Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wwolverine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
Can you reform something that ‘kicks you out on your ear’ for bringing to light things that are wrong?
Click to expand...
The Church did reform. See Martin Luther wasn’t the only one that realized there were changes needed. Martin Luther’s mistake was to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’, or to assume he could improve the Church Christ started. Now, let’s look at the ‘improvement’ of the Church Luther started. It has splintered and dissected until we have thousands of denominations, all with slight to great differences in doctrines, ALL based on someone’s private interpretation.

Of course it seems defense of Martin Luther seems to always stop when documentation is produced showing he believed in some Catholic beliefs…
 
Dokimas said:
Wikipedia

The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote:“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”
[1] The Oxford Dictionary of Popes interprets Irenaeus as saying that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.
[2] Linus is presented by Jerome as “the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church”,
[3] by Eusebius, as “the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter”
[4] by John Chrysostom as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”,
[5] while the Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.
[6]The Liber Pontificalis also presents a list that makes Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, after Peter; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor.
[7]Tertullian too makes Clement the successor of Peter.
[8] And while, in another of his works, Jerome gives Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter” (i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that “most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle”.
Click to expand...
Friend, I don’t see that this helps your case.

Peter was listed as the first in every one of these lists. Most of them name Linus as the second leader of the Church. Generally, Peter is not referred to as a Bishop since he was an Apostle (thought some referred to him as such), and Linus is named as the first Bishop of Rome (with a couple of votes for Clement).

No matter how you slice this, Peter left a successor. The official list of Catholic Popes begins:
  1. Peter
  2. Linus
  3. Anacletus (or Cletus)
  4. Clement
Since Clement is named by Paul in a letter to the Corinthians, you can see how tightly interwoven this group was.

All in all, I say that Apostolic Succession is clearly evident from the evidence you provided.

Thanks! 👍
 
MyRdmrLvs said:
No but Ive seen how someone on this forum is treated because they consider themselves Catholic but dont agree with every teaching.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t say anything to a “Christian” lady who said on a public forum, “Jesus Christ was a man, not Divine!”?

Giving her private admonition is righteous and correct. But if the “Christian” lady obstinately refuses to retract her statements, then public correction is due. In fact, it would be your obligation to correct her, MRL. OBLIGATION.
 
tweetymom said:
And that is suppose to mean?
Click to expand...
It’s a statement meant to symbolize the act of putting one’s palm to his face in frustration.

Edit: Erased the question that finally…well sorta, got answered on another thread.
 
MyRdmrLvs said:
perhaps she drawn to them by their fruit.
Click to expand...
Ya think???
PRmerger said:
You wouldn’t say anything to a “Christian” lady who said on a public forum, “Jesus Christ was a man, not Divine!”?

Giving her private admonition is righteous and correct. But if the “Christian” lady obstinately refuses to retract her statements, then public correction is due. In fact, it would be your obligation to correct her, MRL. OBLIGATION.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am right there with you. It’s so simple!

P.S how long do threads like this go on?
 
The very first time that I might see a poster who identifies as “Catholic” yet makes statements that appear to contradict Catholic teaching, and who gets ‘corrected’ by other Catholic posters, before I leapt to the conclusion that these were officious snarks who weren’t content with going after non-Catholics, but even attacked ‘their own’. . .I might wonder (and even ask), “Is this the first time this poster has made this kind of statement”? Chances are you’ll find that posters like this have spent days (weeks, months even) of making problematic statements which were (at first) met with private communication to the poster (by many individuals) with the poster then making it clear that not only was the poster going to continue with the problematic statements but was going to continue to identify self as Catholic.

Since ‘private communication’ didn’t work, the only possible interaction would then be public communication.

So just because it might be the first time you see a person’s posts, doesn’t mean it’s the first time they were made, nor does it mean that (if they are problematic) that the posters responding didn’t already privately communicate with the ‘problematic’ poster. Nor does it mean that they are not responding ‘charitably’ when they have to make things clear in strong terms.

Ever see a person with say an infected ingrown nail? A nurse or doctor will have to jab that area with a needle, and then cut away the infection. It’s darned painful, but if it isn’t done, the infection will get worse and worse and worse. After the difficult and painful step of cutting out the infection and getting the antibiotics etc. going, the wound will finally begin to heal if it is left alone and treated properly. Sometimes the infection is stubborn, even deeper than it appeared, and it will recur and need treatment again. But even though the treatment is painful, it is done with the intent to help and heal the person. Leaving the infection unchecked because “it will hurt the person” is ultimately not loving at all!
 
Dokimas said:
Teaching the truth on that board about God without being specific about grandpa’s mistakes would be appropriate. Teaching Truth gives light to error by it’s contrast.
Click to expand...
What does that mean? Grandpa says, “I’m a Christian and Jesus is not Divine” on a public forum. How do you, a Christian, give fraternal correction without being specific about Grandpa’s error? Remember, Grandpa is quite unapologetic about his views: *I have the right to say what I say and still be a Christian 'cause my preacher said it was ok and God loves me! *
 
Dokimas said:
I’m not sure why its difficult for you??? I try to answer specific statements and it’s easier for me to do it my way. If you have another easy way, please try to explain it to me. Remember men have brain damage.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult for me because if your post is nestled inside, say, Randy Carson’s post, then when I respond to your post and hit “quote”, all that shows up are Randy’s words. Not your words, which are what I want to respond to. SO, then I have to open another tab, go to the thread, find your post, highlight your words, then paste them into my post.

Too much work! :ouch:
 
PRmerger said:
And St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

They instituted many, many reforms in the Church, and are now saints given great honor for doing so!
Click to expand...
Right. If Martin Luther had humbled himself and not thought that he just had to make the Church do what he wanted right now, this minute, and had kept on quietly noting necessary reforms (and not doing some questionable things to justify himself once he did leave) we’d have a united Western Christendom, very possibly be re-united with the Orthodox as well, and he’d have been Saint Martin Luther.
 
It’s understandable to have Lutherans defend Martin Luther’s actions. It’s ironic though when another denomination defends Martin Luther’s actions. It has appearances of ‘agreeing with anything’ not Catholic. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they belong to the Lutheran Church? 🤷

I don’t mean to be offensive with this post, it’s just confusing to me to see other denominations defend Martin Luther…
 
ElizabethPH said:
And as someone has already mentioned the Mass is all directed to the Father but for part of a very small prayer that is ‘and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.’ And that as well is directed to the Father.
Click to expand...
:doh2:
THANK YOU for correcting me!!! (Or clarifying…)
You are right in that the prayer in which “I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin” is a prayer to God, which begins, “I confess to you almighty God…”
 
izoid said:
This thread and the interactions within it have made our differences even more clear to me. Scripture is filled with language that can lead us into virtually any understanding we choose. It is often times confusing and unclear. Take the issue of Mary and whether she had other children. Both sides can make an argument for their position and can back up their position with scripture.

When we come to this type of situation it all depends on our approach to understanding. Catholics believe that Christ gave us His Church to preserve and teach us the truth. It is through this Church that the fullness of His words, in scripture, are revealed. The protestants believe that they can understand scripture without the help of the church. They are better able to make sense of the confusion than is the church.

I would ask them, the protestants, why do you reject tradition. When you come to an understanding, why do you not rely on historical understanding to help guide you? If the very earliest of churches believed that Mary was ever virgin, what makes you confident that for 2000 years the church was wrong? Is it a threat to admit that the Church, since it’s inception, has taught truth and that you can learn from that truth?

We are discussing Mary here but there are many, many doctrines and practices that have existed from the 1st and 2nd century that you all deny. These practices do not contradict scripture yet you feel compelled to demean them. Why is this?
Click to expand...
You say that scripture can lead you to any understanding that" we choose". But is that what you want? or do you want it to speak to you as it was intended? If you just read it and let it speak to you without someone telling you what they want it to say, you come to a different conclusions. It is understandable that you can little afford to do that as I am sure you have many wonderful people in your life who are RCC and you might fear being rejected if you deviate from standard teachings. the 2000 years you speak of did not have all the church bodies in agreement about everything and because only the church leaders had the scriptures the rest of the population had to trust them for the truth. When more people were able to read the Bible for themselves they started to question the teachings and the condition of the church. I havent read the details yet but didn’t Saint Francis question the condition of the church? When you claim the practices dont contradict scripture arent you forgetting your first point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top