Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wwolverine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When you were a baby, you counted on your mommy for everything…

As a child of God, I still and always ask my mother for help…

This church is for real… We are ONE BIG FAMILY… You can come home anytime. 🙂
Boy, you don’t quit do you?

I am home and oh how wonderful it is to have a real relationship with Jesus Christ as outlined in the Holy Scriptures and as experienced by the believer and holder of progressing faith in the one and only who saves.
 
My Church does not believe that I can have any assurance whatsoever about whether you’re condemned or not.

I will say this: even the demons believe, do they not?

So I will say with some assurance that simply believing in God is not enough to grant you eternal life.
Not believing “in” God but “Believing God” Trusting what He says
 
God knows His and loves them, inspite of any shortcomings in belief. I’m sure there will be things I’ve thought true that are incorrect. I think we should be careful not to judge extra beliefs realizing God knows each heart, including mine (and when you think about it, understanding that the heart is despirately wicked who can know it) is a scary thing. Sure we have a new heart if we’re born again, but we live with our old one til Heaven.
I think I agree with this in most cases.
 
Can you show any teaching of the CC that has been “settled” that has now changed?

(Just a hint: the CC taught centuries ago; “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, and today it teaches…“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”)
The church yes but outside the RCC?? indulgences are they still taking $ for the pardoning of sins? Is the pope not burning me at the stake because its not good PR or because he no longer thinks its the right thing to do?
 
the books of the Bible were written early on in Church history but they were only declared to be inspired at the Church Councils, later on. Until then, there were all kinds of false “books” going around, all claiming to be inspired.
Hmm. I wonder what the Eastern Orthodox folks would have to say about that, especially in light of the two synods of Hippo and Carthage that were under what would become the Orthodox church, it is very difficult to see how the Catholic church can lay claim to even being part of the canon being determined.
 
Well then if you feel those Churches were listed because they were in error, isn’t it possible the Church in Rome, started by Peter and Paul, were not in error?
Actually one of those churches if i remember right had no criticism. I actually dont think she was in error until she tried to claim leadership over the others. Jesus was asked which deciple would be the greatest. He didnt say Peter, He didnt chose any of them over the others. He said they wouldnt lord over the people the way the pagans do. (my bad paraphrase)
 
Hmm. I wonder what the Eastern Orthodox folks would have to say about that, especially in light of the two synods of Hippo and Carthage that were under what would become the Orthodox church, it is very difficult to see how the Catholic church can lay claim to even being part of the canon being determined.
They synods took place there; is this supposed to be significant? I’ve gone to conventions in many locales.

Would become the Orthodox Church. So, why did they leave the Church with the keys to the kingdom of heaven? 😉 Could not resist. Happy New Year! 😃
 
The church yes but outside the RCC?? indulgences are they still taking $ for the pardoning of sins? Is the pope not burning me at the stake because its not good PR or because he no longer thinks its the right thing to do?
“One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences. Does the Catholic Church still sell them?”

That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.”

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:
Code:
Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)
In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina (cf. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79)." From: catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/indulgences
 
The church yes but outside the RCC?? indulgences are they still taking $ for the pardoning of sins? Is the pope not burning me at the stake because its not good PR or because he no longer thinks its the right thing to do?
In past cultures, both civil authorities and religious authorities regarded heresy as a terrible crime and it was punishable by torture and death. Some used these punishments as a means to “persuade” heretics to recant their heretical beliefs in order to save their souls and also to prevent them from leading others astray by their heretical teachings.

Torture and killing have a long track record of “acceptance” starting with the Israelites, who at God’s command, killed the inhabitants of the promised lands which God gave them, in order to prevent the Israelites from adopting the pagan beliefs of the people in the lands that they conquered and also as punishment for the sins of the pagans in the lands that they conquered.

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

We see another example in the Jew Saul, a devout Pharisee, who later became St. Paul. He tortured and killed the early Christians. This was done to keep the Jewish religion “pure” and free from heresy.

Acts 26:9-11
9 “Indeed, I (Paul/Saul) myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.

Unfortunately, civil authorities and some members of the Church also later continued this “legacy” of capital punishment for heresy until it was finally outlawed in the 1800’s. Until then, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death. Protestant reformers also killed Catholics and others as punishment for this same reason.

According to Scripture, anyone who committed heresy (taught a different gospel other than the apostles) was accursed.

Galatians 1:9
As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

2 Peter 2

In order to prevent heretics from continuing to believe in and/or teach heresy, they used torture and also threatened death and also killed in order to try to persuade them to recant of their heresy and thereby save their souls.
**
They thought it necessary to use torture and death in order to save the souls of heretics.**

Mark 9:42-48
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

Matthew 18:33-35
Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

It is not prudent to use our present 21st century standards to judge ancient Jewish and past Christian (Catholic and Protestant) punishments for heresy. This is what they learned from their predecessors and they continued it until it was finally outlawed in all the “civilized” countries.

It was done in good faith in order to prevent a greater evil “heresy” which renders a person’s soul lost for eternity if he does not repent before death. Saving souls was the most important thing. How they are saved was not.

It is difficult for us to understand their way of thinking since we were never immersed in their beliefs about torture and capital punishment which they learned from those before them and those persons learned from those before them, all the way back to God commanding the Israelites to kill those persons who did not believe as they did.
 
Actually one of those churches if i remember right had no criticism. I actually dont think she was in error until she tried to claim leadership over the others. Jesus was asked which deciple would be the greatest. He didnt say Peter, He didnt chose any of them over the others. He said they wouldnt lord over the people the way the pagans do. (my bad paraphrase)
It isn’t about personal holiness and it is not about popularity. It is about authority.

Romans 13:1-3
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

Jesus gave only Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This is the ancient sign of authority. He changed Simon’s name to Peter because Peter and his successors were to be Fathers of the Church. Earlier, He had changed Abram’s name to Abraham because Abraham was to be the Father of many nations.

It is all about authority and this authority comes from God alone. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church so that it would be prevented from teaching error (the gates of Hades would not prevail against it). He promised to be with His Church until the end of the age (until His Second Coming). Matthew 16:17-19

Luther and others did not have God’s authority to change the teachings of Jesus’ Church. They made their own man-made churches and these suited their own personal beliefs which they formed based on their own personal interpretations of Scripture.
 
It was done in good faith in order to prevent a greater evil “heresy” which renders a person’s soul lost for eternity if he does not repent before death. Saving souls was the most important thing. How they are saved was not.
Saying that the end justifies the means is wrong.
 
…]
Jesus gave only Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This is the ancient sign of authority. He changed Simon’s name to Peter because Peter and his successors were to be Fathers of the Church. Earlier, He had changed Abram’s name to Abraham because Abraham was to be the Father of many nations.

It is all about authority and this authority comes from God alone. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church so that it would be prevented from teaching error (the gates of Hades would not prevail against it). He promised to be with His Church until the end of the age (until His Second Coming). Matthew 16:17-19

Luther and others did not have God’s authority to change the teachings of Jesus’ Church. They made their own man-made churches and these suited their own personal beliefs which they formed based on their own personal interpretations of Scripture.
I will assume for a moment that you are right. If I’d believe that what you say is right (which I don’t), then the descendants of Peter are spiritual, such as we are the descendants of Israel spiritually. Peter’s dynasty is a spiritual one. The descendants of Peter are not the ones in flesh, such as the descendants of Abraham and Israel are not the one in flesh, but in spirit, in the heart. I hope you understand. You know that there were popes that weren’t actually good Christians, and those weren’t descendants of Peter, though they were in flesh, or not.

If the Pope is not like Peter (all son has some characteristics from his father) then he is not his descendant. Because his [Peter’s] descendants are not the ones in flesh, but in the heart.

One more thing. Peter himself is not the rock the Church is built on, but all the apostles. The Church was built on the apostles with the living rock being Christ: consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20) If you go that way, Peter was not the only “father” but all the apostles were; and not the successors in flesh are the apostles descendants but the ones in spirit.

I will give only an example: obviously, Peter didn’t like people to kneel before him, but looks like the Pope likes (if he wouldn’t, he’d tell them to stop) it when people kneel before him. If you say that they kneel before him because he is a “leader” then: I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” (Revelation 22:8-9) The angel tells us to worship only God. Maybe you say that you don’t “worship” him, but you surely kneel before him, which is sin. God does not want us to kneel at His creations but at Him. If we can’t worship images, what makes you think that you can kneel before a living being? Who’s the greatest: the Creator or the creation?
 
hateful, prideful, arrogant, You seem to use this type of attack alot.😦
Really? I point out that a person is coming across as arrogant and that several people have the posted the same thing and it is me that is hateful? Amazing, truly amazing. 🤷
 
The church yes but outside the RCC?? indulgences are they still taking $ for the pardoning of sins? Is the pope not burning me at the stake because its not good PR or because he no longer thinks its the right thing to do?
Can you please refrain from your use of “burning at the stake”. It is very offensive and it is intended to be so. The Church is not burning anyone at the stake, the use of the term is simply your attempt to inflame relations.
 
I want to reformulate: The end does not justify the means because love does not hurt. What the Catholic Church did to them was not with love, since love does not produce harm. The Apostles and God tell us to do everything in love. (Colossians 3:14)
 
I want to reformulate: The end does not justify the means because love does not hurt. What the Catholic Church did to them was not with love, since love does not produce harm. The Apostles and God tell us to do everything in love. (Colossians 3:14)
So we should condemn a Church, with currently over a billion people, because of the act of a ‘few’ sinful men? One man was sinful, a hundred, a thousand…so now anyone in that Church must be condemned? Let’s see, all men are sinful but, the first public sinful man was Judas Iscariot, who handed over our Lord, should we condemn all that follow Him now?
 
I want to reformulate: The end does not justify the means because love does not hurt. What the Catholic Church did to them was not with love, since love does not produce harm. The Apostles and God tell us to do everything in love. (Colossians 3:14)
How about you address all the events in Scripture that were also in the post, that you conveniently ignored?
 
THe proof has been laid out to you. It is clear from history, the ECF’s and the Bible itself. If you are willing to set aside your pre conceived ideas you will see it. Unfortunately, you are not willing to do so. 😦
Actually ten years ago I turned to God to help me get clean and sober, I read the entire Bible without listening to outside influences, I just lets it speak to me unadulterated for the express purpose of keeping an open mind. then I began reading what the various denominations believed and I searched the scriptures to see how the Bible was used or not used to support their doctrines. I also read some Christian church History to understand. a little about the splits and schisms that have taken place and why they took place. I even read about Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormonism reading their literature. During this time I was so blessed by God that it really encouraged me to continue my search.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top