Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wwolverine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you think the NT Church was Catholic?

If not, when did the CC start?

Do you think they ever had any authority?

If there is no such gift as infallibility, how can you depend upon anything with regard to the faith? If God is not able to preserve His word through men, how can you trust that the bible is valid?
  1. No
  2. Not sure but been told 2000 years age.
  3. No not the Catholic church because the term Catholic church was first used when Ignatius for Antioch in 107 wrote a letter that had the words Catholic church in it.
    I don’t see anywhere where Peter says I’m starting the Catholic church.
  4. The infallibility is about the Bishops and Popes who wrote the dogmas of the Catholic faith.
  5. The NT was written by those who lived and were a part of the life of Jesus. Therefore they had personal knowledge and have talked to God/Jesus and were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus himself. So yes the Bible is valid.
 
Colossians 3: 23 And what soever ye do, do it heartly, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Code:
                 24Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Jesus Christ.
[SIGN]AMEN! [/SIGN]
 
  1. No
  2. Not sure but been told 2000 years age.
  3. No not the Catholic church because the term Catholic church was first used when Ignatius for Antioch in 107 wrote a letter that had the words Catholic church in it.
    I don’t see anywhere where Peter says I’m starting the Catholic church.
  4. The infallibility is about the Bishops and Popes who wrote the dogmas of the Catholic faith.
  5. The NT was written by those who lived and were a part of the life of Jesus. Therefore they had personal knowledge and have talked to God/Jesus and were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus himself. So yes the Bible is valid.
The Catholic Church decided what was canon for the NT. No one else did. I am sorry, but that is a fact. If all that was written as a gospel were valid there would be many many more books in the Bible. More than even us Catholics have in our Bibles, the versions before Luther took them out.

I would assume from your post that the Catholic Church was only infallible when they decided canon for the NT? Is that correct? After that they were not anymore?
 
Was Christ God? This is a good question to ask oneself if encountering a problem with the term Mother of God.
Joseph was also Jesus’ father but I don’t see him get a lot of honor, or at least not as much as Mary. If His earthly mother receives such honor, isn’t His earthly father worthy of as much honor as Mary?
 
Joseph was also Jesus’ father but I don’t see him get a lot of honor, or at least not as much as Mary. If His earthly mother receives such honor, isn’t His earthly father worthy of as much honor as Mary?
He actually is honored greatly. Is the patron Saint of Fathers, and there are quite a few devotions to him. That being said, he did not carry Christ within himself. He was not sinless something we Catholic believe about Mary, and he was not foretold of from the earliest scriptures. Mary was spoken about even in Genesis.

So, yes, he does deserve honor, and he does get it.

No, he is not “worthy” of as much praise as Mary, so to speak. Though…he really must have been a great man to deal with a pregnant wife that was having a child of “God”. How crazy he must of thought she really was at first. LOL
 
The NT was written by those who lived and were a part of the life of Jesus. Therefore they had personal knowledge and have talked to God/Jesus and were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus himself. So yes the Bible is valid.
Kevin, the canon of Scripture was not determined until 400 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. 400 years.

That’s like from the time the Pilgrims arrived until present day. No Bible.

Can you imagine?

So, 400 years later there was a period of time in which fallible men made an infallible pronouncement!
 
  1. No not the Catholic church because the term Catholic church was first used when Ignatius for Antioch in 107 wrote a letter that had the words Catholic church in it.
    I don’t see anywhere where Peter says I’m starting the Catholic church.
That’s because Peter didn’t start it - Jesus did. Here’s how:

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

(cont.)
 
The writings of other members of the early Church supports the idea of continuing Apostolic Succession. For example, the Apostle John discipled a man known today as Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, discipled a man known as Irenaeus of Lyons. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The existence and leadership of this Church is well-documented and unassailable historical fact. The connection between the modern Catholic Church and the pre-Constantinian Church of Peter, James and John is undeniable.

These early eyewitness accounts together with the testimony of Sacred Scripture prove the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine, and they drive a stake through the heart of any argument that the New Testament churches were independent of one another and not actually local congregations of the One Church led by the local Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
 
Actually Rev, the dogma’s came before the bible. The doctrine of the Catholic Church comes from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles. it is expressed in the NT, but the NT is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.
Maybe I am completely mistaken, but where would we find the last dogma that was defined in scripture? Where is the “dogma of the assumption” that was defined as an apostolic constitution of pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950?
Maybe you can explain to me how this dogma could have been in existence before it was defined and before the NT was written.
If it had been, wouldn’t we find direct evidence of that in the Bible? Why would the Bible be silent about that subject and if not where could I find such information that clearly states these doctrines?
Correct me please if I am wrong as I cannot see these things stated in Scripture.

May we know the truth, and may the truth make us free.
May God bless you.

In Him,
Janet
 
Maybe I am completely mistaken, but where would we find the last dogma that was defined in scripture? Where is the “dogma of the assumption” that was defined as an apostolic constitution of pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950?
Maybe you can explain to me how this dogma could have been in existence before it was defined and before the NT was written.
If it had been, wouldn’t we find direct evidence of that in the Bible? Why would the Bible be silent about that subject and if not where could I find such information that clearly states these doctrines?
Correct me please if I am wrong as I cannot see these things stated in Scripture.

May we know the truth, and may the truth make us free.
May God bless you.

In Him,
Janet
When was the doctrine of the Trinity hammered out? Hundreds of years after the books of the NT was written?

Maybe you could begin by showing us where everything that we can know about the life of Christ and the early Church is to be found exclusively within the pages of scripture?

Seriously, why not read Munificentissimus Deus for yourself to see the antiquity and the universality of the dogma that you doubt?

That might give you some appreciation for the Assumption.
 
Was Christ God? This is a good question to ask oneself if encountering a problem with the term Mother of God.
Do you not believe that Jesus Christ was 100% GOD in the flesh?


Absolutely yes, Christ is GOD but GOD is not Jesus. All of omnipresence of the being we consider GOD can not be contained in the human shell that is Jesus. Yes, Jesus was 100% GOD but not 100% **of **GOD- GOD is omnipresent. Mary is not the mother of 100% of the being taht is our creator.

I believe it is pentecostals that believe the onness of GOD that believe all of GOD became Jesus- that there are not 3 persons in the GODHEAD…

Your argument is with ALL of Christianity. All orthodox Christians believe she is the Mother of God. To understand what other non-Catholic Christians are supposed to believe, read this:

Not really. So Where is Jesus sitting right now? Who was Jesus talking to when HE was on the cross?

We use terms everyday that we might understand but, are being twisted and used by imam to tell falsehoods about Christians.

*The Catholic Church decided what was canon for the NT. No one else did. I am sorry, but that is a fact. If all that was written as a gospel were valid there would be many many more books in the Bible. More than even us Catholics have in our Bibles, the versions before Luther took them out. /]

Actually way before the canon was finallized by anyone the Gospel-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that is in everyone’s New Testament was decided on and always has been considered scripture.*
 
I was catching up on this thread by e-mail when I came across this statement. It knocked my slippers off! We Catholics like to give honor where honor is due also, and that is why we honor Mary.
Well concerning Mary I handle it exactly the same way: Honor where honor is due. She obeyed God. Something we all should do. She is a shining example of obedience and faith.
That is what I certainly honor. Apart from that all of my love and all the honor concerning her is directed towards God. She did what she was supposed to do in her role as “handmaiden” or properly translated “slave (female)” of the Lord. We all should do that.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

In Him,
Janet
 
When was the doctrine of the Trinity hammered out? Hundreds of years after the books of the NT was written?

Maybe you could begin by showing us where everything that we can know about the life of Christ and the early Church is to be found exclusively within the pages of scripture?

Seriously, why not read Munificentissimus Deus for yourself to see the antiquity and the universality of the dogma that you doubt?

That might give you some appreciation for the Assumption.
The question is not about the Trinity (which was by the way mentioned in the Bible). It is about all dogmas supposedly dating to back then and I wondered how this could be concerning the last dogma ever defined.

God bless you.

In Him,
Janet
 
The moderators are being very patient and gracious letting this thread go on so long.🙂
 
Actually way before the canon was finallized by anyone the Gospel-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that is in everyone’s New Testament was decided on and always has been considered scripture.
Okay, you are correct, the four original gospels were already out there, however so were many many other “gospels” to. However, they were not considered canon. None were, besides the OT. It wasn’t until close to 400 years after Christ’s birth that the NT was canonized. But your statement that those gospels were already out there is correct. They just weren’t canon.
 
Maybe I am completely mistaken, but where would we find the last dogma that was defined in scripture? Where is the “dogma of the assumption” that was defined as an apostolic constitution of pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950?
Maybe you can explain to me how this dogma could have been in existence before it was defined and before the NT was written.
If it had been, wouldn’t we find direct evidence of that in the Bible? Why would the Bible be silent about that subject and if not where could I find such information that clearly states these doctrines?
Correct me please if I am wrong as I cannot see these things stated in Scripture.

May we know the truth, and may the truth make us free.
May God bless you.

In Him,
Janet
It’s because the dogma of Mary’s assumption was only passed down in tradition, and of what we knew of her life/death. It was not considered a dogma of the Church until they prayed hard of course, examined the evidence, and relied upon the Holy Spirit to make the decision.

Why would it be in the bible? Not everything is in the Bible. Even the Bible itself says that it is not the authority.
 
Is Magisterium in the Bible?
Of course.

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. **And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

All authority was given to Jesus, right? :yup:

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How was Jesus sent by the Father? With all authority, right? :yup:

How did Jesus send the Apostles? In the same manner in which the Father sent Him, right? :yup:

The Apostles were sent with the authority of Jesus Christ. That’s the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. :yup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top