under His surveillance.

Saying that you can change His Word is like making yourself equal with Him, or superior, which is blasphemy.

 

[tweetymom]

QUOTE]

I would ask you to please remember where you are and the name of this forum and refrain from any more filthy comments of that nature.

Women who left in their fertile years why is that filthy? It is true. Or Priest should be allowed to marry? Why is that filthy?
[/quote]

 

[tweetymom]

I will tell you guys a story which may seem familiar:

There was once a bride and a groom. The groom had to go in voyage to prepare the wedding, and unfortunately, he could not take the bride with him. He gave his bride detailed instructions on what she had to do while he was gone. Shortly before leaving, he told her that, just after leaving, he would send his friend to remind her everything he told her. Now, the groom did not put his bride in charge, but sent his friend to remind her what to do, thus he would still be in charge; though he was not there, his instructions would still remain. Because he gave detailed instructions on what to do in any case, it’s like if he would still be there.

The bride is the Church, the groom is Jesus and His friend is the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not put His Church in charge of His Law, but gave us the Holy Spirit to remind us His Law, His Sacrifice, His teachings and His promise. To say that the Church has authority to change His Law (based on the passage of Matthew 16:19) is madness. It’s like if His Bride rebelled, and that is she’s not under the Groom’s authority. The Holy Spirit takes what is Jesus’ and gives it to us (His Word). In this age, the Holy Spirit cannot change the Law, because he does not speak from himself, but from God/Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. he only says what the Groom said. If he would speak from himself, he would be a liar. Therefore, Jesus did not put His Church in charge, or in His place. He sent the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, based on the Trinity) to remind us that there is still a Law which we must follow. If the Holy Spirit is here, it means that Jesus is spiritually here as well and saying that you have the authority to change His Word, is like rebelling against Him under His surveillance.

Saying that you can change His Word is like making yourself equal with Him, or superior, which is blasphemy.

Amen to you dear sister perfectly said KUDOS

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

** I’m not sure understandings of meanings are quite that complicated that’s why I said ‘pretty much’ in my initial response.**

Have you never had a passage/verse take on new meaning for you? Or, have you never fully understood what was being said and prayed over it for an answer? Are you completely satisfied with all your understanding of every part of the Bible right now?

I learn more all the time, or so it seems to me.

You and I disagree what the Rock is here.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Sure would be nice if Jesus elaborated.

I’m going to post more on what you say we disagree on above, but for now I’d be really interested in your thoughts on Jesus’ use of the term scriptures and Church as I explained mine.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Local church, not world religion church (IMO)

Is your Church a single entity? That is, there are no affliated Churches with the same beliefs/teachings/doctrines anywhere? With those questions up front, I’d like to explain my interpretation of the authoritative Church a bit more.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The above was only spoken to Christ’s disciples and not the multitudes. He was telling them How He would be with them in eccumenical decisions that would affect His flock. Later on, before he ascended, he told them again He would be with them until the consummation of the world.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. .

When the US was founded, the founding fathers wrote a constitution. They did not send that out to every citizen and leave it open for private interpretation. They set up a governing power to interpret it. Why would God have done any less? And look what those that came later have done to it!!!/

The first above were appointed by men, the latter was appointed by God. Who has more power to protect the original trutch?​

[SIGN]Here’s my problem: let’s say I’m the pope. I say I am the authority for the church. I have it on good authority that I am. The last pope said I have the authority and he was told by the previous and so on and so on. See, I go all the way back to Peter, the first pope and Jesus gave him the keys and they were passed down to me. See how it, at least could appear to be, self serving. Bottom line: you believe what you do because the CC tells you they are correct with what they teach and it has been taught this way for 2000 yrs. You (collectivey it would appear) always fall back on the CC.[/SIGN]

Popes do not appoint themselves, just as Matthias did not appoint himself to take Juda Iscariot’s place. Remember, they chose him by casting lots, leaving the choice in God’s hands.

Christ has protected His truth, even through sinful men who sat in power within His Church.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Tell it all to God; not me…I am not the one who will determine, but I can tell you the OT gives plenty of examples of worship of idols and relics and the results were, well very bad.

Your analogy of a picture of a family member or dog or picture of a piece of food is carnal, not spiritual. It is not i you need to convince, but if it is so obvious to the rest of the non-Catholic world, then how much more discerning is God?

Timothy,
I responded to your statements above in post 1187. I used scriptures to support Catholic belief on the subject of statues and relics and would be interested in seeing your response.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

It seems that even when you CLAIM the Bible as your only source, anything goes. Can you please direct me to the verse that states that there were no priests present?

You can’t prove a negative; something that doesn’t exist. You and PRMerger should hang out together if you don’t already. i have a feeling you both would hit it off as friends.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Okay, this my first time posting here on this forum. As a protestant, I don’t dislike Mary. I just don’t see the purpose of praying for her intercession. I don’t see it as the same as asking my own mother to pray for me. I see no scriptural evidence that she was given the same omnipresent power as God. If 2 million people are praying to her at the same time, are you saying, and by what scriptural evidence, that she can hear every one of them at one time? So please dont take this as a dislike for Mary, just that none of the apostles of the New Testament told us to or prayed for her intercession.

Respectfully,

Chris

In fact the Apostles chastened those that tried just t bow down to them and the angels chasten men for trying to bow down to them; therefore I conclude that God just don’t like it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Dokimas,

On Christ’s word about building a Church upon rock, I’d like to share something a friend wrote once.

The incident in Matthew took place at Caesarea Philippi, so named by Herod Philip. However, it was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan. The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.

Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!

But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.

The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:

1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.

1. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.

1. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of lithos
   lee’-thos
   Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.
   David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

1. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.

 

[tweetymom]

Might help I don’t know. I do know that married men are abusers of children. It would be safer if the Church opened its eyes decaded years ago on what was happening instead of sweeping it under the carpet…OOPs off topic
[/quote]

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Plain reading, according to a ‘private interpretation’ I have to add.

What is the plain reading of the following verses, underlined for emphasis?

**1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. **1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

In reference to John 6:63, St. Paul explains what flesh meant in his letter to the Corinthians.

**1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. **

Thank you for another blessing.

Here is one for you; I can no longer post to you unless something warrants it because you keep adding to my posts, which i do not care much for; yet I realize you stated you do. This among the others things; like being shown over and over and rejecting the Word of God; not just by me, but many others. These are the things that will be an ever accusing conscience w/o the interceding work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tweetymom]

Thank you for another blessing.

Here is one for you; I can no longer post to you unless something warrants it because you keep adding to my posts, which i do not care much for; yet I realize you stated you do. This among the others things; like being shown over and over and rejecting the Word of God; not just by me, but many others. These are the things that will be an ever accusing conscience w/o the interceding work of the Holy Spirit.

Timothy isn’t it wonderful how many blessings you can recieve her? Good for you . He just rambles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Like many Catholic women who left your church during their fertile years because of disagreement, then come back later on. Just like most American Catholics believe the priests should be allowed to marry; might make it a better place for the kids.

I’ve reported your post.

Sexual abuse is not limited to any one group of people. It crosses all economic, cultural and religious boundaries and it’s sad that you feel it necessary to post such a statement in an apparent attempt to further demean and bash the Catholic Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Have you never had a passage/verse take on new meaning for you? Or, have you never fully understood what was being said and prayed over it for an answer? Are you completely satisfied with all your understanding of every part of the Bible right now? I love it when I ‘see’ things in a new way. I am not satisfied with all my understandings. I’ve said when (and I should say IF) I get to Heaven, I’ll see all my misunderstandings. You are making my point better than I did. It’s not a matter of being able to put one verse in context to the whole Bible (although it’s good to be able to do this), it’s more a matter of study, listen (to other explain), pray and be open to what the Holy Spirit says. It’s not complex though because we are human it may be hard to practice it all the time.

I learn more all the time, or so it seems to me. My hope is to always be ready to learn.

I’m going to post more on what you say we disagree on above, but for now I’d be really interested in your thoughts on Jesus’ use of the term scriptures and Church as I explained mine.
Why don’t you open a new thread, please?

Is your Church a single entity? It’s part of the Body with authority to deal with it’s members. That is, there are no affliated Churches with the same beliefs/teachings/doctrines anywhere? I’m not sure, in the context of Matthew 18, why this is imporant. With those questions up front, I’d like to explain my interpretation of the authoritative Church a bit more.

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The above was only spoken to Christ’s disciples and not the multitudes. I would tend to agree there are teachings for church leaders which are not for the average church goer. He was telling them How He would be with them in eccumenical decisions that would affect His flock. I don’t understand your meaning. Later on, before he ascended, he told them again He would be with them until the consummation of the world.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. .

The first above were appointed by men, the latter was appointed by God. Who has more power to protect the original trutch? I missed something? What first, what latter?​

Popes do not appoint themselves, just as Matthias did not appoint himself to take Juda Iscariot’s place. My guess is that poor Matthias was not God’s chosen, I believe Paul is. Remember, they chose him by casting lots, leaving the choice in God’s hands. Did God have a choice in that situation.? Didn’t they choose the two and kind of telling God He had to choose from these two? Non of the other disciples where chosen by casting lots.
Christ has protected His truth, even through sinful men who sat in power within His Church.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

[No message]

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I’ve reported your post.

Sexual abuse is not limited to any one group of people. It crosses all economic, cultural and religious boundaries and it’s sad that you feel it necessary to post such a statement in an apparent attempt to further demean and bash the Catholic Church.

My thoughts exactly. And to think some people were defending that sad, sad post!

Shame on those who come here just to cause disruption!

 

[tweetymom]

My thoughts exactly. And to think some people were defending that sad, sad post!

Shame on those who come here just to cause disruption!

And shame on those who took it in the wrong context.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you for another blessing.

Here is one for you; I can no longer post to you unless something warrants it because you keep adding to my posts, which i do not care much for; yet I realize you stated you do. This among the others things; like being shown over and over and rejecting the Word of God; not just by me, but many others. These are the things that will be an ever accusing conscience w/o the interceding work of the Holy Spirit.

I add more scriptures to what you said to try and provide a bigger picture of the context of things being said.

As for your other comments, you are well crossing the line in reference to the forum rules and policies. I am not rejecting scriptures, I am rejecting private interpretations of scriptures. There’s a big difference.