Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wwolverine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize the reformers had people killed also?
I have heard that. however the question is were they right that the church needed reforms. I beleve there was a counter reformation wasnt there? didnt the indulgences stop? What were the complaints of Saint Francis?
 
I have heard that. however the question is were they right that the church needed reforms. I beleve there was a counter reformation wasnt there? didnt the indulgences stop? What were the complaints of Saint Francis?
They were right that the Church needed to be reformed. I don’t know the answers off hand to the rest of the questions, so I won’t attempt to answer them. I wish I did, or I would, but now I can read up on it some more. 🙂
 
Yes the agenda that the church had strayed from what Christ had intended. Do you disagree with that?
 
People that proclaim to be Catholic, should represent the Church’s true teachings. They should not establish their own beliefs as those of the Church itself. That is the issue with those that proclaim to be Catholic, yet do not speak truth about what is believed.

It’s no different than…say…a Baptist saying they are Baptist but don’t believe in the Trinity, or baptism.

Catholics should believe in everything the Church teaches us. There is no middle ground if they are representing our faith on a forum designed to debate/talk about what we believe.

They can however, have their own beliefs, but should -never- pass them off as official church doctrine.
I think it was clear from the beginning that she was not espousing the RCC position.
 
Yes the agenda that the church had strayed from what Christ had intended. Do you disagree with that?
Humans twisted the agenda that Christ had intended at that time. However, they were actually trying to “spread the word” so to speak. I am in no way approving of what happened, just saying that the Church was attempting to do what they thought they were supposed to at the time. It was horrific what my Church did back then.

The Church would be perfect…if humans weren’t allowed to be members. 🙂
 
40.png
Dokimas:
I think she may have received a whole lot of pm’s!!
 
I think it was clear from the beginning that she was not espousing the RCC position.
Actually, for this comment I should post this from her:
I do not teach the authority the canon, Why Mary is our intercesser I teach Ministries and it I teach anything else I teach by the book and when asked a question I go to the book period. I teach exactly what I am suppose to teach not my personal feelings period!
Now, later she did say that she was not representing the faith here, and she did remove her Catholic title, so to speak under her name.
 
How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function
Thanks For the lesson Randy. I’ve never been very good at that. You explained it perfect.
 
No, they didn’t. . .because they are perfectly legitimate. (Indulgences). What did stop was the practice --which the Church itself forbade–by some individual priests whereby they supposedly ‘sold’ indulgences. Since the selling was not a Church teaching and was forbidden. . .it would be comparable to having a Protestant pastor tell his flock that he could assure them of salvation for a $50 ‘donation’. Certainly this would be wrong of the pastor, but it’s not something that his denomination teaches, right? Now, suppose he tells the people that he can give them assurance of salvation through Christ. . .no money needed. In both cases, the pastor is telling his people he can give them assurance of salvation (a real teaching, yes?). . .in one case, though, he is going against what his religion teaches (no religion teaches that we have to pay money for salvation, true?), and in the other, he is giving a true teaching.

Same with indulgences. In one case, there were people trying to ‘sell’ these (which is against what the Catholic Church teaches), in another, the indulgences are offered without charge. The seller–and the Protestant pastor asking for $50 donations–are the ones doing wrong–not the ones who offer the legitimate teachings.
 
Yes, because the Deity of Christ can be conclusively demonstrated.
MRL, the analogy of a grandma professing to be a Christian yet espousing non-Christian beliefs was not about the deity of Christ. It was about a person claiming to be one thing, yet not believing the doctrines associated with that belief.

Sooo…you’re on a forum and a person claims she’s a Christian but says, *“I believe that Jesus is not Mary’s son but is the son of Salome”.*Or I believe that Jesus was an alien that landed here from the Planet Neptak" *Or *any other belief that’s plainly contrary to Christian doctrine—you have an OBLIGATION to correct her.

It’s not about the Deity of Christ. That was merely an example.
 
I’ve come up with a hypothesis on why protestants do not feel the way we catholics do about Mary…

-I think that since we believe in and frequently recieve Holy Communion with Jesus through the Eucharist, that we are actually closer to Jesus. Since Jesus lives within us, we feel the same compassion about the Virgin Mother that Jesus has. Mary really IS our mother since Jesus lives in us…

In the same way, protestants cant pray to Mary for her intercession, because prayer is their only link to Jesus. We Catholics have such strong physical ties to Jesus due to the consumption of his body and blood, (and the fact that He is the Head of the Body that is the Church) that we dont feel the “loss” that protestants do or any sort of “betrayal” of Jesus when we include Mary in our prayers.

Jesus is always with us !
Thank you Jesus for the Holy Eucharist
Right on
 
That is your interpretation of the scriptures? Or who’s?

It’s silly to not think that God can make bread into flesh, or wine into blood as well. Sure, I can plainly see where you are coming from, and I have no doubt that you believe it. But, is it just your interpretation, or who stands with you on this belief united as Christ would want for such a teaching? I personally believe you fall into the disciples that walked away due to this teaching. I am not saying you are not a Christian by any means, but it is a teaching that is to hard for you to go along with apparently. I mean -no- disrespect of course my friend, just talking about it. I know my mind will never change on this topic, or any others with the Catholic church, and I am merely representing what united Catholics across the world believe. United Catholics, that is the oldest standing Christian church, began by Christ himself.
The point of my last post is to point out “rules”. Even God is bound by His own rules (“my word will not return void”). One (corporeally) can not be in two places at once because of the rules God has set into motion [Physics]. Messiah was there, corporeally, so he couldn’t also be in the food he was sharing…that would break the rules.

Am I alone? (:)) There are a few of us…but I Am Faithful to find more…

Hmmm…I wonder, though…What if the Messiah came down and logged into this forum? Better yet, what if I were the Messiah in disguise, and even revealed to you with evidence that I AM, and then told you, “No, it’s not really my body and blood…in fact, to believe such is an abomination…”, what would you say, to me? Would you even believe me? Would your mind change then, or would any others within the Catholic Church? Would you even recognize the Messiah if you heard his voice…or read his words?

I wonder…

This isn’t really a question to you or anyone to answer…I’m thinking out loud I guess…

Anyhow, bless you.
 
.

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

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

.
I have nothing against Mary, i dont even know why this topic exists.
I read John 19:26,27 and many professing catholics take this as meaning that now they can worship her. But this forum should say why do many people do not want to pray to a person that is dead. She is not in heaven for judgement day is not here!
 
Let’s continue the discussion about the start of the Catholic Church, since that is where the separation between Catholics and Non-Catholics is sourced…

I guess everyone knows that Paul’s letters comprises most of the New Testament scriptures…but had anyone ever wonder “where” Paul came from? And where did Peter (the Rock) go?

Peter was the leader - established by Messiah before leaving - and yet we find that most the Catholic Church tradition developed from teachings and traditions given by Paul.

Again, where was Peter concerning these matters (of faith)? Of course, he has his books in scripture, but as we’ve all heard (and must accept) the Catholic Church Authority determined what books were to be added to the final collection…and as many of us have admitted, many more writings were not added to the final collection.

So the big questions is Where did Paul come from and how did he take control?

Peter’s Group:
The community of believers Messiah first established was spreading, but they never considered themselves Catholics…they didn’t even consider themselves Christian. They still considered themselves Jewish, but with the testimony of the awaited Messiah.

**Paul’s Origin: ** Paul was a Pharisee (and son of Pharisee),who violently persecuted Peter’s Group because they were heretics. Paul was also a Roman citizen, who was very familiar with Roman social hierarchy and Pegan religious hierarchy.

----passage of time-----

One day Paul meets Peter and James - introduced by another disciple and spends 15 days with them. Paul tells his story of seeing a personal vision of the Messiah [even though Messiah had already left the responsibility of to his disciples, Paul *somehow converted on his own (strange)].

So they accept him, and Paul leaves on his personal mission to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles (strange he was ready though he only knew Peter for 15 days). In his travels he establishes churches and tells gentiles that they do not need to follow Jewish law (the Original tradition for worship, found in old testament). Paul also establishes a single leader; “head” of each area, similar to how Rome’s Pagan and Societal system was setup - He called them Bishops.

Prior to this, Peter & James (original 12) established a council (a “group” of leaders) in Jerusalem (not Rome), as they believed there was only one head (Messiah). And they continued to spread the gospel to other areas.

----passage of time-----

One day, Paul, Peter, and James joined leaders of the council to address the problem of gentiles not following The Law. Paul knew he was right, claiming this new religion should clearly be separate from the old in every way, including NOT following old law. James (one who actually walked with Messiah) argued against this, claiming Messiah never looked for separation but unity…and also that Messiah (himself) said He hadn’t come to change the law.

The council eventually decided that gentiles didn’t need to follow the law when it came to circumcision, but that the rest of the law is The Law.

----passage of time-----

Paul (one who never walked with Messiah…one who was a Pharisee who persecuted the new believers…one who was a citizen of the pagan city of Rome) left and continued to spread his message of Christ to churches; establishing Bishops and religious infrastructure…until one day, Paul returned to the council and confronted and accused Peter, claiming Peter (The Rock), the handpicked foundation of the Messiah’s believers - one of whom actually received the Holy Spirit of God as a tongue of fire - was wrong in his actions concerning gentiles. And yet, a completely different account of the Incident in Antioch is recorded by Peter in the “Acts of the Apostles” (stranger).

It’s awfully odd that we don’t have more letters from the actual Patriarch of the Church (Peter). We clearly have evidence that he also wrote, and yet Paul - a virtually newbie - seems to steal the new testament. Something doesn’t seem add up…

----passage of time-----

The church in Rome is established (Paul’s homeland)…Paul returns to Jerusalem…and is welcomed by James, but then is arrested and sent to Rome. But where is Peter?

----passage of time-----

The Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed and all Jewish bishops are repleaced with gentile bishops…By now, the Roman pegan hierarchy (one leader per diocese/area) is established and the religion has forever separated its identity from Judaism (because it no longer follows the old law (ten commandments, circumcision, etc). The head church is assumed to now be in Rome since it’s leaders are now living in Rome; Paul is under house arrest, and it would seem that Peter is in Jail.

----passage of time-----

A city-wide fire errupts in Rome and Nero blames the newly labeled Jewish Christians for superstition and conspiracy, which legalizes the brutal persecution of all church leaders. Paul is tried and beheaded, while Peter is crucified upside-down, with arms outstretched. All Jewish Bishops are replaced with gentile bishops…and the new religion continues to develop…and since the head church is considered in Rome, the Bishop of the Head church is considered the Head of all churches.

----passage of time-----

Emperor constantine sees a vision and decides to unite all his land under this new church. Giving money and support, he suggests that the Pope also change the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday so that all in Constantine’s land will worship on the same day: The Sungod for Pagans and Iesus for Christians.

A new council is established to address unity amungst all churches (born are the creeds). The Trinity is established as canon…The books of the bible are chosen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top